ARP161 Freeman’s Farm (1st Saratoga)

Last week, we ended a series of episodes as General Howe made his long slow sailing voyage from New York to Maryland, then marched his army up to capture Philadelphia. 

Burgoyne Trudges South

While all that was happening, General Burgoyne was marching his northern army from Canada down through upstate New York, with the hope of taking Albany, and eventually linking up with British forces in New York City.  We last left General Burgoyne in Episode 155 as his army suffered a loss at Bennington, in an attempt to capture food and supplies.

Despite that loss, Burgoyne’s main army had reached the Hudson River and planned to march downstream to Albany.  His hope to recruit an army of Tories in upstate New York had proven to be a joke.  Almost all of his loyalist soldiers were men who had already fled New York to Canada and had joined at the outset of the expedition.  Promises of locals in New York who would flock to the King’s banner, had proven empty.

Freeman's Farm (from British Battles)

Burgoyne found his supply lines from Canada too long and attenuated to do much good.  He was frustrated that no British relief force seemed to be on its way from New York City.  After receiving word that General St. Leger’s force had given up on capturing Fort Stanwix and was returning to Canada, Burgoyne lost his only other prospect of reinforcements.  Burgoyne’s situation was becoming more threatened each day.  His army was shrinking, while his opponents were growing.  His men were isolated and largely cut off from additional food and supplies.  At the outset of this campaign, Burgoyne had hoped for more soldiers, better support from Canada, and most importantly a British army marching northward from New York City.

In letters back to London, Burgoyne discussed the option of pulling back to Fort Edward, reestablishing supply lines with Canada and awaiting more reinforcements.  But getting bogged down and refusing to advance was exactly what he had accused his predecessors of doing in order to get this command.  Burgoyne believed his orders were to push forward and take Albany.  He planned to do just that.

Burgoyne ordered the bulk of his small reserves, still at Fort Ticonderoga, to march south and join up with his main army.  He would not rely on maintaining lines back to Canada, but would live off the land. He determined that his army would cross the Hudson River and march down the west bank to Albany.  Crossing the Hudson so far upstream would prevent any problems trying to cross closer to Albany where they might have to do it in the face of the enemy.  But crossing where they did also made it nearly impossible to retreat back to Ticonderoga if they ran into problems.  Burgoyne was committing himself to complete victory or defeat, no option for backing down.

Schuyler Relieved

The Americans, having succeeded in killing or capturing over 1000 of the enemy at Bennington, continued to harass them whenever possible.  They drove off cattle and burned fields of grain and orchards.  They tore up bridges and felled hundreds of trees across roads, all to slow the British advance and deny them the supplies needed to maintain the army.

British March (from Wikimedia)

If time was on the side of the Contientals, it was not on the side of their commander.  Before word of the victory at Bennington or Fort Stanwix reached Congress, the delegates in Philadelphia concluded that the loss of Fort Ticonderoga in July was simply unacceptable.  Congress voted for the removal of General Philip Schuyler from command.  New England delegates especially had never really liked or trusted the New York general.  The loss of Ticonderoga under his command, was the final straw.  New Englanders had captured this fort a few years earlier, only to see it turned over to a New York commander.  That commander’s loss of the fort was unacceptable.  Congress ordered both General Schuyler and General St. Clair to report to Philadelphia for an inquiry into their activities.  The order came, despite the fact that both generals were actively engaged in the ongoing campaign to halt General Burgoyne’s army.

At first, Congress wrote to General Washington and asked him to pick a successor to the northern army.  Congress’ obvious choice was General Horatio Gates, who Washington, by this time, had great reason to distrust.  Washington knew that recommending Gates would be putting someone in charge who he really did not respect.  Picking someone else who did not have the experience in New York and at a time when Washington needed those generals to stop General Howe from capturing Philadelphia, would also be a problem.  Washington would have preferred to keep Schuyler in command.  He could not say that without appearing to thumb his nose at Congress.  So, Washington punted.  He simply informed Congress that if they were going to replace General Schuyler, that they should name the replacement.

Congress then selected General Gates to assume command.  Gates found out about the orders almost immediately.  At the time when almost all the officers in the Continental Army were in the field, either opposing Burgoyne’s advance on Albany or Howe’s advance on Philadelphia, Gates was in Philadelphia complaining about their leadership and lobbying for a new job.  After learning of his commission and knowing that the situation was desperate, Gates took a leisurely two weeks to travel up to New York and take command on August 19, 1777. 

