The Project Gutenberg eBook of The battle of Harlem Heights
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The battle of Harlem Heights
Author: M.D. Thomas Addis Emmet
Release date: June 2, 2026 [eBook #78798]
Language: English
Original publication: The Magazine of History with Notes and Queries, 1906
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78798
Credits: Charlene Taylor, Andrew Scott and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BATTLE OF HARLEM HEIGHTS ***
Transcriber notes
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_
Bold text is denoted by =equals=
THE BATTLE OF
HARLEM HEIGHTS
BY
THOMAS ADDIS EMMET, M.D.
[Illustration]
REPRINTED FROM
THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY
WITH NOTES AND QUERIES
_September, 1906_
THE BATTLE OF HARLEM HEIGHTS
[Dr. Emmet’s article was written in reply to the following article
which appeared some time ago in the New York _Evening Post_. The
whereabouts of the Richards letter, quoted from, we have been unable
to ascertain.—ED].
Since the publication of Prof. H. P. Johnston’s monograph on the battle
of Harlem Heights, not more than one or two letters or documents have
come to light to be added to the very complete list of authorities
given in the appendix. One of these which has recently been brought
to notice is interesting and important as confirming certain views
advanced by Professor Johnston respecting the location of the
battlefield and other particulars of the action. It is in the form of
an extract from the diary of a Revolutionary officer, Lieut. Samuel
Richards of a Connecticut regiment, who, after describing the retreat
from Long Island in August, 1776, continues his narrative as follows:
We then marched and took possession of the heights of Harlem and
immediately flung up lines for our defence.... We were employed
the succeeding night (September 15, 1776) in throwing up a slight
entrenchment on the brow of the hill at Harlem Heights in full
expectation of being attacked by the enemy in the morning. When the
sun arose I saw the enemy in the plain below us, at the distance of
about a mile, forming in a line. By accounts afterwards, their number
was said to exceed twenty thousand, and they indeed made a brilliant
display by the reflection of the sun’s rays on their arms.
The sharp action which took place that day under Col. Knowlton is
so well detailed by the historian, I need not repeat it. The enemy
sent a detachment of about five thousand along the bank of the North
River, which our people attacked with spirit and about an equal
number, and drove them back to their main body. The loss on our side
was about thirty killed and sixty or seventy wounded. The loss to the
enemy must have been more than that, as we repulsed them after a warm
fire of three-quarters of an hour. Here I first saw Lieut. Munro; he
had volunteered to go to the attack on our right under the command of
Col. Knowlton.
The next day I had a mournful duty assigned to me—the command of a
covering party over the fatigue men who buried the dead which had
fallen in the action the previous day. I placed myself and party
on a small eminence so as to see the men at their work, and to
discover the enemy should they approach to interrupt them. There
were thirty-three bodies found on the field; they were drawn to a
large hole which was prepared for the purpose and buried together.
One body of a fine-limbed young man had been brought into the camp
with a bullet hole in the breast near the heart. I was struck with
reflections on the force of habit to see those fatigue men performing
this duty with as little apparent concern as they would have
performed any duty.
The diary, though written some years after the close of the war,
furnishes a narrative which is apparently based upon an accurate
recollection of the events described. Lieut. Richards supports
Professor Johnston’s assertion, already corroborated by a mass of
evidence, that the battle was fought on the western side and slope of
Morningside Heights. These authorities, and the maps published in the
history, trace the advance of the British from what is now One Hundred
and Seventh Street along the bank of the North River to the “buckwheat
field” lying between Broadway and Riverside Drive, One Hundred and
Sixteenth Street and One Hundred and Twentieth Street, as they now
exist, where they were met by Col. Knowlton’s Rangers and where the
battle occurred.
The statement of Lieut. Richards that the American loss was about
thirty killed confirms the estimate made by Professor Johnston,
while the third statement as to the burial of those killed furnishes
a new item to be added to the account of the battle, and lends
increased interest to an historic site. The plan of the battle and
Lieut. Richards’s description when studied in connection with the
natural topography of the Heights leave no doubt that either upon or
immediately to the west of the Columbia University grounds lies the
burial place of the men who fell “in the first battle of the Revolution
in which the American troops faced and routed the British.”
