The Galloping Hessian of the Hollow: the Search for Early American Identity Through Foreign Mercenaries ______

Home , Christopher Ludwick, Hessian (soldier), Richard Prescott

THE GALLOPING HESSIAN OF THE HOLLOW: THE SEARCH FOR EARLY AMERICAN IDENTITY THROUGH FOREIGN MERCENARIES ______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton ______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

History ______

Mark R Malebranche II

Thesis Committee Approval:

Professor Jessica Stern, Chair Professor Benjamin Cawthra, Department of History Professor Allison Varzally, Department of History

Spring, 2016

ABSTRACT

The subject of an American national identity has been a source of debate for centuries. Some argue it had naturally evolved by the time of the American Revolution while others argue there was no cohesive “American” people at the time of the war. By looking at the ways in which the American colonists interpreted the presence of the

Hessian soldiers contracted by the British government during the struggle, this conversation can be continued in a new and unique way. The Hessians themselves have often been ignored by the historical record, though studying these men reveals that at the time of the American Revolution, the colonists remained divided and were rather a collection of different peoples.

I approach this study by looking primarily at the wartime press of New York and

Pennsylvania, put in context with the events of the Revolution, along with some of the early American historians (Mercy Otis Warren, David Ramsay, John Marshall, and

Washington Irving) writing in the decades following the Treaty of Paris. Differences and similarities in the ways they discussed the Hessian involvement during the American

Revolution reveal a lack of cohesive identity during and in the decades following the war.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... v

Introduction IN THE BOSOM OF ONE OF THOSE SPACIOUS COVES ...... 1

An American Legend ...... 1 Objects of Superstitious Awe: The Hessians ...... 5 What is American: The Quandary of National Identity ...... 10 The Path to Sleepy Hollow ...... 18

Chapter 1. THE DIALATING POWERS OF AN ANACONDA ...... 25

The Press of New York ...... 25 The Object of Whimsical Persecution ...... 31 A Mixture of Respect and Superstition ...... 43 Reflections on the Empire State ...... 47

2. FULL OF METTLE AND MISCHIEF ...... 50

The Pennsylvania Record ...... 50 Local Tales and Superstitions ...... 58 That Witching Hour ...... 65 A Labyrinth of Whims and Caprices ...... 79 Reflections on the Keystone State ...... 82

3. THE SLEEPY HOLLOW BOYS: AMERICA’S FIRST HISTORIANS ...... 85

Small Shrewdness and Simple Credulity ...... 86 Administering Justice with Discrimination: Four Views of the Hessian ...... 92 The Moody and Dogged Silence: Conniving Underlings or Noble Warriors ...... 96 A Rather Lonely but Pleasant Situation: Prisoners of War ...... 108 Spirited Away by Supernatural Means: The Lasting Legend of the Hessians ...... 115 If I Can but Reach that Bridge ...... 120

iii

Conclusion THE TRANQUIL SOLITUDES OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ...... 123

APPENDICES ...... 131

A. RESOLUTION FROM THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS – AUGUST 14, 1776 ...... 131

B. RESOLUTION FROM THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS – AUGUST 27, 1776 ...... 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 133

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

“Survival can be summed up in three words – never give up. That's the heart of it really. Just keep trying.” – Bear Grylls1

First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife, Kelly, for her endless support.

It has taken me seven years to finish my M.A. To say it has been a difficult process would be an understatement, but I could not have done it without her. Since 2009 I have faced financial challenges, stalled career options due in part to the economic depression

(yes, it is a depression), and coming to terms with my own alcoholism (and, fortunately, my subsequent recovery). Through it all she has been there for me and for our family. My wife has helped me to keep focused and keep positive.

During the last seven years there has also been a lot of good in my life that I am grateful for. I have welcomed two perfect children into this world and have been able to see them grow and develop their own unique personalities. There is nothing more satisfying than having not one, but two, little people in your life whose day becomes immediately brighter with something as simple as you entering the room. It is truly humbling to know that these children, with their own special ways of experiencing the world around them, would not exist without you. It is nothing short of miraculous. To paraphrase Homer J. Simpson, they are my single greatest accomplishments and they have done it all themselves.

1 http://www.buddytv.com/articles/man-vs-wild/man-vs-wild-season-3-debuts-to-21816.aspx

Through this all, the work towards my M.A. has been incredibly rewarding. I have faced heavy criticism with comments like “just face it, you’re never going to finish” and

“you’ve spent how long on your degree?! How much money have you wasted on that thing?” They do not see it, but they have completely missed the point. It has not been about money or just finishing it already. It has been a personal journey in which I have grown immensely. I would like to thank Dr. Jessica Stern and Dr. Benjamin Cawthra for inspiring and encouraging me over the years. They have both pushed me to be a better historian. I would also like to thank Dr. Allison Varzally for stepping into my thesis committee at the last minute and Dr. Volker Janssen for always helping his students to look beyond the facts to see the “so what.” Finally, thank you to my parents and my in- laws for their continued love and support. This thesis is not so much mine as it is the combined effort of everyone who has encouraged me along the way.

vi 1

INTRODUCTION

IN THE BOSOM OF ONE OF THOSE SPACIOUS COVES

An American Legend

Within American society there exist several classic Halloween stories and franchises that children and adults alike look forward to every fall. Slasher movies, zombie flicks, and vampire stories are among the most popular in this second decade of the twenty-first century. As trends come and go, however, one Halloween story has stood the test of time in America and is continually re-imagined with each passing year:

Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” This short story is not only one of the United States’ first true Halloween legends, but it is also a part of one of the nation’s first strong pieces of literature.

Countless Americans continue to revel in reading, watching, or listening to one of the many incarnations of Irving’s enduring legend because the story has the same elements popular in thrillers across time and space. More than just a simple ghost story,

“The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” penetrates the core of psychological terror by touching on what can happen when one allows their imagination to run away with them. Perhaps one of the strongest appeals it that we never find out what actually happened to Ichabod, but are left only to assume. He either left Sleepy Hollow following his run in with the

Headless Horseman or else he truly was spirited away. Regardless of his personal fate,

Irving’s tale ends with events of that evening entering the pantheon of Sleepy Hollow lore.

Just as Crane became a part of the local legend among those living in Irving’s

Sleepy Hollow, so too did he enter into popular American culture. The story of Ichabod

Crane and his run in with the Headless Horseman has been reinvented many times since its original inception.2 This tale has obviously stood the test of time, but what has been lost over the decades is that “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” more than a simple ghost story, also criticized American society.3 The story is a criticism of how nineteenth century American culture had turned their backs on Revolutionary ideals and had become a society focused on materialism and status. Three of the four main characters, Ichabod

2 In 1949 Walt Disney took a stab at the story (with the help of Bing Crosby) in The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (according to the Disney Insider website, http://disney.go.com/disneyinsider/history/movies/the-adventures-of-ichabod-and-mr-toad). In the early 1980s Jeff Goldblum (as Crane) and ex-NFL player Dick Butkis (as Brom Bones) starred in yet another retelling of Irving’s tale (which paints Ichabod as a skeptical, scientifically minded educator, standing in stark contrast to the character’s origins as a Cotton Mather reading, superstitious opportunist. The made- for-TV movie also introduces the character as a more typical Hollywood leading man rather than the gangly, awkward looking figure described in The Sketchbook.). It is currently available for viewing on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzjaFuvFfw). Also in the 1980s, an episode of The Real Ghostbusters featured an episode called “The Headless Motorcyclist” which acts as a sequel to Ichabod’s story set in modern times. Likewise, 1990s Nickelodeon show Are You Afraid of the Dark? aired an episode “The Tale of the Midnight Ride” also as a modern take on the original legend. In 1999, Tim Burton released another adaptation, simply titled Sleepy Hollow, which had more in common with the Jeff Goldblum treatment. Crane appears not as a superstitious schoolmaster, but as a scientifically oriented police inspector sent to Sleepy Hollow to probe into suspicious decapitations. More than that, Burton’s version of the story ultimately robs the Horseman of his sense of awe and authority when the viewer discovers he was only a tool being used by a woman practicing witchcraft in an elaborate plot for revenge. First airing in September 2013, Fox has debuted a television series (also titled Sleepy Hollow) in which Crane is portrayed as a solider-spy of the American Revolution, originally from England, who appears to die in combat while decapitating the Hessian who would become the Headless Horseman. He awakes in present day Sleepy Hollow where he must partner with the local police lieutenant, Abby Mills, to prevent the End of Days predicted in Revelations. It is also discovered that the Headless Horseman is one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. For more about this reinterpretation, you can reference an Op Ed piece I wrote for History News Network (http://hnn.us/article/153582). Two and a half years later, the series still proves to be popular. Also in 2013, the rebooted Smurfs franchise released a straight-to-DVD video called The Legend of Smurfy Hollow. Almost 200 years later, the story is still being reinvented and retold. 3 Irving often used wit and humor to comment on what he saw wrong with the American people. Actor Robert Wuhl has describes Irving as “America’s first internationally known author.” As a point of comparison, he mentions that during his literary career Irving, “becomes Stephen King, Steven Tyler, and Stephen Spielberg rolled up into one.” Assume the Position with Mr. Wuhl. Dir. Nick Doob, Chris Hegedus, and D. A. Pennebaker. Perf. Robert Wuhl. Home Box Office, Inc., 2006. DVD.

Crane, Brom Bones, and Katrina Van Tassel, are fairly unsympathetic figures. Van

Tassel deliberately manipulates her own personal love triangle by pitting Crane against

Bones. She harbors no true feelings for Crane, but leads him on for the sole purpose of making Bones, the object of her true affection, jealous. Van Tassel certainly does not serve as a good example for women in the early republic to emulate.

Brom Bones is rough, rowdy, and unsophisticated. He becomes jealous easily.

Bones’ saving grace is that he is not the kind of person to intend any sort of ill will on the victims of his shenanigans. He is a true country bumpkin. In many ways Bones is the polar opposite of his nemesis. Crane is goofy, bookish, and odd looking, a true Yankee

Doodle, where Bones is masculine and attractive (the town catch). Crane is superstitious to a fault, which makes him easy prey for Bones. The pedagogue is also very much an opportunist. Much of his interest in Van Tassel is in her father’s pocket book.