 Gen. Horatio Gates
(from Wikimedia)

General Schuyler, who had received his orders to stand down and return to Philadelphia, felt obliged to remain in command until his successor arrived.  Schuyler then spent the next few days trying to brief Gates on the status of both his and the enemy forces and the strategies in place, but Gates seemed entirely uninterested in anything Schuyler had to say.  Instead, Gates held a large council of war for all Continental offices, as well as Albany militia commanders, but did not invite Schuyler.  Taking the hint, Schuyler finally packed up and left for Philadelphia.

Gates also received reinforcements of about 8000 men.  These included new recruits from New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  Washington sent some of his own forces, including his highly valued riflemen commanded by Colonel Daniel Morgan.  General Benedict Arnold was marching his 1200 Continentals back from their victory at Fort Stanwix.  By early September, Gates commanded an army of over 10,000 soldiers, finally outnumbering Burgoyne's army.

Gates determined that he should pick out the best defensive ground in the region between Burgoyne and Albany and await the British there.  At first, he gathered his army at a place called Stillwater.  Then, after consulting with the locals, moved his army about three miles further north to Bemis Heights.  There, he relied on Polish Colonel Tadeusz Kościuszko to build the defenses.

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Kościuszko is an interesting figure himself.  He had grown up as a member of minor nobility in Poland.  During the 1760’s he worked as a military instructor for the Corps of Cadets in Poland. When the country descended into civil war, his family sided with the rebels against the King.   Rather than pick a side, Kościuszko fled the country.  He settled in Paris.  As a foreigner, he could not attend the military academy there.  Instead, he enrolled in Paris’ Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture.  At the same time, he audited lectures at the Military Academy and made use of the military libraries in Paris.  If you think about it, this was absurd.  It was a security risk for a foreigner to receive grades and a degree from the military academy, but officials had no problems with him sitting in on the classes and learning everything the instructor had to say.  But, that’s government bureaucracy I guess.

Tadeusz Kościuszko
(from Wikimedia)

After the partition of Poland in 1772, Kościuszko returned home to find his family broke from the war. He attempted to elope with the daughter of the local governor, but the Governor’s soldiers caught the young couple and beat him severely.  He returned to Paris, alone and out of money.

Kościuszko’s education in the French enlightenment, and his experience with petty aristocrats, left him with a fairly hostile view toward tyrannical leaders and a fan of liberation movements.  When Kościuszko heard about the war in America, he volunteered and traveled to Philadelphia. 

At first, he worked as a civilian consultant for some of the defenses along the Delaware River, then received a commission as colonel of engineers and a transfer to Fort Ticonderoga. There, he had worked with General Gates for a time before Gates left for Philadelphia.  Kościuszko had been a part of the retreat from Ticonderoga and remained with the northern army.  On Gates’ return as commander of the northern army, he relied on Kościuszko to oversee the construction of defensive works to oppose Burgoyne.

Benedict Arnold

Also joining Gates at Bemis Heights was General Benedict Arnold, fresh from his victory at Fort Stanwix.  Arnold’s role in capturing Fort Ticonderoga back in 1775 and his success in preventing the British from capturing the fort in 1776 with his improvised navy, among other accomplishments, gave Arnold a fair amount of command credibility.  He was now a major general, but still frustrated that he was more junior to Major General Lincoln who had been commissioned before him.

Arnold and Gates had gotten along well in earlier years when both men were in upstate New York together.  Gates knew of Arnold’s record and his abilities and gave him command of the left wing of the army.

Richard Varick
(from Wikimedia)

However, when General Schuyler left for Philadelphia, Arnold took two of Schuyler’s staff officers onto his own command, Richard Varick and Henry Brockholst Livingston.  Gates’ aide, Colonel James Wilkinson, who you may recall from Episode 118 was mixed up the conspiracy between General Gates and Lee to bring down General Washington, was by this time an old hand at internal petty politics within the army.  Wilkinson pointed out to Gates that Arnold’s decision to take two of Schuyler’s aides onto his staff meant that Arnold might not be particularly loyal to Gates.  He showed Gates letters from both men where they badmouthed Gates’ actions in the past.

Gates hinted to Arnold that he wanted the two men removed from Arnold’s staff.  Arnold, however, refused to take the hint and kept the officers where they were.  A few days later, in what Arnold took to be a petty reprisal, Wilkinson issued orders to move several regiments from Arnold’s command on the left wing to Glover’s command on the right wing.  Arnold lost his temper and wrote an angry letter to Gates. In response, Gates said it was just an oversight that would be countermanded, but it never was. 

The disagreement over staffing grew into a full-blown dispute between the two generals that would never heal.  Gates saw Arnold as part of Team Schuyler and potentially disloyal to him. Arnold saw Gates as a petty officer putting internal politics above the war effort. I don’t think either man was wrong in their assessment of the other.  The relationship between Gates and Arnold would never again be a good one.

