 |
| A lithograph of the capture of Major John André (source) |
The date was September 23rd, 1780, five years after the first shot of the Revolutionary War was fired [2]. The British spy Major John André, donning plain, unassuming clothes and responding to the fake name 'John Anderson', passed on horseback through Westchester County, New York [3] while carrying on his person a number of papers including lists and sketches of the American site at West Point. These papers were intended to play a crucial role in Benedict Arnold's, the American traitor, planned surrender at West Point. [4].
 |
| A Map of West Point in 1783 (source) |
West Point was one of the most important defensive sites to the Americans during the war. It was situated along the Hudson River, a body of water which proved critical for communications and transport amongst the colonies [5]. Naturally the British would benefit immensely from any information that could potentially allow them to gain control of West Point.
Luckily, the surrender never happened. Enter my 1st cousin 8x removed Isaac Van Wart and his 2 companions John Paulding and David Williams (The trio would later be colloquially referred to as 'the Captors'). As André crossed an area above Tarrytown, the 3-count band of patriots stepped out from the woods and stopped him. They found the papers in André's stocking and denied all the bribes he offered them to release him. Despite the immeasurable effect on the USA their actions would have, the Captors' morality would later be questioned as certain circumstances suggested that they were thieves who simply happened upon the right victim[6].
The area in which André was captured was neutral ground. The group of soldiers in this area consisted of semi-military gangs of thieves. The Patriot thieves were called 'Skinners' while the Loyalists were referred to as 'Cowboys'[6]. The controversy stemmed from the belief of some that the Captors were Skinners, planning to liberate anyone who crossed through of their property (note that they may actually not have been called skinners, see source 10, however in this article I will refer to them as such for the purpose of clarity). Enticed by the sight of André's horse they came to the conclusion he would make the perfect subject for their robbery. The apologist side argues that they were simply patriots attempting to defend the area from Loyalist Cowboys, with no questionable morality whatsoever [4].
To better understand the true morality of the captors, it would be prudent to revisit the events and describe more precisely what transpired in the dates leading up to and on September 23rd, 1780 and the accusations that followed.
A group of 7 Minutemen [9] traveling together through neutral ground split up at some point during or shortly prior to that day. The three that decided to patrol the road would gain fame (with a dose of infamy as well). The other 4 were patrolling a hill about a half mile off and weren't involved in the capture [8]. Of the three captors, the first one to confront André was John Paulding, who stepped out in view of André and leveled his musket at him. André's response to Paulding, when asked where he was heading, was less than satisfactory. Perhaps it was an ill-founded assumption that the 3 men confronting him on the neutral ground were Tories as opposed to Patriots. Maybe his nerves simply got the best of him. Despite having papers from Arnold which would have been evidence enough to warrant his safe passing, he decided to instead talk his way through the situation, saying "My Lads, I hope you belong to our party". Of course, this prompted Paulding to ask which party that might be, to which André replied: "the lower"[4] (another term for Loyalist, most likely because the British had the most supporters in the southern or "lower" American states [7]). His words until this point had without a doubt already sealed his fate, but his proclamations thereafter certainly didn't help. He continued on saying he was "an officer in the British Service" and "on particular business in this country". The Patriots, not relenting to the British officer's requests to allow the journey to continue, instead requested he dismount his horse. André hurridly shuffled through his belongings to produce the pass given to him by Arnold, to which Isaac Van Wart so eloquently replied: "Damn the pass!". Being that it was neutral ground and therefore legal to do so, Van Wart then suggested that they take the officer's money. So the 3 captors lead André behind the fence adjacent to the road and into the greenery out of sight, whereupon they began to search his garments for valuables. After conducting a thorough investigation of each piece of visible cloth on André's person, the captors began preparing to release him. Had it not been for David Williams deciding, at the very last moment, that André should remove his boots for their inspection, this story would likely have had a very different ending. There. at the bottom of André's stocking, were the papers. Paulding being the only literate member of the three began to read the documents and subsequently exclaimed: "This is a Spy!"[4].