Crane is the antithesis of Revolutionary ideals.4 He moves quickly and always tries to find the personal advantage in any given situation. He is not concerned with the rights of man. For Irving, Bones and Crane represent two different types of “modern”

American men: the cultureless brute and the opportunist seeking status and social mobility. Sleepy Hollow, on the other hand, represents the simplicity Irving saw in pre-

Revolutionary America. Sleepy Hollow is simple, quiet, surrounded by nature, more provincial, and removed from any sort of affairs outside of the small town. Ghosts permeate the town and yet Sleepy Hollow is, in a way, a ghost of the past itself. Ichabod

(the present) invades himself upon the town and as school/choirmaster attempts to force the values and ideals of the Early Republic to the quiet town.

4 Though David Ramsay argued materialism and self-interest were what fueled the Revolution.

More importantly, the story reminds the reader that America itself remained divided even in the years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Much like the states in the Early Republic, Bones, Crane, and Van Tassel continually worked against each other to try to achieve their own self-serving interests. There is no shared group identity and no desire to think beyond themselves. This leaves the fourth main character, the most significant and elusive in the legend, as perhaps the one person who should be the most sympathetic. He is also the one character with the most direct connection to the American Revolution.

This character, one talked about throughout but not seen until the end, is the same villain who haunted Ichabod that fateful midnight ride: the Headless Horseman.

According to Irving, he was more than a simple apparition. He points out that the specter was “the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannon-ball, in some nameless battle during the Revolutionary War…”5 In fact, to drive the point home throughout the story Irving continues to refer to the Headless Horseman as “the

Galloping Hessian.” The ghost could have been anyone. He does not have to be a

Hessian. But Irving meant to invoke a specific image, and a specific popular memory, in casting his ghost. Oftentimes a story is only as good as its villain. In the early nineteenth century, a Revolutionary-era Hessian soldier indeed made a captivating villain.

The Headless Horseman is more of an outsider than Crane, and is in one aspect representative of the role the Hessians played during the American War for

Independence. Bones uses the Headless Horseman to intimidate and scare Crane.

Similarly, the Hessians were hired as tools of war against the colonial Patriots. With no political stake in the struggle, the Hessians were seen at times as free agents and

5 Washington Irving, The Sketch-Book (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1996): 292.

5 potentially up for grabs, just as the Headless Horseman has no loyalty to Bones, but sees the opportunity to snatch Crane’s head (assuming the Horseman was, in fact, a Hessian ghost and not Brom Bones in disguise). Though while Irving’s Hessian remains a ghost stuck in the Revolutionary past, at the time he was writing several thousand Hessian soldiers had already settled and raised families in the country they once fought against.

To the readers during Irving’s lifetime the Headless Horseman was a reminder of our nation’s founding and is a clear symbol of the Revolution.6 Those who turn their backs to the ideals that had created the nation, as Crane did, find themselves forced to confront the past eventually. For Crane, someone far removed from those ideals, the story ends unhappily.

Objects of Superstitious Awe: The Hessians

The Hessian soldiers who fought in the American war for independence were by all accounts markedly trained and highly respected men. They are often referred to as mercenaries, but with incorrect connotations. Whereas mercenaries are typically thought of as soldiers that fight only for personal gain and have no ties or allegiances to a specific nation, the Hessians held strong loyalty to their homeland and their prince. For them the fight was not about greed, but about “pride, honor, and status.”7 According to David

Hackett Fischer, “though they hoped to make their fortunes in America, they were not mercenaries in the usual sense. These were men of courage and honor who believed in service to their prince, and they lived and died by a warrior’s creed.”8

6 Of course, the Headless Horseman is not the only Revolutionary symbol mentioned in Irving’s tale. At one point Crane also comes upon “the tree where the unfortunate Major Andre had been taken prisoner” (Irving, The Sketch-Book, 313). 7 Daniel Krebs, A Generous and Merciful Enemy: Life for German Prisoners of War during the American Revolution (Norman, Ok: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013): 23. 8 David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): 59.

Living in Hesse-Cassel (in part of what is now Germany), a region with limited natural resources, the Hessian Landgraf commonly contracted out the soldiers in the region to assist other nations in political and military struggles to supplement the national income to a sustainable level.9 It was the subsidy treaties, such as the one with the British during the American Revolution, that allowed the Hessians and other states within the

Holy Roman Empire to maintain standing armies and to play a bigger role in European politics.10 At the time of the war, the Hessians functioned as a living anachronism because the European nations were in a period of transition between Medieval Feudalism and modern conscript armies.11 The Hessians fell somewhere in between. The philosophical reasons for the war, especially the fundamental desire for freedom from tyranny, made these men seem that much more out of place and stood as proof to Patriots of what was wrong with society.12

King George III contracted the Hessians to come and fight on American soil to support the British army during the American Revolution because he needed the military support. The British government paid the Landgraf of Hesse-Cassel for this help. These men (for the most part) had already received professional military training from their home nation. Many considered the Hessians the premier soldiers of the day and they knew how to intimidate their opponents. At times the Hessians would even cut their clothing shorter so they would appear bigger.13 Historically, the people of Hesse-Cassel had a reputation for being war-like, having been descended from the ancient warrior tribe

9 For the purposes of this paper, I will be using the spelling “Cassel” rather than “Kassel,” except as it may appear in formal titles or quotations, as “Cassel” was more commonly used prior to the twentieth century. 10 Krebs, 23. 11 Rodney Atwood, The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hesse-Kassel in the American Revolution (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1980): 1. Krebs, 8. 12 Atwood, 1. Krebs, 32. 13 Christof Mauch, "Images of America - Political Myths - Historiography: 'Hessians' in the War of Independence," Amerikastudien, 48.3 (2003): 414.

Catti.14 It has been estimated that at times they made up as much as a third of the British army.15Though Daniel Krebs observes that these men were in fact a “motley mix of soldiers,” comprised of new recruits, seasoned veterans, temporary volunteers, and those that wanted to stay in America.16

At the time of the war, the Hessian state was Calvinist and the army was the largest in Germany.17 Of the initial 12,974 men that entered into British service in 1776, most of them were excited to serve and looked forward to receiving good pay in the land where fortunes were made.18 The soldiers’ average age was 24, they were mostly

Protestant, and while few were married, most had either partners or families at overseas they had some kind of responsibility over.19 These were men, perhaps not from the bottom of society, but certainly from the lower classes, who regularly sent money home to their families for support. The Hessians left a strong impression on the American colonists at the time of war, so much so that Thomas Jefferson mentioned them in the nation’s most enduring document, the Declaration of Independence.20

Upon their arrival, the colonists saw the Hessians as “agents of tyranny,” which actually helped to spur feelings of patriotism among the Americans.21 Over the course of the war early fears of Hessian defection would prove correct as some did decide to desert and remain in the fledgling nation. As the war progressed, the British needed the

Hessians to send more men to assist the British, however the Landgraf found his army in

14 Atwood, 12. 15 Krebs, 3. 16 Ibid, 9. 17 Atwood, 12, 20. 18 Ibid, 50, 52. 19 Krebs, 9. 20 Though not specifically called out as Hessians, the “foreign Mercenaries” hired to “compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny” are most definitely in reference to this group that also happened to share a common ancestry with a significant portion of the British North American population. 21 Mauch, 414.

8 short supply. German recruiters resorted to enlisting vagrants, runaway serfs, petty criminals, and even deserters from other armies (who were trained but eyed with suspicion given the fact they already deserted once).22

Despite the contemporary reputation that the British had the greatest army in the world at this time, without help from the Hessians, it would have been much more difficult for them to wage a war against the Patriots.23 By this point in history, Great

Britain did not keep a standing army because the English Civil War had convinced

English society of its corruptibility.24 Furthermore, the American Revolution had not been the first time Great Britain made use of the Hessian army, just the first time they had been used in America.25 Some even anticipated King George III would recruit their services and were excited at the prospect of escaping feudal rule or even just seeking adventure.26 Lieutenant John Charles Philip von Kraft, for example, was a member of the

Prussian army who decided to leave and join the Hessian forces bound for America.27 On the way he fell in love with and married a French woman.28 Von Kraft lead a life based on going wherever opportunity presented itself.

While the Hessians were integral to the British that first year of the war, almost immediately friends from Europe started advising the colonial political leaders that these men might be willing to desert.29 This prompted a dual campaign in which the Patriot

22 Krebs, 38. 23 According to Paul Lockhart, at the time of the Revolution the Prussian army under Frederick the Great, while not the largest or more advanced, was stronger than the British army (Lockhart, 14). 24 Krebs, 19. 25 Arthur Graeff, The Relations Between the Pennsylvania Germans and the British Authorities (1750- 1776) (Norristown, Pa.: Norristown Herald, Inc., 1935): 98. 26 Krebs, 43-44. 27 John Charles Philip von Krafft, Journal of Lieutenant John Charles Philip Von Krafft (New York: New York Times, 1968): 3-5. 28 Krafft, 7-8. 29 Atwood, 58-59.

9 leaders began to strategize around encouraging Hessian deserters (and trying to alleviate civilian views of the men as vicious spawns of Satan), while the British tried to foster a sense of animosity for the Patriots among the Hessians by emphasizing the belief that the colonists were rebelling against their rightful king.30 The British also tended to overstate the Hessian and British bonds to the press and even told the Hessians that the Patriots were ruthless to captives, ironically something the Patriots thought of the Hessians.31

The Hessians relied solely on the British and the Loyalists for their knowledge of the Patriot motivations, which further encouraged the view that the Patriots were little more than ungrateful subjects.32 The initial Hessian hatred for the Patriots came from a lack of understanding, especially because they saw a standing army as a way to safeguard personal freedoms.33

It is true that the degree to which the Hessians were present during the war varied from colony to colony, and that these differences would no doubt color individuals’ perceptions of the men. In addition to this, one’s political leanings, from Patriot to

Loyalist (and everywhere in between) would affect how one viewed the Hessian presence as well. As a result, the colonists making up the first Americans did not know how to face these men. Their struggle to define the foreign invaders paralleled their struggle to make sense of themselves as a nation. Accounts of Hessian activity varied based on time and location during the war. While some expressed discontent over the savagery of the

Hessians, others respected their military prowess. Oftentimes the political leanings of individual newspapers attempted to sway the opinions of the average citizen, whether pro

30 Ibid, 59-60. 31 Gregory T. Knouff, The Soldiers’ Revolution: Pennsylvanians in Arms and the Forging of Early American Identity (University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004): 108. 32 Atwood, 159. 33 Ibid, 162.