Bemis Heights Defenses

On the morning of September 19th, American pickets noted the advance of the British Army toward Bemis Heights.  General Gates was happy to sit behind his defenses and to let the British try to force him out. 

Troop Deployments (from Wikimedia)

General Arnold disagreed.  Arnold feared that the British would send a force against the American right wing to distract the army.  Then, it would send a flanking force through the woods to move on the left flank. Once in the fields, the British could bring up their cannons and roll the American left, pushing everyone to retreat toward the Hudson river.  Sentries detecting movement in the woods confirmed that this was likely what would happen.  Gates seemed to think, bring it on. The British can try to charge up hills against a dug in enemy.  They will take an obscene number of casualties if they do.  He did not seem concerned that British artillery might devastate those defenses or that similar flanking maneuvers on Long Island or most recently at Brandywine had led to embarrassing losses for the Continentals.  His brilliant leadership would lead to a different result.

Arnold, supported by Colonel Morgan, had a different idea.  They wanted to advance the left wing of the army and hit the British in the woods before they could form up in the fields near the heights.  A fight in the forest was not a strength for either British regulars or Hessians.  Most of the Indian scouts had abandoned the British after the loss at Bennington, putting the British at a real disadvantage in that type of warfare.

After considerable badgering and argument, Gates split the difference.  He retained the Continental right wing, under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln, and supported by Generals Glover, Nixon and Patterson.  These armies would hold Bemis Heights against a potential attack.  General Arnold supported by Generals Poor and Learned, and Colonel Morgan could advance into the woods on the American left and engage the enemy there.  If they failed, they could retreat back to the heights and participate in the final defense.

Battle of Freeman’s Farm

The British attack came pretty much as the Americans expected.  General Burgoyne deployed his Germans under the command of General Riedesel down the trail along the Hudson River to attack the American right.  This group also took the bulk of the army’s artillery.  In the center, General Burgoyne rode with division commander General James Hamilton and four regiments supported by artillery.  Against the American left, Burgoyne deployed General Simon Fraser and his regulars, along with a couple of German regiments and the small remainder of Indians and loyalists that remained with the army.

American Assault Freeman's Farm
(from British Battles)

The Germans on the American right found it tough going as the column marched down the river road.  The Americans had burned several bridges across streams and felled numerous trees across the road.  The soldiers struggled to remove the impediments to make it into position by 2:00 PM.  Similarly General Fraser on the American left had to march nearly two miles further west to move around a deep ravine.

On the American left, General Arnold advanced with his division, with Colonel Morgan’s riflemen in the front.  The advancing British ran into Morgan’s riflemen at a small cabin on Freeman’s farm.  Freeman had been a local farmer who had long since fled to Canada due to his Tory sentiments.

There, Morgan’s riflemen startled the British advance skirmishers and forced them to retreat. Morgan’s men charged after the retreating skirmishers, only to run into the entire British center.  The Americans fell under cannon fire and quickly retreated back into the woods.  Both sides took devastating losses.  Morgan’s riflemen picked off the officers from the skirmishing companies before taking heavy casualties themselves from the British cannons.  Many of the British skirmishers took friendly fire as they retreated back to the main British lines. General Arnold rode through the front lines, encouraging his men to advance.  The fighting lasted about 45 minutes until both sides pulled back to assess the damages.

The lull lasted about two hours until shortly before 4:00 PM, both sides reengaged with the fiercest fighting of the day.  The American riflemen picked off artillery officers and crews, allowing the Continentals to capture several cannon.  Hamilton sent in British regular reinforcements to retake the cannons and turn them against the Continentals once again.  General Burgoyne also appeared near the front to encourage the men.  He got within range of Morgan’s riflemen, but they mistakenly picked off a captain that Burgoyne was conferring with.  The captain had a fancier saddle that caused the sniper to mistake him for the general.

Freeman's Farm (from British Battles)

Despite the fierce fighting, General Gates held back the American right at the Heights, not wanting to commit all of his forces to the fighting in case another attack came on the right.  Similarly, Burgoyne held back most of Fraser’s force on the American left in case the Americans tried a flanking attack from that side.  As a result, the Continental forces under Arnold and the British under Hamilton bore the bulk of the intense fighting.

At one point, the Americans almost forced the British center to buckle, but Major General Phillips personally rode in with four cannons to hold the Americans at bay while the British line could regroup.

By late afternoon Burgoyne ordered General Riedesel to secure the baggage and lead his soldiers against the right of Arnold’s advancing Continentals.  This was a risky move since it left the British baggage, and a portion of its artillery, relatively unguarded.  General Gates could have swooped down and captured all of it.  Gates, however, remained secure in his entrenchments, unwilling to venture out.