DR. EMMET’S REPLY.
In the _Post_ of Feb. 10th, an editorial on the battle of Harlem
Heights interested me extremely, as the locality is there described
as though there existed no longer a doubt as to the exact place where
the battle was fought. I am aware that this view is held by many, but
beyond the fact that the present site of Columbia University must
necessarily be nearer the locality where the battle was fought, it has
no greater claim, I believe, to that honor than has Union Square, or
any other locality. I have given no thought to the subject for many
years and I am writing away from home, without a book of reference, but
fortunately I have retained a recollection of the details. I am not
actuated by a spirit of controversy in raising this issue, nor do I
intend to take any further part in discussion. I simply wish to offer a
protest, in consequence of my knowledge that the history of our country
is being constantly perverted and misstated.
There exists no question that the battle of Harlem was fought, either
to the north or the south of the western portion of Harlem flats; that
the Americans occupied certain heights; and that the assault of the
English was made by one body and that the larger portion, from the
plain below along these heights; at the same time a smaller body gained
the top of these heights by ascending a ravine from the Hudson river
bank at some distance from the main line of attack. The whole question
then relates to the locality of Harlem Heights, and at this late date,
in the absence of positive proof, the locality must either continue to
remain in doubt, or must be decided by circumstantial evidence, which
is often the most reliable. Before presenting the evidence on which I
propose to base my argument it will be necessary to make a digression.
Grant’s tomb occupies the site of Mt. Alto, the country place of my
uncle, the late Mr. Bache McEvers, with whom for many years I spent
a portion of every summer. As a boy I became as familiar with every
foot of this neighborhood as I am now with the sidewalk in front
of my Madison Avenue city residence, where I have lived for nearly
fifty years. I generally accompanied my uncle when he took his Sunday
afternoon walks and through his knowledge I became familiar with the
history and traditions of this neighborhood, and of Westchester. On one
occasion, during the summer, I think of 1838, I had pointed out to me
the site of the battle of Harlem Heights, with the ravine on the North
river, or west side, where a portion of the British troops came up to
make the attack, and beyond that the road on Breakneck Hill, to the
east side, down which the English were driven after being routed. The
surrounding country was then under cultivation and divided up in small
fields with scarcely any trees standing, but along the river bank and
on the brow of the heights to the eastward. This locality and ravine
was near the site and possibly forms a portion of the present Trinity
Cemetery. I was also told that the main part of the battle was fought
below, to the south, and I went over the ground about the locality of
the present Convent of the Sacred Heart, which neighborhood was too
hilly to be termed “a rolling country.” From my earliest knowledge in
connection with this battle until recent years, no doubt seems to have
existed as to where the battle was fought and the accepted belief
was the fight took place on the ground I have described. The fact
that the attack was made at distant points and covered quite an area
would explain, I should think, the difficulty and the vague manner
in which the battle is described or located by those who possessed a
contemporaneous knowledge of the locality of the Harlem Heights.
Along the south side of Harlem Commons or Flats, there extended a
precipitous ridge of rock and débris, from the Hudson river at Grant’s
tomb to the East river at Hell gate. At the time of the Revolution
the chief exit from the city of New York to the north, was by way of
McGowan’s Pass, and in addition there were several footpaths to reach
the plain below. I have always heard that the Bloomingdale road was not
extended along the hill by Grant’s tomb and Claremount to the valley
below until many years after the Revolution, and there was only a
private road in addition to the one by McGowan’s Pass, which crossed
this line about the course of the present Third Avenue. When I was a
boy there were two or three footpaths to the west of McGowan’s Pass,
and at no other place was the descent possible save to a goat, or an
active boy. Across the Bloomingdale road in front of my uncle’s gate
and along the top of the hill, there was at that time the remains of
the British line of earthworks, which originally extended along the
crest of this ridge across the island to the East river. The trench
was about two feet deep at that time and I have frequently followed
without difficulty the line well on to McGowan’s Pass. In the war of
1812 this line was fortified for the protection of the city by a series
of blockhouses, one of which still stands. I believe the remains of
the British line of earthworks was undisturbed until the opening of
the streets. McGowan’s Pass was formerly considered as forming part
of the Yorkville Heights, and no part of this line, to the south of
the Harlem Commons, was ever termed Harlem Heights until within recent
years. If the portion of these heights nearest Harlem was always called
the Yorkville Heights, it is inexplicable why the most distant portion
of the line should be in any way associated by name with Harlem. On
the other hand I have often heard the heights on the south side of
the Harlem river termed Harlem Heights, and these extend westward to
the Hudson river bank. The settlement at Harlem with its Commons, or
land in common, and the one at Yorkville represented two distinct
interests, and for one familiar with the circumstances it is difficult
to understand how any confusion, from accident, should exist between
Harlem and Yorkville Heights.