10 or anti-Hessian. Regardless of whether these men were seen as villains or antiheroes in the fight for freedom, one common belief was that these men were a force to be reckoned with if faced as adversaries.

The Hessians came to represent an anomaly in the war for independence. They had no direct political motivation in the war. More so, the newly formed United States was still trying to figure out what it meant to be the United States and the strongest sense they had was that they were the antithesis of Britain. It became difficult to resolve where the Hessians fit in. Sure they shared a common ancestry with a significant portion of the

American population, however the Germany that so many Americans had already immigrated from was far from unified itself. At the same time, they were not automatically enemies. Many chose to desert and stay in the nation following the war.

They became neighbors and contributing members of society. In fact, one of the Hessians that remained in America even left his mark on the 1789 inauguration of President

George Washington. As Carol Berkin points out, the song “The President’s March,” was

“composed in honor of Washington by a captured Hessian soldier who remained in

America after the Revolutionary War.”34 How does one tell the story of brutal Hessian forces fighting alongside the tyrannical British when that was not universally the case?

What is American: The Quandary of National Identity

Unlike other nations, the United States had no shared culture or ethnicity for a natural identity to be created around, so the question of when America formed a cohesive identity is constantly being debated. As a result, two theories have emerged. Some

34 Carol Berkin, A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution (Boston: Mariner Books, 2002): 201. Interestingly enough, Lord Rawdon had previously commented on the similarities and differences between Hessian and American singing, primarily that they are both loud, but the Hessians lack the same twang (Atwood, 61).

11 historians argue a national identity had been established in the decades leading up to the

American Revolution, and in fact made the Revolution possible. Others suggest such an identity remained lacking, or altogether absent, during the war.

Historians who agree that America had no cohesive identity at the time of the

Revolution, tend to further agree on two points about American society. First, the citizens who made up the first few generations of Americans went through a significant period of change between the beginning of the American Revolution and the first couple of decades in the nineteenth century. As Gordon Wood points out, it was in the wake of the

Revolution that the Founding Fathers saw an opportunity to create a homogeneous society.35 Liam Riordan argues that the American Revolution collapsed the colonial order and created an environment in which people from different ethnic spheres began to take public action as never before.36 Gregory Knouff points out that in particular the

Pennsylvanians involved in the struggle believed they were “defending a localist nation.”37 It was in the military that it began to be possible to define the term

“American.”38

In his study of ordinary soldiers fighting in the war, Knouff confronts national identity as a regional experience. He points out that it was the common soldier who shaped the war’s outcome, thus it is crucial to understand how they conceived of revolution and the society in which they lived.39 These men, who represented the poor, were able to shape their own futures through military action. When common soldiers

35 Gordon Wood, The American Revolution: A History (New York: Random House, 2002): XXIII. 36 Liam Riordan, Many Identities, One Nation: The Revolution and Its Legacy in the Mid-Atlantic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007): 7-11. Riordan mentions that the Revolution forced people to reconsider how to redefine one another through the lenses of “popular sovereignty” and “republican equality.” 37 Knouff, 77. 38 Ibid, XV. 39 Knouff, XII.

12 from Pennsylvania fought for the continued existence of their community, what they fought for was not for the nation as a whole, but for their imagined community.40 For these common soldiers, revolution provided an opportunity for them to conceptualize and assert a new society dominated by “white” males.41 The fragmented European populations scattered throughout the colony would no longer be seen as different men of different cultures and nations but as one larger ethnic group.

Though while Knouff suggests that a new Euro-centric community came into existence, Bernard Bailyn points out that in the middle colonies, the “whole middle circuit of British North America, founded by diverse peoples from all over the American colonies, and from Britain, Western Europe, and West Africa, was the scene of continuous contention.”42 Furthermore, he states “newcomers from overseas were everywhere: Germans and Scotch-Irish could be found in almost every colony.”43 This put the nation in a unique situation where there was no common heritage, no historical ethnic, cultural, or religious background in which the citizens could all relate to. While some have argued American nationhood was preordained, others state in all actuality it was contingent on the choices made by the colonists themselves.44 Ellis argues “the very term ‘American Revolution’ propagates a wholly fictional sense of national coherence

40 Ibid, 2-3. 41 New concepts of race and ethnicity at the time enabled those of European descent to assimilate into the dominant Anglo society. 42 Bernard Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books, 1986): 97. 43 Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America, 17. 44 Boorstin, 325 and Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Vintage Books, 2000): 4-5. Boorstin argues that “a nation appeared here before there was a national spirit of the kind which elsewhere had created nations” while Ellis points out that “Early premonitions of American destiny have been reinforced and locked into our collective memory.” He further suggests “The creation of a separate American nation occurred suddenly rather than gradually, in revolutionary rather than evolutionary fashion... No one present at the start knew how it would turn out in the end.”

13 not present at the moment...”45 It was through the struggle for independence that the colonists started to become “Americans.” Furthermore, the term “American” which today is a source of pride and patriotism throughout the nation was initially considered an insult among those living in England.46

The second point scholars typically agree on is that the nation existed with no one identity or sense of direction in the decades following the war because the United States of America was a unique nation in that it had no singular ethnic base. For example,

Daniel Boorstin mentions that, “between the Revolution and the Civil War the young nation flourished not in discovery but in search.”47 Meanwhile Riordan points out that

“competing bids to define the nation spurred ongoing contests among localist and cosmopolitan forces that made national society and culture increasingly palpable in the

1820s.”48 For historians like Riordan and Boorstin, the end of the war was only the beginning of the American journey for identity.

Others, who counter that there was a pre-existing American identity, argue, like

Ben Railton, that, “such a vital and common American culture has been present throughout all the centuries of postcontact existence: a unifying national experience and identity that is neither composed of one macroculture nor divided into many individual

45 Ellis, Founding Brothers, 6. 46 Ellis, Founding Brothers, 10. Ellis points out that “The initial identification of the colonial population as ‘Americans’ came from English writers who used the term negatively, as a way of referring to a marginal or peripheral population unworthy of equal status with full-blooded Englishmen back at the metropolitan center of the British Empire.” 47 Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The National Experience (New York: Vintage Books, 1965): 1. Joseph Ellis in particular also points out that the primary reason the nation did not simply break down into a handful of regional governments was the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers, 8). 48 Riordan, 249.

14 cultures.”49 This theory suggests that the revolution occurred because the Americans felt instinctually that they were no longer British, and as such felt a natural desire to separate from the mother country. Though historians like Railton tend to be among the minority.

The most commonly accepted theory is that no singular identity existed at the time of the war.

As this thesis shows, focusing on different American’s interpretations of the

Hessians provides a new, and yet-unexplored, way to assess the debate about an

American identity. With only one notable exception to this historiographical trend, the few scholars who have written about the Hessians have focused primarily on their role in the military.50

To date there exist only four strong entries in the Hessian historiographical record.51 They all approach the subject from different perspectives, but all seek to correct

49 Ben Railton, Redefining American Identity: From Cabeza de Vaca to Barack Obama (New York: Palmgrave McMillon, 2011): 8. 50 Mauch, 411-412. This omission is odd considering the shared ethnicity between the Hessians and much of the American population at the time of the war. Only a few scattered pieces on the Hessians were written in the mid-twentieth century, however published primary sources are plentiful. The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association has spent decades researching and publishing the stories of Hessian soldiers that remained in America following the war and Bruce E. Burgoyne has translated and published several Hessian diaries. One of Burgoyne’s best selling translations, the diary of Johann Ernst Prechtel, contains a lot of great raw data, including the names and dates of deserters, based on Prechtel’s observations. A variety of Hessian diaries and letters have also been translated and published over the years. Also available is the Hetrina, a comprehensive compilation of the Hessians that fought in America. While these sources are certainly important in offering the Hessian view of the war, it was not until 1980 that the first notable study connected the Hessians to the larger historical conversation on the war. 51 To this day, more recently the majority of published works on the war tend to include passing references to the Hessians without going into much detail about the impact of their service to the Crown. Their physical presence tends to be mentioned factually, however it remains lacking in serious analysis. Periodically historians focused criticism on the Hessians themselves, discussing the fear and hate colonists had for these men. In such instances, descriptions of the rapacious Hessian appetite and the amount of pillage, plunder, and rape endured by the colonists abound, though it should be noted that the British and the Patriots were also guilty of plunder throughout the war (Atwood, 178). However there are few real studies placing these men as central characters in the story of the Revolution, which neglects an intriguing relationship. At the conclusion of the war an estimated 5,000 of the approximately 30,000 Hessians that fought on the continent remained in America to build new lives (most estimates say about 20,000 of these men were true Hessians while the other 10,000 were from surrounding Germanic states). For the purposes of this paper the term “Hessian” will be applied generically to these men regardless of their Germanic origins, as it became the common vernacular to describe the solders contracted from Germany. It would

15 mistaken perceptions of the German mercenaries and their role in the American

Revolution. Furthermore, these studies fall into one of two categories: works that focus primarily on the Hessians and works that look to the Hessians as a lens through which the

American people can be analyzed. These four books can be divided equally between the two approaches.

Rodney Atwood takes the first approach in his study of the Hessians in his book,

The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution. Atwood does not link the Hessians to American identity, however his work is the first significant scholarly examination of the Hessians. His study largely serves to confront and correct myths about these men. Atwood describes the Hessians as the main characters of the

American Revolution, however he also takes the time to compare them to the American forces as a way of showing how anachronistic the Germanic foes had become in the minds of the European public. That said, Atwood places the Hessians at the forefront of his history of the war. Ultimately he seeks to bring a balanced view of the Hessians by sharing their perspective on the war.

Similarly, Daniel Krebs’ book, A Generous and Merciful Enemy: Life for German

Prisoners of War during the American Revolution, (published in 2013) also views the

Hessians as the primary figures in his study of the American Revolution. Krebs discusses the experiences of common German soldiers that were taken prisoners in North America.

While still not entering into the discussion of American national identity, his goal is to tell the story of an ignored group within an ignored group. He highlights the ways in which the German prisoners of war presented challenges for the Patriots and focused on seem that for some to stay, they would need to be commonly accepted among the citizens of the newly founded nation. The fact that so many Hessians remained suggests that Americans may have had a very dynamic view of their new nation.