Benedict Arnold
(from Wikimedia)

Riedesel advanced with several hundred soldiers and two cannons to find the Continentals close to overrunning Hamilton’s center.  Riedesel ordered a charge and pushed back the startled Continentals.  This attack near the end of the day secured British possession of the field.  Only sunset and darkness finally put an end to the intense fighting, as the Americans drew back to their lines.

General Arnold was, in fact, fighting two battles at once.  One with the British, the other with General Gates.  Over the course of the battle, Gates had refused to comply with Arnold’s increasingly desperate calls for reinforcements.  At one point, Gates even sent orders for Arnold to send back a regiment to protect Gates’ headquarters.

In frustration, Arnold finally rode back to headquarters himself to make his demands in person.  Gates finally relented and sent off a brigade under the command of General Ebenezer Learned.  Gates, however, refused to allow Arnold to return to the battle and kept him in camp.  Learned’s reinforcements got lost in the woods and missed most of the battle.

At one point, after receiving concerning reports about the course of the battle, Arnold had enough and galloped off on his horse determined to enter the action.  Gates ordered his aide, Wilkinson, to chase after Arnold and bring him back.  Arnold reluctantly obeyed the direct order to return.  Thus Arnold missed the end of the battle.

Aftermath

At the end of the day, the British held the field, so Burgoyne declared victory in his letters to London.  However, the British had taken nearly 600 casualties that they could ill-afford.  The Americans had lost about half that number.  Although the British held the field of battle around Freeman’s farm, they had not even reached the main American lines still several miles away at Bemis Heights. Even most British officers conceded that the Americans had fought well and held their own against the regulars.

That night, the wolves came down from the hills to feed on the dead and dying as each side considered their next moves.  Many of Burgoyne’s officers wanted to advance again the next morning in hopes of catching the Americans still in disarray.  Burgoyne, however, decided against it.  The men were too exhausted.  He did consider another offensive on the 21st.  However, before dawn, he received a letter from General Henry Clinton in New York City.  Clinton's letter said that he would attempt an attack on some American forts in the lower Hudson valley in order to distract the Americans.  Burgoyne took this as hope that perhaps he might get some support from New York City after all.  He knew London had planned to send reinforcements to New York City and that their arrival might encourage Clinton to go on the offensive.

Burgoyne opted to halt his offensive and await more information on a possible relief column. For the next couple of weeks, both sides nursed their wounds, buried their dead, and planned their next steps.

Next week, during this pause, the Americans strike at Burgoyne’s rear, including a raid on Fort Ticonderoga.

- - -

Next Episode 162 Raid on Fort Ticonderoga 

Previous  Episode 160 Paoli Massacre & Fall of Philadelphia

Click here to donate

American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account.

You may also donate via Venmo, Zelle, or popmoney (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)

Click here to see my Patreon Page

You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option for people who want to make monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Click here to go to my SubscribeStar Page



Further Reading

Websites

Horatio Gates: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/horatio-gates

Tadeusz Kościuszko: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/tadeusz-kosciuszko

Battle of Freeman’s Farm: https://www.britishbattles.com/war-of-the-revolution-1775-to-1783/battle-of-freemans-farm

The Battle of Saratoga (First)/ Freeman’s Farm: https://revolutionarywar.us/year-1777/first-battle-saratoga

Halsey, Francis Whiting. “GENERAL SCHUYLER'S PART IN THE BURGOYNE CAMPAIGN.” Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, vol. 12, 1913, pp. 109–118. www.jstor.org/stable/42890006

Brandow, John. H. “GUIDE TO THE SARATOGA BATTLEFIELD.” Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, vol. 12, 1913, pp. 315–320. www.jstor.org/stable/42890016

Strach, Stephen G. “A MEMOIR OF THE EXPLOITS OF CAPTAIN ALEXANDER FRASER AND HIS COMPANY OF BRITISH MARKSMEN 1776-1777 (Continued).” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, vol. 63, no. 255, 1985, pp. 164–179, www.jstor.org/stable/44229658

Hargreaves, Reginald “Burgoyne and America's Destiny” American Heritage Magazine, Volume 7, Issue 4, June 1956: https://www.americanheritage.com/burgoyne-and-americas-destiny

Lynch, Wayne “Debating Arnold’s Role at Freeman’s Farm” Journal of the American Revolution, September 12, 2013: https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/debating-arnolds-role-freemans-farm

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Anbury, Thomas Travel through Various Parts of North America, Vol. 1, William Lane, 1789.

Baster, James (ed) The British Invasion from the North: The Campaigns of Generals Carleton and Burgoyne from Canada, Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1887.

Bird, Harrison March To Saratoga General Burgoyne And The American Campaign 1777,
Oxford Univ. Press, 1963

Brandow, John H. The story of old Saratoga; the Burgoyne campaign, to which is added New York's share in the revolution, Brandow Printing, 1919.