That section of the island to the north of the Harlem Commons, between
the Hudson river and the Boston road, which passed from McGowan’s Pass
to King’s Bridge, and from the northern end of the island to the Point
of Rocks to the south, then situated below the present site of the
convent, included the fortress of Fort Washington and its outworks.
I had at one time in my possession the draft of a letter written by
Mr. George Pollock, a linen merchant of New York, and the father of
the child whose grave is near the Grant tomb. In this letter Pollock
states he purchased after the Revolution a tract of land and cleared
off the primitive forest which still covered this portion of Manhattan
Island, and it is not likely therefore that the buckwheat field existed
in this neighborhood in which it is claimed a part of the battle of
Harlem was fought. Mr. Pollock built here a house, where he lived for
a number of years, until the death of his wife and the loss of his
child from drowning. He then sold the place to Gulian Verplanck, of
Verplanck’s Point. My uncle leased for many years this place from his
cousin, Gulian C. Verplanck, the Shakespearean scholar, and the son of
him who purchased it from Pollock. All this portion of the island, west
of McGowan’s Pass along the river bank to about 65th or 70th street,
was heavily timbered until after the Revolution. To the existence of
this timbered section the portion of the American army left in New York
after the battle and evacuation of Long Island, owed its escape, for
the retreat was made in disorder and the troops were in a demoralized
condition. The sudden flight of the army from the city was rendered
necessary by the English landing in force at Kipp’s Bay, just above the
present Bellevue Hospital, where they met with little resistance from
the portion of the Connecticut troops, and some other colony, I do not
recollect, which were placed there to oppose the landing.
This occasion is adduced as one of the few instances where Washington
lost his temper and swore as an expert in his effort to avert the
flight of his troops, who were demoralized from fatigue, loss of sleep,
with probably insufficient food and discouraged after the defeat at
Long Island. The day was an excessively hot one, and Mrs. Robert
Murray, of Murray Hill, whose husband was a Tory, but she in sympathy
with the American cause, invited the British officers to rest during
the heat of the day in her house. She exerted herself to such an extent
to make them comfortable, that just time enough, and no more, was
gained for the retreat of the American army past this point, along the
wooded banks of the Hudson river. The English were so close in pursuit
that Washington, in the rear with a portion of his staff, passed in the
neighborhood of 70th street, through the hall of the old Apthorp House
to the woods in the rear, under the guidance of Col. Aaron Burr, as
those in pursuit entered the front gate. From a military standpoint it
is clear that these troops must necessarily have made their way in the
most expeditious manner to McGowan’s Pass and across the Harlem flats
to gain protection within their own lines below Fort Washington, and
that no halt was likely made unless to hold McGowan’s Pass for a short
time to protect the rear end stragglers. And yet a memorial tablet,
I am informed, has been placed on one of the buildings of Columbia
University to commemorate the halt of these troops along the brow of
a continuous declivity, from fifty to one hundred feet in height, as
it was at that time; there to await the attack of a victorious and
superior force, after all possibility of retreat as a body was cut off,
and with a certainty that these troops were without a commissariat! If
it were possible to assign any rational reason or purpose, under the
circumstances why the American troops should hold any portion of this
untenable line, it is certain that no body of troops, under the most
perfect state of discipline, would have risked the fortune of a battle
in this place, without artillery and with a precipice in their rear.