16 the intricacies of surrender and capture. Krebs estimates 5,400 common Hessian soldiers were taken captive over the course of the Revolution, however they have mostly remained absent from the historical record, especially within their own nation’s history, because they had failed their country and thus did not make good heroes.52

In 2004, David Hackett Fischer published Washington’s Crossing, the first major study that uses the Hessians as a way to analyze the Americans. His work focuses Battle of Trenton, which was an integral moment that served to boost colonial morale at a point when all had seemed lost. Fischer provides excellent background information on the

Hessians and how they ended up fighting, however his argument focuses on how integral the Battle of Trenton was to the Patriot cause. The Hessians played a significant role in that struggle, but for Fischer the story is more about how the Patriots were able to come together to stand up to and defeat Colonel Rall and his forces at a critical moment in the war.

Ken Miller’s Dangerous Guests: Enemy Captives and Revolutionary

Communities during the War for Independence, published in 2014, is similar to Fischer, in that it uses the Hessians as a way to interpret the Americans. However, unlike Fischer,

Miller’s story shows how the Hessians were thoroughly integrated into American daily life. Also unique among the major Hessian studies is the fact that Miller argues how the wartime experience, especially the presence of the Hessians, affected a burgeoning national identity. Miller looks specifically at Lancaster, Pennsylvania and discusses how the Hessians affected otherwise separate cultural, ethnic, and religious groups in the community. The war as well as the British and Hessian prisoners held in the city had a strong impact on budding patriotism and cross-cultural interactions in the ethnically

52 Krebs, 3.

17 diverse community. Miller argues that the wartime conditions allowed the culturally divided community to come together in union, however it was only a temporary phenomenon. Once the war ended the British and German residents of Lancaster resumed previous divisions.

This thesis primarily relates most directly to Miller’s study. As with his research, this work looks at the ways in which the Hessian presence reflected a lack of true national identity. While Miller specifically addresses the community of Lancaster, which had conflicting English and German residents and likewise became a prison camp for English and German prisoners of war, this study goes beyond Lancaster. I approach this thesis by focusing on the ways the Hessians were viewed by the newspapers in New York and

Pennsylvania during the war, and later by the early American historians (for the purposes of this thesis David Ramsay, John Marshall, Mercy Otis Warren, and literary master

Washington Irving). While my approach is broader than Miller’s, my primary sources are more narrowly focused than his. Miller relies primarily on government legislation and correspondence to and from the community (both from the Continental Congress and the state officials) as well as personal correspondence, memoirs, and journals. He uses articles from the local press peripherally. While legislation, memoirs, journals, and personal correspondence have informed this work, my study primarily relies first and foremost on what the local presses were saying about the Hessians, as well as the early histories of Warren, Ramsay, Marshall, and Irving considered as primary sources.

Warren, Ramsay, and Marshall all lived through the revolution and all approached the subject from different backgrounds and experiences, from Federalist to Antifederalist and

New Englander to Southerner, while Irving looked at the war as a representative of the first generation born in the American nation.

While Miller discusses how the different ethnic groups in Lancaster came together as one people during the war, I address the continued divisions across New York and Pennsylvania. Miller also argues that the different groups in Lancaster ended up splitting again across ethnic and cultural lines once the war ended while I look towards the efforts by later historians to minimize these divisions. While Miller suggests the residents of Lancaster came to a common consensus about the Hessians, I focus on the different ways in which they were written about across time and space, and how it reflects a lack of natural, cohesive national identity. More so, I point out that the later efforts from the early American historians to construct a national identity, and excluding the Hessians in doing so, implies the lack of such an identity. In a way, I have taken a concept similar to Miller’s but applied it differently. In the end Miller argues the community of Lancaster was only able to come together because of the war while I argue that New York and Pennsylvania remained divided during and following the war. On the surface these may seem contradictory, however Miller’s Lancaster required a temporarily constructed identity that did not take hold once the war was won while I point to efforts to construct a non-existent identity both during and after the war. Any instances in which

Patriots were able to come together were both constructed and temporary.

The Path to Sleepy Hollow

The Hessians represent an interesting quirk in the American struggle not just for independence, but also for identity. At a time when Americans were trying to figure out who they were and what they were doing as a nation, they had to likewise define how the

Hessians fit into the struggle. The American Revolution was not a simple case of “us versus them.” The Hessian presence was something that needed to be contended with as the nation was figuring out who it was. Oftentimes there was no one way the Hessians were viewed, either by the individual colonies, or by the newly created American nation as a whole.

New York, ever the hotbed of diversity, not only struggled to make sense of its citizens in relation to one another, but also became a source of particular focus and

Hessian activity during the revolution. As the British retained control over the area for the duration of the war, their view dominated the local press. However, the press leading up to the siege of New York was less favorable towards the Hessians and Patriots continued to live among the Loyalists, Hessians, and British Regulars. Pennsylvania, at the time, was the home of the new American government and an area in the nation in which there had been significant German immigration in previous years. Even with a sizeable population with a shared Germanic ancestry, the Hessians were not universally welcomed. With as much, if not more, diversity than New York, Pennsylvania had a numerous hubs of individual societies that considered themselves part of the British empire while retaining their individual cultures.

Attention is paid specifically to the journalism of the two colonies; looking at the published articles from The Pennsylvania Evening Post, The Freeman’s Journal, The

New-York Gazette, The Constitutional Gazette, The New-York Journal, and The Royal

Gazette. These sources are supplemented by journal entries and personal correspondence.

Maintaining a strong focus on newspaper articles highlights the first efforts to construct the story of the Revolution for the citizens of New York and Pennsylvania. Journalism

20 has also been considered the first version of the historical record and as such the treatment of the Hessians in the press might yield insight into the early construction of

United States history by the men who ran the news. More than that, power of the press contributed significantly to thoughts and feelings about the war in America.

Over the past several decades many historians have attributed the fervor in opposition to the Stamp Act, for example, as being rooted in the power of the press during the imperial crisis. In addition to this, the newspaper industry began to boom in mid-eighteenth century America as more continental paper mills were built due to importation agreements in the 1760s that limited the paper supply available on the eastern seaboard. Throughout the American Revolution both the British government and those rebelling in the name of freedom leveraged the local newspapers to assert their own agendas. Regionally the political perspective taken by individual newspapers depended on whether or not their particular area was controlled by the British government. As

British regulars overran New York and Philadelphia, for example, Rebel newspapers either relocated to more friendly areas or else changed allegiances.

Debate on the nature of the news has continued through the past several decades.

Frank Mott emphasizes the lack of organization among the colonies in covering the war, as well as the reliance on the chance arrival of personal letters as well as official and semi-official messages. Sidney Kobre argues that the press reflected larger social trends by appealing to each area’s particular clientele. Trish Loughran meanwhile asserts that the printed word remained a part of local and regional reading publics rather than reflecting a national consciousness. Whether the press influenced public perception of the

Hessian presence or merely reflected it, the stories about Hessians in America described

21 in colonial print reveal much about how they were received in America and how that reception varied across time and place.

At the time of war, debates raged within the colonies between Loyalists (colonists who supported the crown, sometimes called Tories) and those who supported revolution

(commonly referred to as Patriots, Rebels, or Whigs). Even within the groups that supported revolution there were factions; those who wanted to incite change and remain within the empire were pitted against those that wanted to make a clean break with

Parliament and the King. On a macro-level the colonies themselves found it difficult to agree on anything. The fact that they all agreed on independence in 1776 was a remarkable feat, but they still considered themselves separate entities. The population within the colonies, especially New York and Pennsylvania, also reflected a great diversity as many different cultures from Europe had intermixed for decades by the time of revolution. The war did not change ethnic, cultural, and political divisions in America.

In parallel to the press, looking to the nation’s first historians further points to an evolution in national character.

The motivation for America’s earliest historians was not simply to capture the nation’s story, but rather to construct a national identity. For some, like Washington

Irving, writing was a method of criticizing the nation, as in “Rip Van Winkle.” Van

Winkle awoke after a two-decade nap to see just how drastically the world changed.

Other historians, like Warren, Marshall, and Ramsay, wished to argue for the consolidation of a truly American people. In all of their writings they referred to the people as “Americans.” During discussion of the war references to colonists and rebels were avoided. At a point when individuals most closely associated with their own states,

22 or even towns, this is significant. Up until the Civil War people would describe the nation in terms like “the United States are” rather than the contemporary “the United States is.”53 In their writing, the early American historians succeeded in constructing a national identity by around the time Irving wrote “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

The first chapter of this thesis focuses on the New York experience. At first New

Yorkers expressed displeasure at the prospect of Hessians on the North American continent. However the state quickly fell to the British and throughout the majority of the war the Hessians appear in the press as strong, noble men. Taken at face value, it would seem the New Yorkers all consented not only to the British presence, but to that of the

Hessians as well. However, for a colony with a reputation for disorder and chaos, the only reasonable explanation for such a one-sided view of the Hessians is that British sympathizers controlled the press in the colony. While a diversity of opinion in New

York is not readily apparent, in contrast to Pennsylvania it becomes obvious that the two states, let alone the entire nation, are not of the same mind.

The second chapter discusses the interpretation of the Hessian presence in

Pennsylvania during the war. In closely reading the primary sources reflecting popular opinion of these men it is apparent that Pennsylvanians were unsure of how to treat the

Hessian presence. Some sources are complimentary while others are highly critical and even call for the eradication of the Hessian menace. As with New York, initial reactions to the Hessians tended towards the negative, however with Congressional propaganda campaigns to encourage Hessian desertion and the numerous Hessian prisoners living among the citizens of Pennsylvania, personal relationships began to form. Another

53 As stated early, this can be attributed to the fact that the view of America as a unified nation really only became commonplace after the Civil War.

23 complicating factor is the effect the fall of Philadelphia to the British had on the press.

Suddenly a much stronger Loyalist perspective presented itself in the local newspapers.

However towards the end of the war, and following the British evacuation of the

Philadelphia, there are still published articles sympathetic to the Hessians.

The final chapter focuses on the early American histories written by John

Marshall, David Ramsay, and Mercy Otis Warren, with later reflections from Washington

Irving. Marshall, Ramsay, and Warren all lived through the war while Irving belongs to the first true generation of Americans. Moreover, all four came from very different backgrounds and each had a unique view of the war based on their own individual experiences. Warren loved America and the Revolutionary cause but was a staunch

Antifederalist, whereas Ramsay and Marshall both supported the Constitution. Following success of the American Revolution several historians, including Ramsay, Marshall, and

Warren, went to work constructing their identity but writing the story of the Revolution.

The new nation also began the task of creating national symbols, including David

Crockett, whose feats became known throughout the states even before he died.54 This was an arduous task as the colonists still had trouble conceiving themselves as part of a nation larger than their individual communities.