Clay, Steven E. Staff Ride Handbook for the Saratoga Campaign, 13 June to 8 November 1777, Combat Studies Institute Press, 2018 (US Army Website):.

Eelking, Max von, (translated by Stone, William L.) Memoirs of Major General Riedesel, Vol. 1, J. Munsell, 1868.

Hadden, James Hadden's Journal and Orderly Books, Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1884.

Hudleston, Francis J. Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne : misadventures of an English general in the Revolution, Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1927.

Luzader, John Decision on the Hudson, National Park Service, 1975.

Moore, Howard P. A Life of General John Stark of New Hampshire, New York self-published, 1949.

Riedesel, Friederike Charlotte Luise, Freifrau von Letters and journals relating to the war of the American Revolution, and the capture of the German troops at Saratoga, Joel Munsell, 1867.

Stone, William Leete, The Campaign of Lieut. Gen. John Burgoyne  and the expedition of Lieut. Col. Barry St. Leger, Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1877.

Walworth, Ellen H. Battles of Saratoga, 1777; the Saratoga Monument Association, 1856-1891, Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1891.

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Furneaux, Rupert The Battle of Saratoga, Stein and Day 1971.

Gabriel, Michael P. The Battle of Bennington: Soldiers & Civilians, History Press, 2012.

Ketchum, Richard M. Saratoga, Turning Point of America’s Revolutionary War, Henry Holt & Co, 1997.

Logusz, Michael O. With Musket and Tomahawk, The Saratoga Campaign and the Wilderness War of 1777, Casemate Publishing, 2010

Luzader, John F. Saratoga: A Military History of the Decisive Campaign of the American Revolution, Casemate Publishers, 2008

Mintz, Max M. The Generals of Saratoga: John Burgoyne and Horatio Gates, Yale Univ. Press, 1990.

Philbrick, Nathaniel Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution, Viking, 2016.

Snow, Dean 1777: Tipping Point at Saratoga, Oxford Univ. Press, 2016.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Episode 032: The Battle of Golden Hill

Boston seemed to be the hotbed for colonial resistance in the years leading up to war.  In and around Boston is where most of the major conflicts occurred and where the shooting war eventually began.  But radical sentiment spread beyond New England.

I continue to call the movement opposing British Tax laws “radicals” because at the time, they probably were a relatively small radical faction within the colonial population.  The term the people used at the time to describe themselves was usually “whig.” Later, the term “patriot” comes into fashion to describe these people.  But that term does not seem to be used to describe those opposing British tax policies until around 1773.

New York Politics

Some colonies had more radicals than others, but there were Sons of Liberty chapters in all the colonies.  New York colony had a pretty conservative government, but also had a large radical faction, primarily in New York City.

New York also had to deal with a British troop presence.  Although troops had been in New York much longer, clashes between the local Sons of Liberty and the soldiers grew increasingly violent.  North American Military Commander Thomas Gage had moved several regiments of regulars to New York from Canada a few years earlier, greatly increasing the number of soldiers in the colony.  New Yorkers did not want them around, and certainly did not want to pay for their upkeep.  You may recall back in Episode 25, I discussed New York’s refusal in 1766 to authorize tax funds for the soldiers, leading to Parliament’s attempt to suspend legislative authority for New York’s assembly until it raised the money.  New York had come up with the money since them, but it was always contentious.  In late 1769, the fight over British regulars quartered in New York increased in intensity.

In December 1769, the assembly authorized a new tax to pay for the soldiers which upset both sides.  The British military thought the funds insufficient to support the troops.  Most New Yorkers were upset about having to pay more money to support a presence they did not want in the first place.

Since I haven’t discussed New York politics much so far, I thought now might be a good time to introduce some of the key players.

Cadwallader Colden

Cadwallader Colden was an old man by the time period I’ll be talking about today.  Born in 1688, he was in his eighties during his stint as acting Governor of New York from 1769-1770.  He had been born in Ireland to Scottish parents and went to Edinborough to study to become a minister.  By the time he finished, his interest had turned to science and medicine which he studied in London.  He then moved to Philadelphia to start a medical practice, but after a few years, moved to New York where he would spend the rest of his life.

Cadwalader Colden
(from Wikimedia)

Colden must have had good political connections in New York since he received an appointment as Surveyor General and joined the Provincial Council the first year he was there.  He spent a life active with many interests, including a correspondence with Benjamin Franklin on scientific issues, and writing a book on the Iroquois Confederacy after serving as the colony’s representative to the Five Nations.