There is no evidence that additional troops were landed on Harlem flats
from either the Hudson or the East river, and it would be absurd to
suppose that the English deserted an advantageous position in front
of the American forces, in order to go by McGowan’s Pass to the plain
below with the purpose of making an attack by attempting to scale an
almost inaccessible height! An attack by the ravine near this point as
claimed, I know from my own knowledge of the locality would have been
impossible, unless the troops to make the attack were landed at the
ravine from boats. They could not have passed, before the railroad was
built, along this shore for any distance on either side of the ravine.
When I was a boy this point was a noted place for fishing, as the water
was deep, with a steep bank, so that it was difficult for anyone to
pass except at low tide and the passage was then further obstructed by
a number of boulders or rocks.
I have never seen the diary of Lieut. Sam. Richards, of a Connecticut
regiment, from which you quote, but the Point of Rocks in front of the
convent was then held by a Connecticut brigade, under Gen. Parsons,
if my memory serves me, and a portion of this brigade we have stated
was at Kipp’s Bay, where the English landed. It would then seem that
this portion of the army from New York had followed the course which,
I claim, the whole army must have followed by retreating within their
own lines, to the north of Harlem Commons.
The following portion of Lieut. Richards’s diary, as quoted by you,
will I think show that the attack on the American line of entrenchments
was to the north of the Harlem flats, and by the ravine near Trinity
Cemetery, as stated:—“We then marched [from what point?] and took
possession of the Heights of Harlem and immediately flung up lines for
our defence.... We were employed the succeeding night in throwing up a
slight entrenchment on the brow of the hill at Harlem Heights in full
expectation of being attacked by the enemy in the morning. When the sun
arose I saw the enemy in the plain below us, at the distance of about a
mile, forming in a line. By account afterwards, their number was said
to exceed twenty thousand, and they indeed made a brilliant display
by the reflection of the sun’s rays on their arms. The sharp action
which took place that day under Col. Knowlton is so well detailed by
the historian I need not repeat it. The enemy sent a detachment of
about five thousand along the bank of the North river, which our people
attacked with spirit and about in equal numbers and drove them back
to their main body.... The next day I had a mournful duty assigned to
me—the command of a covering party over the fatigue men who buried the
dead which had fallen in the action the previous day. I placed myself
and party on a small eminence so as to see the men at their work, and
to discover the enemy should they approach to interrupt them.” If the
battle was fought above on the “University Heights,” it might be asked
on what _small eminence_ did Lieut. Richards take his position, and by
what route did his men reach the plain below to bury the dead?
To the south and southeast of the high land on which Fort Washington
was situated, there were a number of step-like hills, with more or less
of a level or plateau space between them, and these extended around
towards the Harlem river. I recollect distinctly seeing the remains of
old earthworks at different points, and the line was to the north and
somewhat above the Point of Rocks. In connection with the defense of
the Point of Rocks, the Connecticut troops were entrenched on one of
these eminences, and if Lieut. Richards was with his command he must
first have seen the advance of the enemy in line directly across the
plain at the distance he states and at the foot of McGowan’s Pass. From
the same side as McGowan’s Pass, the view would have been a limited one
with all the timber removed about the foot of the Pass and there is no
portion along the heights, in the neighborhood of the University, from
which the front of the line of the British troops could have been seen
while forming, moreover the distance would have been much less than
that stated by Lieut. Richards.
The main attack was an extended one along the line of entrenchments,
including the Point of Rocks, on what I believe was termed the Harlem
Heights at the time the battle was fought. In consequence of the
extended line and the varied fortune of the day, it has never been
known at what spot Col. Knowlton lost his life. The British troops were
very severely handled and failed to gain a foothold on any of these
eminences, from which they could not have been dislodged and everything
south of the ravine would then have been captured. There exists no
authority for supposing that any portion of the battle was fought on
the plain below, but from Lieut. Richards’s diary, as quoted by you, it
would seem the dead were buried there under his supervision, but the
spot is unknown.
To the north of Manhattanville and for some distance beyond the ravine
at Trinity Cemetery, the water was shallow with a shelving beach, along
which the British troops could have passed at any state of the tide.