Irving was born too young to remember anything from the war, but the experiences his parents had during that time would have an impact on his life (right down to naming him Washington). Having somewhat of an outside perspective, Irving tended to prefer English culture to early nineteenth century America. He also habitually criticized and satirized the American society he experienced during his lifetime. These early histories show an identity in the process of being constructed. The need to construct

54 Boorstin, 327-337.

24 an identity implies the lack of one. The way in which the Hessians appear in each history, and in many cases the lack thereof, serves as evidence.

For the purposes of this paper, the term “Patriot” will refer to any colonist of the

British North American mainland colonies that supported the Continental Congress and the break with Great Britain to form the United States of America. “Loyalist” will refer to any colonist who supported Parliament and King George, and wanted to remain a loyal subject of Great Britain. Likewise, the term “British” refers to anything supporting or in reference to the Great Britain government and military. “American” refers to anything supporting or in reference to the Continental Congress and newly formed United States government.55 “Regulars” refers to the soldiers of Great Britain. Finally, the term

“Hessian” refers to the Germanic soldiers that were contracted out to come and fight as supplementary troops to the British Regulars. Though it should be noted, while I use the term for the sake of clarity, it does not do justice to the Germanic composition of the

“Hessian” troops. While they were known collectively as “Hessians,” many of them were from other areas of the yet-to-be unified Germany. According to Daniel Krebs, the approximate 37,000 “Hessian” soldiers that came to America between 1776-1783 were from six different principalities within the Holy Roman Empire: Braunschweig-

Wolfenbüttel, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau, Waldeck, Ansbauch-Bayreuth, and Anhalt-

Zerbst.56

55 This term is a bit problematic as it may imply a shared identity where one did not yet exist, though I use it a. for the sake of clarity and b. as a way to symbolize the momentary coming together of a people that were plagued by localism. 56 Krebs, 3.

CHAPTER 1

THE DILATING POWERS OF AN ANACONDA

The Press of New York

The unique case of New York during the American Revolution has been analyzed from many angles over the past several decades. Until fairly recently the historical consensus has been that New York was completely loyal to the Crown during the war.57

However more recently, “historians estimate that between a fifth and a third of American colonists remained loyal to the king.”58 Further studies point to a much less clear view of the colonists’ loyalties.59 In fact, recent research suggests much stronger Patriot sentiment in the colony at the time of revolution than one might assume. Strong evidence exists indicating that the New Yorkers were not so much in disagreement about whether or not to support the Crown, but rather argued over the nature in which they should oppose the

British government.60 In fact, the Loyalists who did live and stay in New York throughout the war proved to be a relatively weak force to face.61 As if indicative of the

57 Philip Ranlet, The New York Loyalists, Second Edition (New York: University Press of America, 2002): 3-4. Ranlet highlights the argument that New York remained loyal put forth in Alexander C. Flick’s Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution and how it was taken for many years, falsely, at face value as being correct. This created what Ranlet describes as a “blind spot” with regards to the colony. 58 Maya Jasanoff, Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011), Kindle AZW file: location 288. She also states that “loyalism cut right across the social, geographical, racial, and ethnic spectrum of America.” 59 Ranlet, 3-4. Specifically, Patricia Bonomi is cited here as pointing out that divisions between Loyalists and Patriots had less to do with class and more to do with competing factions. 60 Ranlet, 2. Ranlet also points out that New York even appeared divided to those in the other colonies. The assumption of a Patriot versus Loyalist division began back then. Ranlet also argues that due to the confusion there were likely several New Yorkers themselves that also assumed New York had remained loyal. 61 Ibid, 6.

26 larger New York population, the Loyalists themselves, despite their overall devotion to the Crown, varied with regards to what that loyalty meant on a personal level.62

This should come as no real surprise when considering New York’s colonial history. To those in more homogenous regions like Massachusetts, New York appeared as a chaotic mix of conflicting and contentious cultures. For decades New York accepted immigrants from diverse regions of Europe, which included a sizeable Germanic population. These peoples would have different opinions on life in general let alone the war and the nature of the American relationship with Great Britain. As one of the middle colonies, the state of identity in New York did not different too greatly from that of

Pennsylvania. The two colonies even maintained a relationship of exchanges over the years.

Both New York and Pennsylvania acted as hubs of immigration for those coming from Europe. The Germanic population was not as numerous in New York compared to

Pennsylvania, however it was still significant and was still a source of conflict. At one point in the New York’s history, land operators, men who attempted to lay claim to parcels of land in the colony, forced a group of German immigrants out of the Mohawk

Valley, where they had settled, causing many to end up migrating from New York to

Pennsylvania.63 Ironically, German immigrants tended to enter the American mainland colonies through Pennsylvania. From there they would filter into the rest of the colonies, most notably New York.

In addition to the general ethnic and cultural makeup of the region, spheres of control developed among the Rebels and Loyalists added an extra layer to the wartime

62 Jasanoff, location 302. 63 Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America, 69.

27 experience. Because of the disharmony in the region, during the war, the British took and maintained control over Manhattan, Staten Island, and western Long Island, while the

Patriots controlled the mainland around the British.64 Throughout the conflict the counties of Kings, Queens, and Richmond were overwhelmingly represented by Loyalists while

Ulster, Orange, and Suffolk remained interested in independence and New York,

Westchester, Dutchess, Albany, and Tryon could not agree.65

Though this may suggest strict boundaries between the two groups, “Loyalists and rebels, typically depicted as hostile opponents, were, in fact, in constant contact throughout the war, crossing military lines to socialize, lend a helping hand to relatives and friends, or conduct a little business.”66 The situation in New York can be described as disorganized leading up to and throughout the war. In addition to the general ethnic and cultural diversity, it was a location in which Patriots, Loyalists, slaves, Hessians, and

British Regulars lived amongst each other and in some ways relied on one another in the course of daily life. In many cases lines and divisions would blur as individuals began to interact with one another.67 Another factor that led to such a strong level of ambiguity was the nature of the war in the colony. Between the British Regulars and Hessian soldiers, the enemy looked like the colonists, spoke like the colonists, and even shared a common ancestral background.68

64 Judith L. Van Buskirk, Generous Enemies: Patriots and Loyalists in Revolutionary New York (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002): 2. 65 Edward Countryman, A People in Revolution: The American Revolution and Political Society in New York, 1760-1790 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981): 104. Tryon County was eventually renamed Montgomery County (https://www.co.montgomery.ny.us/sites/public/government/historian/Historian_Development/default.aspxl ivepage.apple.com). 66 Van Buskirk, 2. 67 Ibid, 2-3. Van Buskirk also points out that “ties of family and friendship often proved more important to Americans caught in the coils of revolution than did military or political alliances” (3). 68 Ibid, 5.

Rather than being separated, the Patriots, Loyalists, and those who were undecided existed as more of a coalition than a singular unit.69 In 1776 colonists were expected to take a side, but rather than remaining resolute about siding with the British or the Rebels, there was also a big difference between being entirely supportive of the crown and simple disaffection. Every aspect of daily life for ordinary men and women impacted where they would lean during the war, making it hard to pin down specific motivations.70 Because of the level of intermixing between social and political factions, once the war was won, “for loyalists… the departure of the British troops spelled worry, not jubilation. During the war, tens of thousands of loyalists had moved for safety into

New York and other British-held cities.”71 Staten Island, for example, remained mostly in support of the Crown. In fact, whether they considered themselves Loyalists or Patriots, over 99 percent of those living on Staten Island refused to do anything to support the revolution.72

As with other areas of the colony, Staten Islanders made the choice between

Loyalist and Patriot based on self-interest.73 In making such decisions, individuals, asked which side would be the better choice in maintaining or even improving the lives they had established. In this case the men and women of Staten Island typically deferred to the opinions of a few well-respected men who favored reconciliation with King and Country over a clean break with Britain.74 Initially these men saw the British military as liberators from terrible acts as late as the summer of 1776 (as a result of Loyalist acts in an area

69 Countryman, 103. 70 Ibid, 130. 71 Jasanoff, location 245-246. 72 Phillip Papas, That Ever Loyal Island: Staten Island and the American Revolution (New York: New York University Press, 2007), pg. 1. 73 Ibid, 2. 74 Ibid, 6.

29 populated by Patriots), though as the war progressed the islanders experienced plundering, kidnapping, violence, murder, rape, terrorism from bands of Patriots and

Loyalists, and abuse by British Regulars and Hessian soldiers. Despite such enduring passion for Great Britain, these acts called into question the motivation for remaining loyal to the Crown among Staten Islanders.75 With such a tumultuous situation throughout the colony, one would think the local newspapers would reflect these tensions throughout the war, however the articles that focused on the Hessian presence, taken at face value, would suggest otherwise.

Initially the Hessians were regarded unfavorably in the New York press.

However, as 1777 came to a close and 1778 began, the view of the Hessian presence as portrayed through the New York press remained consistent and positive. Despite the strong presence of Patriots, the fact that the British controlled the colony for the bulk of the war suggests the local press catered to those in control while ignoring the views of the local New Yorkers. For example, at one point during the war, The New-York Gazette advertised for a new gunsmith to support the Hessians. However, during the war, The

New-York Gazette was in the habit of publishing two editions of the news. One was a

Loyalist edition, printed in New York, while the other was a Patriot edition published in

Newark.76 This is strongly indicative of the diversity of opinion on the war in New York.

While British controlled key urban areas, like New York City, which remained under a form of martial law during the war, rural farmers sustained the war and provided most of the Patriot soldiers.77 As the war turned to favor the colonial rebels, the side of the war

75 Ibid, 7. 76 Fischer, 279. 77 Joseph S. Tiedemann and Eugene R. Fingerhut, eds. The Other New York: The American Revolution beyond New York City, 1763-1767 (New York: State University of New York Press, 2005): 4.

30 supported by the Patriots was expressed more regularly in the press, though in a more subtle way.

By the end of the war, the press of New York appeared absolutely loyal to the

Crown (though this did not reflect the true range of opinions present in the colony). The press of New York appears to interpret the Hessian presence in a positive light, however the newspapers responding to the consolidation of control by the British military best explains this phenomenon.78 The Constitutional Gazette, for example, was short-lived as it was founded on patriotic ideals in 1775 but stopped publishing in 1776 when the

British Regulars took New York.79 As Frank Luther Mott pointed out, the paper was in every way anti-British.80 Perhaps the paper would have had much more longevity had the

British not taken the city, but regardless, the presence of such a paper is potentially indicative of the general colonial New York mindset at the start of the war.