In 1760 on the death of James DeLancey, father of the man I’m going to discuss next, Colden received an appointment at Lieutenant Governor.  He would serve as acting governor on at least three different occasions.  As a representative of the Crown, Colden was not always popular.  Stamp Act protesters had carried an effigy of him during a protest march on November 1, 1765, the day the Stamp Act was supposed to take effect.  Protesters also stole his coach and burned it.  Colden had most recently incurred the wrath of the Sons of Liberty by demanding the colonial assembly pay for funds required under the Quartering Act to support regulars stationed in the colony.

James DeLancey

James DeLancey (sometimes spelled De Lancey) came from one of New York’s most prominent families.  His father, of the same name, had been Lieutenant Governor, and for several years, acting Governor of New York.  James was born in New York City but spent many of his formative years in England going to boarding school.  He studied law at Cambridge before returning to New York as an adult.

James De Lancey
(from americanrevolution.org)

Just about the same time he returned to the colonies, the French and Indian War broke out.  DeLancey served as a militia captain, seeing combat on several occasions.  He resigned his commission and returned home in 1760, after the death of his father.  DeLancey then became one of the wealthiest men in the colony, running his family’s merchant trading company and also engaged in land speculation.

His father’s political influence left DeLancey with control of a powerful political party that controlled the colony.  His main rival was the Livingston family.  DeLancey was a conservative, but as with just about everyone else in the colonies, he strongly opposed the Stamp Act, leading New York’s opposition.  Like most wealthy merchants, he objected to the rioting and destruction of property, but his support of protests and non-importation agreements maintained his popularity with most New Yorkers.

Despite his opposition to British taxes, though, he was a moderate and a wealthy member of the establishment.  When the British made clear that New York would have to pay costs under the Quartering Act, and Gov. Coldon called on the New York Assembly to act, DeLancey led the fight in the Assembly to implement a tax that would cover the costs of quartering British regulars.  This drew the wrath of some of the more radical elements of New York politics.  Even so, most people saw DeLancey as a supporter of colonial rights before the outbreak of war.  That would change over time as DeLancy would eventually have to flee New York for his loyalist sentiments.

Isaac Sears

Isaac Sears was born in Massachusetts and raised in Connecticut.  At the age of 16, he took a job on a ship and within a few years was serving as captain of merchant vessel.  He commanded a privateer vessel during the French and Indian War but lost his ship in 1761.  After the war, he settled in New York City, running a fairly successful merchant trading company.  He lived in a mansion on Broadway and settled into a comfortable life.  Over time, he became involved in political issues, particularly those involving trade.

In some ways, Sears became the Samuel Adams of New York.  After the Stamp Act, he helped found the local chapter of the Sons of Liberty, joined in Committees of Correspondence, and helped organize the New York protests against British taxes.  As a respected and prosperous merchant, he could socialize with other elite merchants and city leaders, but was also comfortable in working class circles, allowing him influence over much of the city’s working population.  Politically, at least at this time, he had aligned himself with DeLancey.  That said, the two men had disagreed and fought over the Quartering Act funding in 1769.

Alexander Mcdougall

Another important Son of Liberty was Alexander McDougall (sometimes spelled MacDougall).  He came to New York as a child when his family moved from Scotland.  His family came as part of a large group that had planned to settle in upstate New York.  The guy who organized the immigration, however, tried to force all of the members of the group to become tenant farmers on his land.  These immigrants did not sell everything to escape being tenant farmers in Scotland to become tenant farmers in America.  They wanted to be land owners. The whole land scheme is an interesting topic in itself, but not one I can cover here.  Several aristocrats attempted to recreate the tenant farming system that greatly profited the aristocracy in Europe.  But land in America was simply too available and cheap to force commoners into such an exploitative position.  The whole scheme fell apart.  McDougall’s father ended up abandoning that plan and began work delivering milk for a dairy farmer on Manhattan.

Alexander McDougall
(from findagrave)

At age 14, McDougall signed onto a merchant vessel and began a life a sea.  He captained two small privateer vessels during the French and Indian War.  He amassed a small fortune through these efforts.  When his wife died in 1763, he gave up his life at sea to raise his three children.  He began working as a merchant in New  York, and began to get involved in politics.  Having some property gave McDougall entry into politics, but he was uneducated and had the manners of a commoner, which would keep him out of any elite circles.

He joined the Sons of liberty and was active in New York protests.  In December 1769, McDougall wrote a broadside entitled To the Betrayed Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New York, which attacked the colonial assembly and De Lancey specifically for caving on providing Quartering Act funds to house British soldiers in the colony.  Eventually, MaDougall would go to jail for this publication, convicted of seditious libel.  This would only greatly increase his reputation among the radicals in the colonies.  Some called him the Wilkes of America.  His controversial writing was circulating among New Yorkers, and MacDougall was still free and walking the streets as the incidents below unfolded in January 1770.