One can only imagine the thoughts racing through the minds of the captors as it dawned on them just how important their captive was. They first responded to the temptation of taking advantage of such a wealthy individual, requesting that André pay for his release with 100 guineas and his horse. Despite André agreeing to these conditions, the captors rejected their own offer and made the decision to reject every offer thereafter. Williams would later claim he denounced André with the undeniably powerful phrase: "No, by God, if you give us 10,000 guineas, you should not stir a step."[4] They did, however, claim an assortment of objects found on André as their own, including a watch and the horse along with its saddle and bridle. They would later sell these items and divide up the profit amongst themselves and the four others who were in their party. The captors decided to take him to Col. Jameson, who was a commander on the patriot lines. Shortly after turning André over, the captors were summoned to the headquarters of George Washington in Tappan, New York to serve as witnesses in the case against Joshua Hett Smith (who was involved in the André affair)[8].
The captors would later be rewarded for their capture of André by both Congress and George Washington in 1780. Congress ordered that they each receive 200 dollar yearly pensions, and a silver medal with the inscription of "Fidelity" on the front and "Vincit amor patriae" on the back. George Washington presented each of the 3 captors with the fidelity medallions while the army was encamped at Verplanck's Point during the war. While there it was noted that they were on several occasions invited to dine with George Washington, who thought quite highly of their deeds[9].
It was through this sequence of events that a sock (or more accurately, what was in the sock) forever changed the history of the United States. However, the story did not end after the war. The story and recollections of the capture were revived once again in 1817, following a request by John Paulding to increase the 200 dollar pension he had received on account of his status as one of André's captors. Before 1817 the 3 had been revered and respected. On January 13th, 1817 the request was taken rather unfavorably and much debate was sparked. At first, the two sides were not focused on the morality of the captors, but rather whether their actions warranted an increase in pension. Those who thought the captors should receive an increase believed that their actions and the effect they had on the outcome of the war were ample reason to direct some more funding toward their comfort. The opposing side had a strong argument as well. They asserted that there were so many fallen and disabled soldiers who were unrecognized that it would be unjust to further honor the Minutemen who hadn't been injured or otherwise harmed as a result of their patriotic duty.
The debate, however, would take a different turn once Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge of Connecticut asserted that the captor's motives for turning in André were selfish ones rather than patriotic. [9]
It was Tallmadge who was responsible for André's transportation to Tappan after he was captured, where he was to be hanged. According to Tallmadge, André had stated on the journey that if he could have given the captors the amount of money they had initially demanded, then he was certain they would have released him. He suggested that these three persons had divided loyalties, siding with the British and the Americans as it suited them to do so, rather than for any patriotic duty. They were, he said, thieves who would steal from British officer or American soldier[9].