The Royal Gazette, however, stood in stark contrast to The Constitutional Gazette.

Previously named The General Gazette, the paper became deeply supportive of the

Loyalist cause towards the beginning of the war.81 Since both The Constitutional Gazette and The Royal Gazette existed during the early years of the struggle and both represented opposite opinions about the conflict, it is possible that both represented the colonial

78 On the surface there appears to be an evolution from trepidation at the prospect of Hessian mercenaries entering New York cities and towns to outright support for these men. While certainly some sympathy developed for these men, there is more to the story than presented in press. 79 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764-1776, (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1980): 241 and 289. The name of the paper was an allusion to the British Constitution and the unconstitutional acts committed against the British colonists. 80 Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History, 1690-1960, (New York: Macmillan Press, 1962): 82. 81 Julie Hedgepeth Williams and W. David Sloan, The Early American Press, 1690-1783, (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1994): 189. Bernard Bailyn, The Press & the American Revolution, (Worcester, N.Y.: American Antiquarian Society, 1980): 233.

31 viewpoint at the time; a viewpoint in the colony of New York that was likely as diverse as the population.

Four different newspapers (The New-York Gazette, The-New York Journal, The

Constitutional Gazette, and The Royal Gazette) published in New York during the

American Revolution paint somewhat different portraits of the Hessians in regards to their presence in America, however over time they all came to a similar consensus on the mercenaries. The papers initially towed the line between a fear of these “mercenaries” and a respect and admiration for their military expertise. Even within the first year of

American independence (in this instance beginning in January of 1776) the ways in which opinion of the foreign foes changed can be attributed to the progress made by the

American militia against the British regulars and vice versa. Over time these views became much more complimentary.

The opinions of the Hessians expressed in writing were dependent on the state of control Britain held over the colony. The fact that within one single colony considerable similarity appeared over time in regards to the Hessian presence might indicate on the surface something of a colonial unity, however nothing could be further from the truth. A deeper analysis of the newspapers in New York at the time of Revolution indicates a pro- revolution population that may have grown sympathetic to the Hessians, but ultimately lost their voice as the British took control of New York.

The Object of Whimsical Persecution

The year of 1776 represented a dark time in the history of the American colonies, particularly for New York. At the beginning of the year, Thomas Paine published his popular work, Common Sense. The ideas presented in the book spread through the

32 mainland American colonies like wildfire.82 In the face of considerable military action massive migration soon followed, as Loyalists and Patriots escaped to more friendly locations and men and women attempted to flee the horrors of war.83 It is integral to consider that the old colony/new state of New York continued to evolve and grow during this time. The population, continued to alter throughout the war, though where migration patterns had previously been based on culture and ethnicity, it was now based on political and social beliefs.

The New York campaign, in particular, was one of the principal locations in which the Hessians (having newly arrived in America) participated.84 About 5,000

Hessians alone participated in the Battle of Long Island.85 As such, mention of these

“foreigners” as part of General Howe’s forces regularly appeared in the local papers.86 At the start of 1776, as soon as word broke that the Hessians had been contracted to put down the rebellion, The New-York Gazette, concerned about the state of the colonies, argued, “the provision that is making for the introduction of Hanoverian and Hessian troops, instead of removing, confirms our apprehensions.”87 Instead of reconciling with the Crown, King George III chose a course of action that escalated the conflict. The

82 Gordon Wood, The American Revolution: A History, 55. 83 Van Buskirk, 3. The author goes on to point out that “homes on both sides of the lines were filled to bursting with refugees; their hosts, of course, experienced the strain of this population shift and also the tension of living in close proximity to large numbers of soldiers.” Tiedemann, 160-161. As Stefan Bielinski points out “the capture of New York City resulted in a migration of Tories to the city and Whigs out to other areas of New York, like Albany.” 84 Atwood, 254, Fischer, 81-137. Fischer chronicles the New York and New Jersey campaigns as beginning around July of 1776 as the British and Hessians prepared on Staten Island, and lasting through December of 1776 when General Cornwallis drove General Washington out of New Jersey. Atwood points out that in April of 1776, 8,647 Hessians were mustered into British service. The following June, they were joined by an additional 4,327 Hessians for a total of 12,974 soldiers. Many of these men would be active in the New York and New Jersey campaigns. 85 David G. McCullough, 1776 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006): 161. 86 According Fischer, at this point brothers Admiral Lord Richard and General William Howe worked together in “peace initiatives” (pg. 99) at this time. 87 Editorial, The New-York Gazette, January 8, 1776.

33 author of the article continued “we cannot have any confidence in the protection of foreign mercenaries; and feel at once the shame and folly of that policy, which is to burthen us with taxes for the payment of foreign protectors, while our own brave troops are slaughtered in an unnatural, unnecessary, and inglorious context.”88 While hiring the

Hessians from the King’s perspective may have been meant to defend the colonies from his perspective, the Patriots saw this as an act of aggression. The very thought that

Parliament would hire an army from another country to subdue the rebellion was seen as bad form.

The colonists had largely wanted reform in British colonial policy but now

Parliament was sending a very clear message that the colonists were not to be considered full-fledged British citizens. At this point in time the colonies as a whole did not consider separating from the empire.89 Hiring an outside force is more the thing to do when going to war with France or Spain, but the citizens of the British crown that lived in the

American mainland colonies were paying taxes to support the British Empire, including the hired mercenaries from the forests of Germany that were on their way to wage cruel war.

With colonists forced to pay taxes to support the men sent to squelch their chance at freedom, it must have felt like insult was being added to injury. While the British insisted the Hessians were being sent to the colonies as protective forces, those dedicated to American ideals saw past the veil of security, as evident by their choosing of the words

“the protection of foreign mercenaries.” If must have been painful to face the prospect of being policed by another nation’s military for simply attempting to express discontent to

88 Ibid. 89 The Olive Branch Petition of July 1775 emphasizes the benefits of being a part of the British Empire and extols the fact that the colonists are “faithful subjects” (http://ahp.gatech.edu/olive_branch_1775.html).

34 the members of Parliament, a government body in which they had no official representation.

Not long after the January article from The New-York Gazette, The New-York

Journal published an article further discussing the impending arrival of the Hessian troops. Of these men, the author suggested “a foreign army, to the awe of the subjects of

Great-Britain, is an attempt at arbitrary power which should make every real friend to the

Constitution tremble.”90 As with the earlier article, here The New-York Journal likewise argued the deception implicit in the presence of the Hessians, as well as the threat to freedom. The latter article suggested a sense of intimidation felt among the colonists at the prospect of Hessians coming to America. The British army was intimidating enough and the addition of Hessians troops represented a deadly foe, nearly impossible to defeat.

Knowing that the war had really only just begun, the colonial newspapers continued to grow concerned over the Hessian presence. These initial impressions continued to be reflected during the next month by The Constitutional Gazette.

Similarly critical of the British decision, in March of 1776 The Constitutional

Gazette declared that the British government “let a guilty blush conceal the shameful ignominious deed of wandering from court to court to call in the dirty dregs of mercenary soldiers, to enforce their tyrannical edicts.”91 While the article focused a good deal on the

British act of hiring foreign mercenaries, and the fallout among the colonists as a result, this opinion certainly does not present New York as an environment hospitable to the

90 Editorial, The New-York Journal, February 22, 1776. Granted this article recounts word from “Dublin, Nov. 12” which may imply a more British perspective on the Hessians, however as stated in the Pennsylvania section of this paper in early 1776 the colonists would not yet have encountered the Hessians and would be looking for insight on what to expect from them. The Irish perspective may have been more reliable to the American colonists due to centuries of repression by the British. 91 News/Opinion, The Constitutional Gazette, March 23, 1776.

35 prospect of the Hessian presence. In addition to this, the jab towards the Hessians as

“dirty dregs” also heightened the negative impression of these men before they ever had a chance to set foot on North American soil. In these first three months of discussion about the coming Hessian presence it would appear as though the New York consensus, despite the many varied ethnic groups, was not only anti-Hessian but was also a unified voice.

However in the coming months it took only the British occupation of New York for that seemingly unified voice to change. Such an abrupt and polarizing change indicates the press began to publish political opinions in line with their British occupiers.

One month and one day prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence,

The New-York Gazette translated a treaty between King George and the prince of Hesse-

Cassel, which called the Hessian Landgraf “most serene” and also pointed out that “all the Hessian deserters shall be faithfully given up wherever they shall be discovered [and]

… no person whatever of that nation shall be permitted to establish himself in America, without the consent of his sovereign.”92 While previous articles expressed a sense of trepidation at the impending Hessian arrival, the belief that these men may fall in love with the land in America enough to want to desert presented both an opportunity and a warning, depending on one’s political leanings. To the Loyalists in the colony this article would put them on the lookout for Hessians wishing to desert. Likewise, the Patriots would be on the lookout for Hessians wishing to desert. Furthermore, the article implied that the Hessians might be able to integrate into American society, despite the fact that they came to the continent as belligerents. In the coming months the Continental

Congress began a propaganda campaign to capitalize on this opportunity.

92 Editorial, The New-York Gazette, June 3, 1776.

As expressed in the days following the June 3 article, The New-York Journal published a piece also read by followers of The Pennsylvania Evening Post on June 6 stating that the Hessians, “are most excellent troops, and seem fully satisfied with their destination. Not one man deserted during their first March” and that “the only dissatisfaction shewn among the Hessian troops, is among those that are to continue at home.”93 This article implied a strong resolve that the Hessians are prepared to put down the rebellion. Likely intended to intimidate, the article also suggested the previously expressed ideas of Hessian desertion were incorrect. Following this piece, writings on the

Hessians in New York continued to be less critical of the Hessian forces and began to approach their presence from a far more neutral perspective. This ultimately can be explained not by a coalescing of opinions or of a sense of British patriotism, but because the press chose to respond to a government that controlled New York City.

In the months following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the

British assumed power over New York and would hold their position in the colony through the end of the war. Following suit, the press began to describe the Hessians more positively, despite the negative environment being created by the British. For example, residents of rural Long Island (about 18% of colony’s population) faced harassment during occupation of New York, and lived in a society plagued by martial law, constant demands for supplies, and raids. Such living conditions began to convince those neutral

93 Editorial, The New-York Journal, June 6, 1776. The publication of the same, or similar, articles across the colonies within days, or sometimes months, of each other was a common enough practice. In some cases it may serve as an argument for a shared North Atlantic opinion, but in other cases it simply shows a shared cross-colony interest in events known to have a broader impact on the Atlantic seaboard.