It is however doubtful that five thousand men ascended the ravine,
because, before a foothold could have been gained, it is said that a
bugle call was sounded as though for a fox hunt, which at once brought
upon the enemy an overpowering number of Americans. While it lasted
this fight at the top of the ravine was doubtless the best contested
hand-to-hand struggle of the Revolution. It is probable that before the
whole number of the English reached the top they were divided so that
those ascending were driven back to the west, and the portion already
on top who were not killed, were driven down on the east side. As I
have understood the plan of the battle, the object of those attacking
by the ravine was a flank movement to finally get in the rear of
the earthworks towards the southeast where the Americans were being
assaulted from the plain below, and but for the arrogance of the enemy
in giving timely notice of their presence in this quarter, which would
have been unexpected, the result would have been a brilliant one for
the English.
When I first heard of the battle of Harlem and talked to the old
people I met, relics of the battle were to be found in almost every
small farmer’s house in the neighborhood. From my recollection more
particularly of some sword hilts and portions of sword blades which
were found on this spot I am led to believe that the clubbed musket of
the American soldier at close quarters, played an important part in the
struggle.
In conclusion let me state that nowhere on Manhattan Island, to my
knowledge, beyond the limit of the city, have there been found the
remains of so many English and Hessian soldiers, as shown by buttons,
cross-belt buckles, bayonets and portions of other arms, as have
been excavated from time to time in the neighborhood of the Trinity
Cemetery. There could have been no fight at this point unless it was at
the battle of Harlem, while the neighborhood about Columbia University,
where it is claimed the battle was fought, has been particularly free
from all such evidence.
THOS. ADDIS EMMET, M. D.
NEW YORK CITY.
POSTSCRIPT, 4
In looking through the _Journals of Congress_, edited by Mr.
Worthington C. Ford, I found by accident the following (Vol. 6, p. 851):
“Monday, Oct. 7, 1776—
“Resolved, That Gen’l Lee be directed to repair to the camp on the
heights of Harlem, with leave, if he thinks it proper, to visit the
posts in New Jersey.”
This proves that I am correct in saying that all north of Harlem
Flats was called Harlem Heights at the time and after the Revolution.
When the change was made I do not know, but at some time it became
desirable to locate the “Buckwheat Field” for the battle of Harlem
Heights somewhere in the neighborhood of Columbia University;
which region, at the time of the encounter was, I believe, heavily
timbered, not-withstanding the alleged existence of the buckwheat
field. It was not until after the battle of White Plains, and early
in November, that any portion of the outworks of Fort Washington was
abandoned by the Americans. These works were near King’s Bridge,
and were at once taken possession of by Knyphausen with his German
battalions, which crossed the Flats from McGowan’s Pass, and for the
first time the English got a foothold on Harlem Heights. We are all
thankful to the Sons of the Revolution for their well-meaning efforts
through the erection of these various tablets to establish for the
people a knowledge of the truth. But in this instance at least,
I think the tablet will have to be moved, and replaced somewhere
between the “Point of Rocks” and Trinity Cemetery. And while this is
doing, the propriety may be considered of moving the statue of Nathan
Hale to the neighborhood of 56th or 57th Street, between Second and
Third Avenues; if its present position is meant to mark the place
of his execution. Hale was taken across Long Island Sound to the
headquarters of Howe, then at the Beekman House, near 61st street
and the East river. He was likely confined over night at old Cato’s
house, which was on the Boston Post Road, (where Howe’s bodyguard was
stationed), and hung early next morning from one of the apple trees
of the orchard just across the road, where I, as a boy, often looked
upon the one nearest the road and decided as to the very limb from
which he was most likely hung.
There was no necessity for taking him to the “Old Provost” for the
night, nor have I found any evidence that he was ever within five or
six miles of where his statue now stands, in City Hall Park.
T. A. E.
DR. EMMET’S REJOINDER.
REPRINTED FROM THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, JANUARY, 1907.
[I thank the editor of the Magazine of History for giving me the
opportunity of reading the article of Messrs. Hall and Bolton before
publication.—T. A. E.]
The object in writing my paper was to call attention to the uncertainty
existing with many as to the exact locality of Harlem Heights, on and
in the neighborhood of which the battle of September 16, 1776, was
fought. I hope the subject will be investigated by those in doubt
at greater length than these gentlemen seem to have done. I cannot
undertake to do more than may be covered by this letter. I have neither
the strength, the authorities at hand for investigation, nor the time,
as within a few days I go South for the winter.