So did the captors' loyalties lie with the British, the Americans, or neither? After researching the topic more closely I have come to the conclusion that they were staunchly American. It's important to understand, first off, that Tallmadge had never met any of the three prior to making the accusations about them. He had, however, spent 24 hours near exclusively with André, listening to his opinions and thoughts on the matter of his capture and eventual hanging[9]. The amount of weight one can put on André's accusations during this time is questionable. He knew he would be hanged with history having written him and the captors in a web of hyperbole. He would go down in infamy as the evil traitor who nearly stole a country with no conscience or moral resolution, while the captors would be depicted as the moral epitome of society, revered for generations to come. It would only make sense for a young man in such a situation to make claims he knew would stain the image of those responsible for his suffering. Much evidence, however, is present to the contrary of the majority of his claims. For instance, it is a known fact that Paulding was taken prisoner three times by the British. Twice before the capture of André and once thereafter. He managed to escape all three times returning immediately after to return to American lines. According to his affidavit the first time he was captured "he was taken at the White Plains when under the command of Captain Requa and carried to New York and confined in the Sugar House. The second time he was taken near Tarrytown when under the command of Lieutenant Peacock and confined in the North Dutch Church, in New York; that both these times he escaped and the last of them only four days before the capture of Andre that the last time he was taken he was wounded and lay in the hospital in New York and was discharged on the arrival of the news of peace there". Further, Isaac Van Wart, with 17 people who knew him attesting to his character (including multiple persons with the last name Requa who are presumably relatives of Captain Requa whom Paulding served under) claimed in his affidavit that he had never stepped foot on British soil. This claim has never been disputed and has no reason to be. Additionally, all 17 of these persons who signed the document collectively stated: "that there is not an individual in Westchester, acquainted with Isaac Van Wart, who would hesitate to describe him as a man whose integrity is as unimpeachable as his veracity is undoubted"[8]. There is also the fact that, ultimately, upon finding André to be a traitor, the captors made the decision to turn him into the Americans despite having no reason to believe they would be in any way rewarded. This evidence paints a rather different picture of the captors than the one described by Tallmadge. These were three men who had been injured by and were confirmed to have fought against the British as Americans. They were the embodiment of what would be called "Peasant Patriotism", a sense of nationalism among Americans at the time, the pride the everyday man had for his country and the lengths they would go to in order to protect it[8].
The accusations, however, did not solely extend themselves to the patriotism of the three; their morality was also questioned. As this accusation is, by nature, not at all one that lends itself to be disputed or affirmed through facts. What facts do exist, however, seem to favor the opinion that the three captors were morally justified in their actions.
According to Issac Van Warts affidavit, he "together with David Williams and John Paulding, had secreted themselves at the side of the highway, for the purpose of detecting any persons coming from or having unlawful intercourse with the enemy, being between the two armies; a service not uncommon in those times."[8]. If their intention was, in fact, to find British enemies, then it wouldn't much matter whether they intended to take the property of these enemies as a prize should they come across one. It is known that ultimately they made the decision to turn in André. Had they been exclusively looking to plunder those passing through the region, why would they bother to transport him all the way to Col. Jameson? Another argument against the morality of the captors is that, supposedly, they had no reason to assume that the person they chose to stop at musket point was British. However, this was neutral ground and André was riding a valuable horse and although he wasn't wearing the attire of a British officer, he certainly looked rather well to do. Remember also that Paulding was the first one to confront André. Just 4 days prior he had been recovering from injuries sustained after being captured by the British. It is fair to assume that Paulding would be much more attentive and cautious than your average person in that situation. Nearly immediately after being captured, André revealed to the captors that he was, in fact, British. After this announcement, the captors developed a permanent, justified, distrust making all their actions thereafter morally acceptable.
Ultimately, regardless of their intentions in capturing André, the captor's actions on September 23rd, 1780 prevented a rather disastrous end to the Revolutionary War and allowed the United States of America to become the country it is today.
In the words of Alexander Hamilton:
The area in which André was captured was neutral ground. The group of soldiers in this area consisted of semi-military gangs of thieves. The Patriot thieves were called 'Skinners' while the Loyalists were referred to as 'Cowboys'[6]. The controversy stemmed from the belief of some that the Captors were Skinners, planning to liberate anyone who crossed through of their property (note that they may actually not have been called skinners, see source 10, however in this article I will refer to them as such for the purpose of clarity). Enticed by the sight of André's horse they came to the conclusion he would make the perfect subject for their robbery. The apologist side argues that they were simply patriots attempting to defend the area from Loyalist Cowboys, with no questionable morality whatsoever [4].
To better understand the true morality of the captors, it would be prudent to revisit the events and describe more precisely what transpired in the dates leading up to and on September 23rd, 1780 and the accusations that followed.
