The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn: Including a new and circumstantial account of the battle of Long island and the loss of New York, with a review of events to the close of the yearJohnston, Henry Phelps
History
The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn: Including a new and circumstantial account of the battle of Long island and the loss of New York, with a review of events to the close of the year
Johnston, Henry Phelps
Long Island, Battle of, New York, N.Y., 1776; New York (N.Y.) -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
to follow up the precautions in that direction. Putnam was in chief
command, but nothing can be inferred from contemporary records to
fasten neglect or blunder upon him any more than upon Washington, who,
when he left the Brooklyn lines on the evening of the 26th, must have
known precisely what disposition had been made for the night at the
hills and passes. And upon Washington certainly the responsibility
cannot rest.[157]
[Footnote 157: RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEFEAT.--According to some of
our more recent versions of this battle, the disaster is to be
referred to the wilful disobedience, criminal inattention, and total
incapacity of General Putnam. Several writers make the charge so
pointedly and upon such an array of fact, that the reader is left to
wonder how all this should have escaped the notice of the
commander-in-chief at the time, and why Putnam was not immediately
court-martialled and dismissed the service, instead of being
continued, as he was, in important commands. The charge is the more
serious as it is advanced by so respectable an authority as Mr.
Bancroft. Mr. Field, Mr. Dawson, and Dr. Stiles, following the latter,
incline strongly in the same direction.
Mr. Bancroft first assails Putnam for sending Stirling out to the
right when word came in that the enemy were advancing and our pickets
flying. This is criticised as "a rash order," because it sent Stirling
to a position which was "dangerous in the extreme," with the Gowanus
marsh in his rear. But as to this, it only needs to be said that
Putnam's written instructions from Washington were imperative to
prevent the enemy from passing the hills and approaching the works. It
would have been a clear disregard of Washington's intention had Putnam
not sent Stirling out precisely as he did. The enemy were coming up
from the Narrows and must be checked "at all hazards." Furthermore,
the position Stirling took up at about Nineteenth Street was actually
safer than any other on the outpost line. His right could not be
turned, for it rested on the bay, and he could see every movement of
the fleet. His left was well covered by Parsons, and no one could have
imagined his rear in danger with the other outposts guarding it for
more than three miles. As a matter of fact, Stirling was nearer the
lines than either Miles or Wyllys.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account