The Liberty Pole

During this era, many towns in the colonies had erected liberty poles to celebrate victories in the protection of their rights.  Many say the practice of a liberty pole dates back to Roman times when the assassins of Caesar erected a small pole with the cap of a freed slave on it to symbolize how they had freed Rome from the tyranny of slavery.  The poles also bear a similarity to victory columns that many European cities and towns installed after winning great military victories, or some other memorable event.

New Yorkers had erected the first Liberty Pole on June 4, 1766 in honor of the King’s birthday and also to celebrate the repeal of the Stamp Act.  It was not meant to be a symbol of rebellion.  Rather, it was a celebration of the fact that the government in London had acted to protect colonial liberties.  The pole bore the inscription: “King, Pitt, and Liberty.”  But the pole became a focal point for radical whigs to hold rallies.  When New York refused to come up with money to house British soldiers under the Quartering Act that year, soldiers in the city cut down the pole in August.

New Yorkers erected a second pole within days, and again soldiers almost immediately cut it down. The acts of destruction, on top of raw feelings over the Quartering Act dispute, raised tensions.  But the Governor permitted New Yorkers to erect a third pole in September, and gave strict instructions to the soldiers not to mess with it.  That one lasted about six months.

NYC Liberty Pole, 1770 (from Wikipedia)

In March 1767, colonists gathered at the pole to celebrate the anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act.  Following the celebration, the soldiers once again cut down the pole overnight.  The Sons of Liberty erected a fourth pole the following day.  This one had iron bands around the lower part of the pole to prevent anyone from cutting through the wood.  Soldiers attempted to destroy this pole as well, but the iron bands along with the vigilance of the Sons of Liberty to protect it, prevented any more successful vandalism.  The pole remained in place for nearly three years.

In December 1769, New York allocated a mere £1800 for the quartering of troops, far too little for adequate housing.  Once again angry soldiers decided to take out their frustrations on the pole.

On January 13, 1770, a group of soldiers attempted to tear down the Liberty Pole in New York.  This was actually the fourth Liberty Pole in New York.  Because the iron bands prevented them from cutting the pole, the soldiers drilled a hole, filled it with gunpowder and attempted to blow it up.  A passerby saw the soldiers messing with the pole and alerted others in nearby Montayne’s Tavern, which served as the unofficial NY headquarters of the Sons of Liberty.  Men from the tavern ran to the pole and confronted the soldiers.

One soldier held them at bayonet point as the others attempted to finish their attempt to destroy the pole.  The explosion did not work.  The fuse did not ignite the powder they had put inside the pole. The frustrated soldiers then invaded the Tavern. They held everyone at bayonet point as they destroyed the tavern and beat up a waiter.

Defense of Liberty Pole, 1770 (artist's conception 1879)
(from Richland Source)

On the night of January 16-17, a group succeeded destroying the pole.  They managed to ignite the powder in the pole, explode it, and knock it down.  Then they chopped up the pole, leaving the pieces in front of Montayne’s Tavern.  In response, the New York Sons of Liberty issued two resolves.  The first said that no soldier would be hired for any work in the city.  The second said that any armed soldiers found armed after dark and not on duty would be treated as criminals.

Soldiers, who were poorly paid, often did odd jobs around town to earn extra cash.  Essentially the sons were calling for a boycott on hiring any soldiers in order to make them feel more unwelcome.  The treatment of armed soldiers as criminals would almost certainly lead to violence.  Remember, the NYPD did not exist in 1770.  Civilians helped to make arrests when the Sheriff needed help.  A civilian could forcibly take a criminal to authorities for arrest.  Civilians attempting to subdue armed soldiers at night seems like a recipe for violence.

The Battle

A few days later, on January 19, the soldiers began posting handbills denying responsibility for the destruction of the pole, but also mocking the Sons of Liberty. Isaac Sears, and a group of men grabbed two of the soldiers while they were posting the bills.  The mob dragged the soldiers the Mayor’s House to lodge a complaint.  Other soldiers with them rushed to get reinforcements.

Twenty armed soldiers soon arrived on the scene, but were still far outnumbered by the growing mob.  Sears had already gotten the two soldiers taken into custody into the Mayor’s house. Their comrades threatened to storm the home and remove them force.  They had swords drawn and bayonets fixed, clearly ready for a fight. A militia Captain named Richardson ordered them to stop and to return to their barracks.  He told them the matter would be resolved peacefully by the Mayor.

Battle of Golden Hill (artist conception 1920)
(from Journal of the American Revolution)

After a short confrontation, the soldiers began marching back to their barracks.  Much of the mob followed them.  At some point another group of soldiers joined with those retreating, thus increasing their numbers.  Yet another group of soldiers moved behind the mob, effectively surrounding them.