A group of 7 Minutemen [9] traveling together through neutral ground split up at some point during or shortly prior to that day. The three that decided to patrol the road would gain fame (with a dose of infamy as well). The other 4 were patrolling a hill about a half mile off and weren't involved in the capture [8]. Of the three captors, the first one to confront André was John Paulding, who stepped out in view of André and leveled his musket at him. André's response to Paulding, when asked where he was heading, was less than satisfactory. Perhaps it was an ill-founded assumption that the 3 men confronting him on the neutral ground were Tories as opposed to Patriots. Maybe his nerves simply got the best of him. Despite having papers from Arnold which would have been evidence enough to warrant his safe passing, he decided to instead talk his way through the situation, saying "My Lads, I hope you belong to our party". Of course, this prompted Paulding to ask which party that might be, to which André replied: "the lower"[4] (another term for Loyalist, most likely because the British had the most supporters in the southern or "lower" American states [7]). His words until this point had without a doubt already sealed his fate, but his proclamations thereafter certainly didn't help. He continued on saying he was "an officer in the British Service" and "on particular business in this country". The Patriots, not relenting to the British officer's requests to allow the journey to continue, instead requested he dismount his horse. André hurridly shuffled through his belongings to produce the pass given to him by Arnold, to which Isaac Van Wart so eloquently replied: "Damn the pass!". Being that it was neutral ground and therefore legal to do so, Van Wart then suggested that they take the officer's money. So the 3 captors lead André behind the fence adjacent to the road and into the greenery out of sight, whereupon they began to search his garments for valuables. After conducting a thorough investigation of each piece of visible cloth on André's person, the captors began preparing to release him. Had it not been for David Williams deciding, at the very last moment, that André should remove his boots for their inspection, this story would likely have had a very different ending. There. at the bottom of André's stocking, were the papers. Paulding being the only literate member of the three began to read the documents and subsequently exclaimed: "This is a Spy!"[4].
One can only imagine the thoughts racing through the minds of the captors as it dawned on them just how important their captive was. They first responded to the temptation of taking advantage of such a wealthy individual, requesting that André pay for his release with 100 guineas and his horse. Despite André agreeing to these conditions, the captors rejected their own offer and made the decision to reject every offer thereafter. Williams would later claim he denounced André with the undeniably powerful phrase: "No, by God, if you give us 10,000 guineas, you should not stir a step."[4] They did, however, claim an assortment of objects found on André as their own, including a watch and the horse along with its saddle and bridle. They would later sell these items and divide up the profit amongst themselves and the four others who were in their party. The captors decided to take him to Col. Jameson, who was a commander on the patriot lines. Shortly after turning André over, the captors were summoned to the headquarters of George Washington in Tappan, New York to serve as witnesses in the case against Joshua Hett Smith (who was involved in the André affair)[8].
 |
| Painting of George Washington at Verplanck's Point by John Trumbull (source) |
The captors would later be rewarded for their capture of André by both Congress and George Washington in 1780. Congress ordered that they each receive 200 dollar yearly pensions, and a silver medal with the inscription of "Fidelity" on the front and "Vincit amor patriae" on the back. George Washington presented each of the 3 captors with the fidelity medallions while the army was encamped at Verplanck's Point during the war. While there it was noted that they were on several occasions invited to dine with George Washington, who thought quite highly of their deeds[9].
It was through this sequence of events that a sock (or more accurately, what was in the sock) forever changed the history of the United States. However, the story did not end after the war. The story and recollections of the capture were revived once again in 1817, following a request by John Paulding to increase the 200 dollar pension he had received on account of his status as one of André's captors. Before 1817 the 3 had been revered and respected. On January 13th, 1817 the request was taken rather unfavorably and much debate was sparked. At first, the two sides were not focused on the morality of the captors, but rather whether their actions warranted an increase in pension. Those who thought the captors should receive an increase believed that their actions and the effect they had on the outcome of the war were ample reason to direct some more funding toward their comfort. The opposing side had a strong argument as well. They asserted that there were so many fallen and disabled soldiers who were unrecognized that it would be unjust to further honor the Minutemen who hadn't been injured or otherwise harmed as a result of their patriotic duty.
 |
| Painting of Benjamin Tallmadge by Ezra Ames (source) |
It was Tallmadge who was responsible for André's transportation to Tappan after he was captured, where he was to be hanged. According to Tallmadge, André had stated on the journey that if he could have given the captors the amount of money they had initially demanded, then he was certain they would have released him. He suggested that these three persons had divided loyalties, siding with the British and the Americans as it suited them to do so, rather than for any patriotic duty. They were, he said, thieves who would steal from British officer or American soldier[9].