Messrs. Hall and Bolton may have quoted correctly the authorities cited
by them, but they have not represented correctly my views, and from
their paper it is evident they did not read mine with sufficient care
to ascertain what I did write.
In the first instance, I did not misstate the relative position of the
English and American lines, for I was correct, and we agree fully.
I did not hold that the Battle of Harlem was fought in the vicinity
of 155th Street, but that a flank movement was attempted in the
neighborhood of what I suppose is the present site of Trinity Cemetery.
I was explicit in showing that the battle was, in my judgment, fought
below the site of the present Convent of the Sacred Heart, at the Point
of Rocks and along the irregular line of high ground to the north of
the plain to the east of Manhattanville.
In this connection, I will state my belief that after all the
excavating nothing can be judged at the present time with accuracy as
to where this line extended at the time of the battle. When I was a
boy the Point of Rocks extended so far to the south that it must have
almost reached the line of the street now extending eastward from the
foot of Claremont Heights. I recollect at one point on the road from
Manhattanville to Harlem, this Point of Rocks seemed to almost shut out
the valley and view of Manhattanville.
Again, I did not state I remembered seeing some entrenchments in the
vicinity of Trinity Cemetery, but I described the line of earthworks I
saw as being in connection with those on the Point of Rocks.
I did not state that the Americans were encamped on Morningside
Heights, nor on any portion of the high land to the south of the plain.
On the contrary, I labored to show they could have been nowhere else
but to the north of the extremity of the Point of Rocks, and all I
wrote was in relation to the article published in the _Evening Post_.
If in this connection there be anything in Lieut. Richards’ account as
quoted in the _Post_ which “fits in exactly” from the standpoint of
these gentlemen, as to the fight being on the Morningside Heights, it
is certainly a _mis_-fit. I agree with them that the English troops,
described by Richards as forming in line at sunrise at the foot of
McGowan’s Pass, were not likely to have attempted to scale Morningside
Heights. The fact of this force being at the foot of McGowan’s Pass
goes to prove that they were there to cross the plain and make an
attack on the American line, within which Richards’ Connecticut
regiment was stationed; and as he was with his regiment, which took
part in the fight, it becomes evident that the battle was fought about
the Point of Rocks.
If Morningside Heights to Claremont, then held by the British, formed a
part of Harlem Heights, and the American forces also held a portion of
Harlem Heights to the north, it seems evident that the order to General
Lee (referred to in my first article) would have been more explicit.
The resolution of Congress, passed October 17, 1776, was: “Resolved,
That General Lee be directed to repair to the camp on _the_ Heights
of Harlem, with leave,” etc. The wording can only be construed from a
logical point, as showing that the heights below Fort Washington were
the Harlem Heights, and there could have been no other Harlem Heights
but those occupied by the American forces.
The only foundation for any fighting on the heights to the south rests
on an encounter lasting but a few moments. Knowlton, before daylight,
was sent by Washington, with a single company of his command, to get on
the flank of the British troops encamped on Vandewater Heights, and to
reach that position by ascending the Hudson River bank at some distance
to the south of the present grounds of Columbia University. Washington
had received information that the enemy was forming in force at
McGowan’s Pass for an attack, and Knowlton was, by this means, to cause
a diversion, if possible, with the object of retarding the general
movement. Unfortunately, Knowlton’s presence was discovered as soon as
he reached the brow of the ascent, and he was forced to make a hasty
retreat. Knowlton’s party was followed down to the water by a body of
the enemy, which crossed the valley to the north, and later in the day
attempted a flank movement by ascending a ravine, and was repulsed as
described in my paper. This encounter of Knowlton’s at daylight on
Vandewater Heights, I assert, can scarcely be termed a skirmish nor
be considered as part of the Battle of Harlem Heights, as the battle
did not begin until late in the day, and lasted three or four hours.