37 to the war, as well as the Loyalists that had remained in New York, that they were in fact uniquely American and not British after all.94

On August 21, 1776, days before the Battle of Long Island (August 27, 1776) and not quite one month before the fall of New York City, The Constitutional Gazette mentioned the Hessian regiments at Portsmouth.95 In the article, the Hessians are admitted to be, “as good marksmen as any among the riflemen in North America.”96 In this news piece, the author claimed that the Hessians, “fired musket shot through a sheet of paper at 230 yards distance; at the same time they were very quick in their motions and never missed their mark.”97 Again, rather than emphasizing the negative attributes of the

Hessian soldiers, this article oddly admired the abilities of their adversaries in battle. In this case The Constitutional Gazette may have been notoriously pro-revolution, still there is a subtext of awe in this particular news piece. The obvious prowess with the musket presented by the Hessians was definitely something to remain wary of. However, the way in which this article was written does not appear fearful, but instead complimentary.

Nothing explicitly negative accompanied the news of the Hessian penchant for the musket. Put in context with the other articles published around the same time, both leading up to and following this piece, the August 21 article appears to be part of an evolving conversation on the Hessians.

Beyond their expertise with gunpowder, the colonists were likewise impressed with the musical abilities demonstrated by the Hessians. The New-York Gazette, for

94 Tiedemann, 11-12. 95 Fischer, 102-107. At this point referring to the British Constitution (as the colonists would have still considered themselves British) and possibly the violation of said document felt by the American colonists at the hands of the British Parliament. 96 Editorial, The Constitutional Gazette, August 21, 1776. 97 Ibid.

38 example spoke highly of their ability to make “the Hills resound with Trumpets, French

Horns, Drums and Fifes, accompanied by the Harmony of their Voices.”98 This was an important aspect of life to focus on because, as Kenneth Silverman pointed out, music was of the utmost importance in battle. Music could be “invigorating to one’s own side, music could also be depressing to one’s enemy.”99 Even the nation’s future first president saw its value. As Silverman observed, “‘nothing is more agreeable, and ornamental’

Washington wrote, ‘than good music; every officer, for the credit of his corps, should take care to provide it.”100 Unfortunately, there was a lack of musicians in the colonies.

The Continental Army sought new talent from its captives, for example, when

“Americans seized two Hessian bands at Trenton, who performed at a July 4 celebration in Philadelphia.” 101

Furthermore, one of the members of the Continental Congress appreciated “the pleasantness of their music ‘not a little heightened by the reflection that they were hired by the British Court for purposes very different.’”102 Interestingly, in contrast to the

American view of Hessian music “Lord Rawdon said that the Hessians ‘sing as loud as the Yankees, though it must [be] owned they have not the godly twang through their nose which distinguishes the faithful.’”103 Despite the British criticism of the American

“twang” this passing mention provides unique insight into the American-Hessian relationship. While the New York press was dominated by the British at the time, this

98 Editorial, The New-York Gazette, October 28, 1776. 99 Kenneth Silverman, A Cultural History of the American Revolution (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976): 352. 100 Ibid, 352. 101 The Battle of Trenton took place December 25-26, 1776, and was the moment of General Washington’s now infamous crossing of the Delaware. 102 Silverman, 358. 103 Ibid, 355. Reflecting on the evolution of music in America this reads as potential insight into the early stages of the Country genre.

39 shows a less politically motivated sense that the colonists may have felt some connection with the Hessians, though not as righteous saviors from the Patriot dastards.

As the New York position on the Hessians began to flip compared to the writings that had previously anticipated the Hessian arrival on the east coast, the press started to focus on the positive attributes the Hessians brought with them. That next February The

New-York Gazette published an article that made perfectly clear its political position, now in stark contrast to the initial impression it shared on the coming presence of the Hessian troops from January of the previous year. The paper pointed out “His Excellency Baron

Van Heister… returns his Thanks to the Gentlemen engaged in the laudable Purpose of playing for Charity, for the Sum sent by them for the Relief of the Widows and Children of such Hessian Soldiers as have fallen in the Support of true Freedom, and the Liberty of

British America.”104 These are strong accolades to share supporting the Crown in a colonial paper. It is interesting that this article used the same language as the rebel newspapers, in this case of “true freedom” and liberty for “British America.” No doubt such language was meant to encourage feelings of patriotism for the mother country by implying that the “freedom” and “liberty” sought by the rebels were simply falsehoods.

To achieve true freedom and liberty, as implied by this paper, one must remain within what was at the time one of the strongest empires in the world. In an attempt to sway the average New Yorker, the article even went as far as to deflect the blame and responsibility for the war on the Patriot leaders. Of the common soldiers and the average colonist in support of revolution, the paper suggested, “pity is due to these poor deluded

People, but Indignation to their cruel and designing Leaders.”105

104 News/Opinion, The New-York Gazette, February 24, 1777. 105 Ibid.

This article was published following the aftermath of the Battles of Trenton and

Princeton, in which many Hessians were killed and even more were captured. These battles were the first true sign that the American Patriots could defeat the British and

Hessians in battle and the first true sign that their struggle may not have been in vain.

This article, in response to the newfound Patriot zeal, acts as a message to the Patriots that they are the true enemies of freedom.

This piece also reveals interesting level of depth when put in comparison with depictions of the British Regulars from April of 1774 when The New-York Journal relayed an account of the battles of Lexington and Concord. In the article, it stated, “in their way to Concord, the Regulars fired at and killed hogs, geese, cattle and every thing that came in their way, and burnt several houses.”106 The next year it was noted that “it is impossible to describe the Shame and Vexation which are visible in the Countenances of

North and his tyrannical Abettors; they are constrained to acknowledge the Regulars were the Aggressors. and equally forced to admit the Intrepidity of the Americans.”107 In another article from the same day, and same paper, is was pointed out “the Americans… have acquired immortal honour. They were attacked, unprovoked, by a party of the

King’s troops, who, to testify their loyalty, abused the provincials in language so gross, that courtiers only could have adopted it… they were not only defeated, but disgraced…108 It is clear that prior to the seizure of New York, popular opinion held the

British cause, and in particular the British Regulars, in poor light. Following the British control over the colony, discussion of Patriot enemies did not reveal the same level of animosity.

106 Editorial, The New-York Journal, April 27, 1775. 107 News/Opinion, The New-York Journal, August 3, 1775. 108 Ibid.

The most complimentary article from the beginning of the war, in contrast to the others, came from The Constitutional Gazette (the paper that would criticize the British government the following year for contracting the services of the Hessians). In August of

1775, the paper pointed out that “Corporal Creuse, of the Rifle men, now prisoner at

Boston, has sent a letter to his comrades in the camp, informing that he was treated kindly by the Regulars.”109 Not a strong compliment to the British, but it at least shows some acknowledgement that in that specific instance the British had some sense of honor.

Nonetheless, the majority of these opinion pieces remained critical of the Regulars until the British took control the city. It is better business to write an opinion piece that the colony’s occupying forces will approve of. Returning to early 1777, mention of the

Hessians in the press continued, however it began to reflect a sense normalcy with regards to the Hessian presence.

Several months after the February 24 article, The New-York Gazette published another story in relation to the Hessian soldiers serving in North America. Rather than an opinion piece, however, the article was an advertisement of sorts. It mentioned a gunsmith who died and had “belonged to a battalion of Hessian grenadiers.”110 Instead of saying anything positive or negative about the man, however, the article talked about the position of gunsmith being open and wanted to “give public notice, that any man fit for that business, who can be highly recommended, and is willing to be employed in that advantageous station, may apply… to Captain Martin of the Hessian corps of engineers.”111 It would seem odd on the surface that the paper would post for someone to join the Hessian grenadiers, however at a time and place when the revolution still had the

109 News/Opinion, The Constitutional Gazette, August 16, 1775. 110 Editorial, The New-York Gazette, April 21, 1777. 111 Ibid.

42 colonists in a precarious position, despite the victories at Trenton and Princeton, this advertisement becomes more logical. As the men and women lived in a place where lines between the Loyalists and Patriots were in a constant state of flux and in an area where people were migrating based on political lines it makes sense that the New York residents reading this paper would have been more amenable to answering the advertisement.

If nothing else the Hessian soldiers themselves were likely the intended audience for this article. With New York being the main base of operations for the British and

Hessians (the British sent 3,000 Hessians alone to report to General John Burgoyne to recapture Fort Ticonderoga), they would have actively read the local newspapers.112 As the British regulars and Hessian soldiers lived among the colonists in New York during the occupation they would have been familiar with The New-York Gazette as well. Any number of British or Hessian soldiers, or even the average Loyalist, would have had the opportunity to respond to this job posting.

If such a job posting was able to so casually appear in a colonial paper, then it further showed the Patriot voice had been completely lost in the press. One thing is certain from this article: anyone who was willing to respond to such a posting would be making a very strong statement in regards to the war. Of course those individuals continued to represent only a portion of the colonial mindset rather than reflecting a cohesive identity. As the war progressed papers would continue to publicly support the

Hessians, while behind closed doors a significant number of ordinary men, women, and children would abhor their presence.

112 Wood, The American Revolution: A History, 80.

A Mixture of Respect and Superstition

By 1778, the battles of Trenton and Saratoga were now past and the French government agreed to assist the new American nation. These were important victories for the Americans and had a huge impact on Patriot morale and optimism. The war had certainly turned to favor the Patriots, and as such the local news could not help but begin to make reference to their perspective on the struggle, though perhaps not explicitly so.

Victory for the war may not have been completely confirmed, but the now former colonists had reason to face the British with new confidence. As the tides were about to change, The New-York Gazette continued to emphasize a positive view of the Hessians, but what remained unspoken in February of 1778 is indeed telling of the wider colonial mindset.113 On February 16, 1778, days after the alliance with France was established, the paper published word from Major General James Robertson that “a number of sailors… with knives wounded and defaced three Hessian soldiers and that several acts have been perpetrated, tending to raise a spirit of discord between nations, who have always lived together… with remarkable cordiality and affection.”114 Considering the colony was assumed to be Loyalist in principal, the fact that these sailors committed such a horrifically violent act against the three Hessian soldiers stands as evidence that the population in New York was not singularly loyal to the Crown.