So did the captors' loyalties lie with the British, the Americans, or neither? After researching the topic more closely I have come to the conclusion that they were staunchly American. It's important to understand, first off, that Tallmadge had never met any of the three prior to making the accusations about them. He had, however, spent 24 hours near exclusively with André, listening to his opinions and thoughts on the matter of his capture and eventual hanging[9]. The amount of weight one can put on André's accusations during this time is questionable. He knew he would be hanged with history having written him and the captors in a web of hyperbole. He would go down in infamy as the evil traitor who nearly stole a country with no conscience or moral resolution, while the captors would be depicted as the moral epitome of society, revered for generations to come. It would only make sense for a young man in such a situation to make claims he knew would stain the image of those responsible for his suffering. Much evidence, however, is present to the contrary of the majority of his claims. For instance, it is a known fact that Paulding was taken prisoner three times by the British. Twice before the capture of André and once thereafter. He managed to escape all three times returning immediately after to return to American lines. According to his affidavit the first time he was captured "he was taken at the White Plains when under the command of Captain Requa and carried to New York and confined in the Sugar House. The second time he was taken near Tarrytown when under the command of Lieutenant Peacock and confined in the North Dutch Church, in New York; that both these times he escaped and the last of them only four days before the capture of Andre that the last time he was taken he was wounded and lay in the hospital in New York and was discharged on the arrival of the news of peace there". Further, Isaac Van Wart, with 17 people who knew him attesting to his character (including multiple persons with the last name Requa who are presumably relatives of Captain Requa whom Paulding served under) claimed in his affidavit that he had never stepped foot on British soil. This claim has never been disputed and has no reason to be. Additionally, all 17 of these persons who signed the document collectively stated: "that there is not an individual in Westchester, acquainted with Isaac Van Wart, who would hesitate to describe him as a man whose integrity is as unimpeachable as his veracity is undoubted"[8]. There is also the fact that, ultimately, upon finding André to be a traitor, the captors made the decision to turn him into the Americans despite having no reason to believe they would be in any way rewarded. This evidence paints a rather different picture of the captors than the one described by Tallmadge. These were three men who had been injured by and were confirmed to have fought against the British as Americans. They were the embodiment of what would be called "Peasant Patriotism", a sense of nationalism among Americans at the time, the pride the everyday man had for his country and the lengths they would go to in order to protect it[8].
The accusations, however, did not solely extend themselves to the patriotism of the three; their morality was also questioned. As this accusation is, by nature, not at all one that lends itself to be disputed or affirmed through facts. What facts do exist, however, seem to favor the opinion that the three captors were morally justified in their actions.
According to Issac Van Warts affidavit, he "together with David Williams and John Paulding, had secreted themselves at the side of the highway, for the purpose of detecting any persons coming from or having unlawful intercourse with the enemy, being between the two armies; a service not uncommon in those times."[8]. If their intention was, in fact, to find British enemies, then it wouldn't much matter whether they intended to take the property of these enemies as a prize should they come across one. It is known that ultimately they made the decision to turn in André. Had they been exclusively looking to plunder those passing through the region, why would they bother to transport him all the way to Col. Jameson? Another argument against the morality of the captors is that, supposedly, they had no reason to assume that the person they chose to stop at musket point was British. However, this was neutral ground and André was riding a valuable horse and although he wasn't wearing the attire of a British officer, he certainly looked rather well to do. Remember also that Paulding was the first one to confront André. Just 4 days prior he had been recovering from injuries sustained after being captured by the British. It is fair to assume that Paulding would be much more attentive and cautious than your average person in that situation. Nearly immediately after being captured, André revealed to the captors that he was, in fact, British. After this announcement, the captors developed a permanent, justified, distrust making all their actions thereafter morally acceptable.