Moreover, the place of Knowlton’s encounter was so far to the south
of the Harlem line (possibly as far south as 94th Street) as to render
it impossible to show any connection with Harlem Heights, the grounds
of Columbia University, or Morningside Heights. I do not propose, nor
is it necessary, to enter into any further detail of the battle, my
only purpose, as already stated, being to locate the Harlem Heights, on
which and about which the Battle of Harlem was fought.
To show the confusion which exists as to this locality, even in the
minds of Messrs. Hall and Bolton, I will quote a statement made in
their paper: “The hill on which the most desperate fighting took place
is identified by Major Lewis Morris, Jr., who wrote to his father
on September 28: ‘Monday morning an advanced party, Col. Knowlton’s
regiment, was attacked upon a height a little to the southwest of Day’s
tavern.’ Day’s tavern was on the line of the present 126th Street,
two hundred feet west of Eighth Avenue. _This locates the fight on
Morningside Heights_,” etc. I do not know what relation the site of
Day’s tavern may bear to Eighth Avenue, but I do know that it had no
relation whatever with the noted buckwheat field near the Columbia
grounds, nor with Morningside Heights. My recollection is quite clear
in recalling the facts of the site of Day’s tavern on the east side of
the road, extending from McGowan’s Pass, along the foot of the present
Morningside Heights to King’s Bridge. It was situated some distance
to the _northeast_ of the Point of Rocks, and Morris’ statement was
correct. The Point of Rocks and other entrenchments on the different
hills, forming the American line in this neighborhood, were “_a little
to the southwest of Days tavern_.” I believe the tavern was a mile to
the north of any portion of Morningside Heights, and at this advanced
point Knowlton with the Connecticut troops were stationed, in the most
direct line for the enemy from McGowan’s Pass.
Having reached this point in my task, which proved a fatiguing one,
I was prompted to consult Mrs. Lamb’s _History of New York City_, it
being the only work in my present library from which I could obtain
any information relating to the Battle of Harlem Heights. To my
satisfaction I found a tracing of Colton’s map, which confirms the
accuracy of my recollection in relation to the site of Day’s tavern.
In addition, I found that in all essentials as to the wooded country,
roads, etc., I had been accurate; a remarkable circumstance, as I have
had to trust to the impressions made by my observation and historical
studies at a period which would doubtless antedate the birth of either
of these gentlemen. Colton’s map shows, as I stated, that there was
no road at this time from these heights to the valley, and that only
a pathway existed from the Claremont Heights along the course of the
Bloomingdale road, which was not open in this neighborhood until after
the Revolution. It does give, however, what was probably a farm road
from Hoagland’s house down into the King’s Bridge road, at about 110th
Street. After the Bloomingdale road was extended to Manhattanville,
this one was probably closed, as it did not exist within my
recollection.
[Illustration: =Sketch of Battle-Field, Harlem Heights=.
Showing the relative position of the two hostile armies of Great
Britain and America, September 16, 1776.
From Lamb’s History of the City of New York, Vol. II, p. 129.]
Mrs. Lamb gives a confused account in relation to Major Morris’ letter,
but this is evidently an oversight, if taken in connection with her
full account of the battle. So fully does she consider every authority
in locating the site of Harlem Heights, and her deductions are so in
accord with my position, that it is unnecessary for me to take further
exceptions to other inaccurate statements made by these gentlemen. In
conclusion, I will state that under the circumstances I feel that their
prologue written as a warning to the public, as to the accuracy of my
statement, is, to say the least, uncalled for.
THOS. ADDIS EMMET, M. D.
(I omitted to correct a misstatement at the beginning of the paper by
these gentlemen: My article was written for the _Evening Post_ last
winter, while I was South, and in answer to an editorial which had
appeared shortly before, but that paper declined to publish it. The
editor probably labored under the impression that Messrs. Hall and
Bolton knew all about it; and that the buckwheat field could not have
been anywhere else but in the grounds of Columbia University, while
in fact the _real_ buckwheat field was situated far to the north,
near the real Day’s tavern.)
Transcriber notes
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected
after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and
consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and
inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg 4 “Pass was fomerly considered” changed to “Pass was formerly
considered”.
Pg 6 “English deserted an advantagous position” to “English
deserted an advantageous position”.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BATTLE OF HARLEM HEIGHTS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