As the soldiers reached the top of Golden Hill, they decided they had sufficient numbers and had taken enough abuse.  With swords drawn and bayonets fixed, they attempted to force their way back through the mob, wounding dozens of people.  Many in the mob fought back, wounding several of the soldiers.  Accounts of the fighting differ greatly depending on who was doing the writing.  The Sons of Liberty portrayed the fight as out of control officers slashing at civilians, even those just standing around and not part of the mob.  The Loyalist press painted a picture of soldiers defending themselves against a riotous mob.  Later, people referred to the fight as the battle of Golden Hill.

Golden Hill was a location in what is today lower Manhattan, around the corner of John and William Streets.  If you happen to be familiar with the area, you might note there is no hill there.  It is pretty flat.  That is because in the 19th Century, New York flattened out most of the area, leveling hills and filling in gullies, to make the city flatter and easier to travel.  So while there is no hill there now, it was there in 1770.

The fight resulted in quite a few injuries but no one was killed.  One newspaper reported a death a few days later, but this appears to be an error.  If anyone had died, the Sons of Liberty would have held him up as a martyr to the cause.  Several people though, did suffer serious bayonet and sword wounds.

Battle of Golden Hill, 1770
drawn 1884 (from Wikimedia)

British officers arrived, forcing the soldiers to stand down, while civilian leaders were able to contain the civilian mob. Over the next few days, fighting broke out several more times between soldiers and civilians, resulting in a few more injuries.

There do not seem to have been any trials or other legal consequences resulting from the battle, which probably involved around 100 soldiers and a mob of about 3000 civilians.  Newspapers hyped the story over the next few weeks, and word of the incident spread across the continent.

The Sons of LIberty attempted to erect a fifth Liberty Pole on the same site.  They Mayor, however, denied them a permit.  Instead they erected the new pole on private property nearby, which Sears owned.  The new one was even bigger, 80 feet tall, with metal bands covering the lower two-thirds of the pole.  The new pole would remain in place until British troops invaded the city in 1776.  Unlike the first pole, which celebrated the King, this one simply said “Liberty and Property.”

Next Week, another deadlier clash between civilians and soldiers takes place in what becomes known as the Boston Massacre.

Next Episode 33: The Boston Massacre

Previous Episode 31: Wilkes and Liberty & Tar and Feathers

Visit the American Revolution Podcast (https://amrev.podbean.com) for free downloads of all podcast episodes.

Further Reading:

Web Sites

Cadwallader Colden: http://www.nndb.com/people/322/000163830

Isaac Sears: https://www.geni.com/people/Capt-Isaac-Sears/6000000025122525762

Alexander MacDougall: http://www.ileach.co.uk/glasgow-islay/connections/liberty.html

Minty, Christopher F. The Importance of Partisanship in New York City, ca. 1769–1775: https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/06/05/partisanship_nyc_minty

Collins, Charles Fredrick “The Artisans' Battle Against Political Subordination in Colonial New York City” UCLA Historical Journal, 1981 (PDF): https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1sc776n5

The Liberty Pole Struggle and Riot 1766-1776: http://thehistorybox.com/ny_city/riots/riots_article6a.htm

Ruppert, Bob “The Battle of Golden Hill - Six Weeks Before The Boston Massacre” Journal of the American Revolution, 2014: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/10/the-battle-of-golden-hill-six-weeks-before-the-boston-massacre

The Lost Plaque of the Battle of Golden Hill: https://untappedcities.com/2013/07/04/daily-what-lost-plaque-first-battle-american-revolution

Bell, J.L. “The Non-Fatal Battle of Golden Hill” Boston 1775 Blog, 2013: http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-non-fatal-battle-of-golden-hill.html

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Keys, Alice Mapelsden Cadwallader Colden; a representative eighteenth century official, New York: Columbia Press, 1906.

Dawson, Henry B. The Sons of Liberty in New York, Poughkeepsie: Platt & Schram, 1859

Stevens, John Austin Colonial New York; sketches biographical and historical, 1768-1784, New York: John F. Trow & Co., 1867

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Carp, Benjamin L. Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Champagne, Roger J. Alexander McDougall and the American Revolution in New York, Union College Press, 1975.

Ketchum, Richard M. Divided Loyalties: How the American Revolution Came to New York, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2002

Knollenberg, Bernhard Growth of the American Revolution 1766-1775, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1975.

Macdougall, William American Revolutionary: A Biography of General Alexander McDougall, Westport: Praeger, 1977.

Smith, Page A New Age Now Begins, Vol. I, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1976.

* (Book links to Amazon.com are for convenience.  They are not an endorsement of Amazon, nor does this site receive any compensation for any links).