Ultimately, regardless of their intentions in capturing André, the captor's actions on September 23rd, 1780 prevented a rather disastrous end to the Revolutionary War and allowed the United States of America to become the country it is today.
In the words of Alexander Hamilton:
"To (Andre's) conduct that of the captors of Andre formed a striking contrast He tempted them with the offer of his watch his horse and any sum of money they should name They rejected his offers with indignation and the gold that could seduce a man high in the esteem and confidence of his country who had the remembrance of past exploits the motives of present reputation and future glory to prop his integrity had no charms for three simple peasants leaning only on their virtue and an honest sense of their duty While Arnold is handed down with execration to future times posterity will repeat with reverence the names of Van Wart Paulding and Williams [1]."
2.“André, John.” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., The Columbia University Press, 2017. Questia School, www.questiaschool.com/read/1E1-Andre-Jo/andr-john. Accessed 2018.
3. Coffin, Tristram Potter. Uncertain Glory: Folklore and the American Revolution. Folklore Associates, 1971. Questia School, www.questiaschool.com/read/122372229/uncertain-glory-folklore-and-the-american-revolution. Accessed 2018. pg. 187
4. Rosenberg, Bruce A. The Neutral Ground: The André Affair and the Background of Cooper's The Spy. Greenwood Press, 1994. Questia School, www.questiaschool.com/read/27439145/the-neutral-ground-the-andr-affair-and-the-background. Accessed 2018.
5. http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/west-point/
6.Mitchell, Broadus. The Price of Independence: A Realistic View of the American Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1974. Questia School, www.questiaschool.com/read/78534535/the-price-of-independence-a-realistic-view-of-the. Accessed 2018.
7. http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/revolution-civil-war-patriot-loyalist-conflict
8. An oration pronounced before the young men of Westchester county, on the completion of a monument, erected by them to the captors of Major Andre, at Tarrytown, Oct. 7, 1853.
9. The New York Historical Society quarterly bulletin. pg. 39-43
10. http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/review/pdfs/hvrr_4pt2_diamant.pdf
6.Mitchell, Broadus. The Price of Independence: A Realistic View of the American Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1974. Questia School, www.questiaschool.com/read/78534535/the-price-of-independence-a-realistic-view-of-the. Accessed 2018.
7. http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/revolution-civil-war-patriot-loyalist-conflict
8. An oration pronounced before the young men of Westchester county, on the completion of a monument, erected by them to the captors of Major Andre, at Tarrytown, Oct. 7, 1853.
9. The New York Historical Society quarterly bulletin. pg. 39-43
10. http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/review/pdfs/hvrr_4pt2_diamant.pdf
Hello Renee I would like to talk to you about re-post of this article on our Great Great Grandfather Isaac Van Wart in the http://www.saratogabattle-sar.org/ new letter.
ReplyDeleteYou have my permission to repost this article.
DeleteHello Renee I am also a direct descendant of Issac Van Wart, 7 generations back, and am looking forward to sharing this article with my own grandson, who is 11 and starting to study the American Revolution in school. Thank you for writing this piece.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear it! It is always a special moment when your own family's history intersects with the history of your country.
DeleteMs Schmidt. Enjoyed the article. I'm related some how to Isaac Van Wart. I'm having a problem trying to get pass 1824. I've made to to George & Emilenie Van Wart. Any help would be greatly appreciated
DeleteGreetings Ms Schmidt, I appreciated your writing as well. My interest is in a deeper history of the founding of those Ohio counties named after John Paulding, Issac Van Wert, and David Williams. Thanks.
ReplyDelete