Robertson further went on to “require all that come into this city, to treat the

Hessian troops with the civility due to strangers… [and] every attempt to destroy the cordiality that happily subsists between two nations, will be considered as most

113 In regards to the Treaty with France, Gordon Wood mentions it was signed in February 1778 and represented the only military alliance between the two nations until NATO was formed in 1949. Wood, The American Revolution: A History, 81. 114 Editorial, The New-York Gazette, February 16, 1778.

44 prejudicial to the King’s service.”115 Robertson was a British officer that obviously felt as though control was being lost. His belief in the cordiality and affection felt between the

Hessians and the citizens of New York obviously did not resonate with the colonists fighting against Parliament and the crown.116 This article pointed to contradictory views of the Hessians: the common sailors acting out in anger towards a menace towards liberty and the colonial press supporting peaceful coexistence by publishing the thoughts of

Major Robertson. These “number of sailors” are not said to belong to a rebel navy, but were likely civilians. More importantly they suggested a discord, not just between the colonists and the British and Hessian military, but also between the average colonists and those in control of the press. Unfortunately for the colonists of the Rebel persuasion, the

Loyalist viewpoint continued to dominate the local newspapers.

The late 1770s also saw the publication of an obituary for Colonel Baron de

Minnigerode in The Royal Gazette. The story called Minnigerode “an Officer of distinguished Worth, an Honour to his Corps and Prince.”117 The article is attributed to

“A British Officer,” which explains the high regard for Minnigerode. However, the fact that this paper was published in New York while the fate of the war was still being decided indicates on the surface an affinity for the British cause. However, one must consider that any paper with the word “royal” in the title at the time of revolution makes a very clear point as to its political leanings. The fact that the paper existed for the sake of the Loyalist citizens in New York, while seemingly one-sided, stands as evidence of two facts. First of all, the existence of the paper meant there were Loyalists interested in

115 Ibid. 116 The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783 and the British did not evacuate New York until the following November, so they controlled the colony for the duration of the war. Edward G. Lengel, General George Washington: A Military Life, (New York: Random House, 2007): XLII. 117 Obituary, The Royal Gazette, October 20, 1779.

45 reading it. Furthermore, the existence of The Royal Gazette also meant there was a need for pushing Loyalist news to the masses; they were speaking in opposition to the Patriot point of view. Like The Royal Gazette, the Loyalist edition of The New-York Gazette continued to favor of the British and Hessians as well.

On August 28, 1780 The New-York Gazette published an address from the

Hessian officers serving in New York to Major General Pattison regarding his departure from the colonies. In the article, the Hessian officers offered their “most sincere Thanks, and… warmest Gratitude for the many Favours, as well as for every other Mark of

Attention and Politeness... during the Time of [his] Command here.”118 They also mentioned that the departure of Pattison will “deprive the Army of so worthy and distinguished an Officer, and particularly us, who have had the Honour to serve with

[him].”119 They then went on to wish him good health and sign the letter “In tho Name of all the Hessian Officers in Garrison, at New-York, signed, De Losberg, Major General,

Commanding the Hessian Troops Aug. 25, 1780 at New-York.”120 While the letter was written by a Hessian officer and directed towards a British officers, the fact that it was published in the first place, as with some of the earlier articles, indicates a motive that was twofold. First of all, there was a large portion of the population that would have sympathized with the story. The other motive in publishing the letter was meant to push the perception that the British and Hessians were not just good, but also moral, just, and noble in their collective cause, likely with the intent to sway those still uncertain of which side to support. Such affirmations would continue in the next few years that would conclude the conflict.

118 News/Opinion, The New-York Gazette, August 28, 1780. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid.

In 1781 The Royal Gazette published information about recent Hessian promotions by “His Serene Highness the Landgrave.”121 These articles served to reaffirm the fact that the press may have been controlled or influenced by the British at the time.

The fact that The Royal Gazette published this information comes as no surprise, however the fact that it still published anything indicates it still had a foothold in the colony, whether by colonial interest, British and Hessian military presence, or both. The Battle of

Yorktown was still eight months away, so Patriot victory had not yet been solidified. The

New-York Gazette also published an article in 1781 in support of the Crown by focusing on the death of Captain Allan Cameron of the New-York volunteers.122 According to the article, the funeral “was attended by a number of Hessian and British Officers.”123 While on the surface a purely informational piece, as in the other articles the underlying meaning is one of promoting the Hessian and Loyalist cause. The beginning of peace talks were less than a year away and as much as there were citizens still loyal to the

Crown, there was also still a perceived need to attempt to color colonial perception.

The following May The Royal Gazette continued to compliment the British forces. In a letter attributed to Lieutenant Colonel William Loewenstein, the paper wished to pay “their most respectful compliments to Col. Hamilton.”124 The letter asserted the mission to “protect and assist the loyal inhabitants in every part of his Majesty’s government.”125 While only a brief note in the paper, the message clearly continued to speak out against the rebellion. Meanwhile, on August 6, 1781 The New-York Gazette

121 News/Opinion, The Royal Gazette, February 24, 1781. 122 News/Opinion, The New-York Gazette, March 19, 1781. Captain Allan is likely a reference to the loyalist commander (http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/musters/nyv/nyvcam1.htm). 123 Ibid. 124 News/Opinion, The Royal Gazette, May 12, 1781. 125 Ibid.

47 published a brief obituary for a Hessian captain. It stated that “one the 13th of June last died at Charles-Town, South-Carolina, Capt. EDDERGING, of the Hessian Regiment of

Ditfourth, greatly regretted as a good officer, and much lamented by those who were acquainted with his private character.”126

The Treaty of Paris was less than two years away. Peace negotiations were about eight months way. The Battle of Yorktown, confirming Patriot victory, was two months away. Still the press of New York, and specifically The New-York Gazette and The Royal

Gazette embraced the cause of Great Britain. On the surface it would appear the Patriots were unpopular amongst New Yorkers, and that the British military still had firm control over the outcome of the war. However, perhaps it had less to do with faith in the British cause and more to do with reconciling differences between Loyalists and Patriots. New

Yorkers had spent the entire war with opposing sides living amongst each other. 1781 began a period of time that would last through the end of the war in which Loyalists and

Patriots attempted to leave their disagreements in the past and to “live and let live” as the ravages of war and the close proximity to one another had reminded both sides of their humanity.127

Reflections on the Empire State

The local press in New York initially expressed displeasure when word broke that the Hessians had been contracted to come and fight in America. However, shortly after their arrival, the newspapers became both complimentary and supportive of them. While it may seem on the surface that the view of the Hessian presence in New York is a simple story, nothing could be further from the truth. Unarguably, the most significant factor in

126 News/Opinion, The New-York Gazette, August 6, 1781. 127 Van Buskirk, 7.

48 this official flip in political stance was the British seizure of New York and their subsequent ability to retain control over the area through the bulk of the war.

Looking more closely at the social climate in the region, it becomes apparent that the view of the Hessians was neither universally positive nor negative. Large numbers of

Hessians lived among and interacted with local New Yorkers on a daily basis. With the

British ruling the region, many papers sympathetic to the Patriot cause either folded or relocated to friendlier areas of the eastern seaboard, while other opportunists began to publish dueling Patriot and Loyalist versions of their papers, distributed differently depending on the political outlook of the region. However, Patriots did remain in New

York throughout the course of the war and continued to support the cause of independence in whatever ways they could.

During this time, the British attempted to guide the colonial view of the Hessians through the press while efforts among the Patriots to incite Hessian desertions, like sending Germanic colonists to Staten Island with informational leaflets, continued. These

Patriots, unlike their Loyalist neighbors, saw the Hessians not as liberators, but as potential allies (or at least a force to be used). The fact that the British needed to spin a positive light on the Hessian presence and that the Patriots continued to incite Hessian desertions show how the colony remained divided and fractured even while under British control.

In addition to this, cracks in the British veneer can be seen in the press. Instances in which the British encouraged New Yorkers to treat the Hessians “with the civility due to strangers” in response to colonial acts of aggression reveal further divisions among the local residents. If there were people in New York attacking the Hessians on their own

49 accord, it shows they neither agreed with the British-controlled press nor with the Patriots inciting desertions. The reality was that New York existed as a colony steeped in disagreement, not just between Patriots and Loyalists, but even among the Patriots who could not decide whether the Hessians were potential allies or vicious enemies. Here was a community that throughout the war lacked any kind of organized national, or even colonial, consciousness.

CHAPTER 2

FULL OF METTLE AND MISCHIEF

The Pennsylvania Record

The British colony of New York often retains a reputation for tremendous diversity and just as much interpersonal strife. While this is true, the colony of

Pennsylvania had just as much intercultural, ethnic, and religious mixing, which led to just as much conflict. The amount of diversity in Pennsylvania was reflective of the

North American mainland colonies as a whole.128 In comparison to the New York population at the time, Bailyn asserted, “Pennsylvania too had had turmoils rooted in political and ethnic diversity… It was a strange, disorderly world… lacking anything like a uniform system; lacking social cohesion; and chaotic in public affairs to the point of political violence.”129 As with the nature of diversity in Pennsylvania, the amount of conflict is likewise representative across the eastern seaboard as a whole.

When William Penn founded Pennsylvania in 1681, he initially planned the colony as a place those of different backgrounds could come together in a communal society with the desire to form a North American Utopia.130 Men and women from all different areas of Europe were encouraged to settle in Pennsylvania as a way to live out

Penn’s experiment. In fact, as a result of Penn’s hope to create a living Utopia,

128 Knouff, XVI. 129 Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America, 98. 130 William Pencak, ed., Beyond Philadelphia: The American Revolution in the Pennsylvania Hinterland (University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998): XI.

Pennsylvania became the only colony with no militia traditions or values.131 At the time of the war, Philadelphia grew to be the largest city in North America and was the target for most of the espionage in Pennsylvania during the war.132 This comes to no surprise as the Patriot capital was based out of the city.

If not for the war, Pennsylvania might have been an ideal place for those of

Hessian descent to settle. By the time of the American Revolution, Pennsylvania had a significant German population, larger than any other ethnic group in the colony.

Approximately 10 percent of the total pre-Revolutionary American colonial population was German-speaking, however Pennsylvania stands out as being particularly

Germanic.133 Bailyn explained that between the end of the Seven Years War in 1763 and

1775 there were “at least 12,000 immigrants from the German states and Switzerland who entered the port of Philadelphia.”134 Many of those immigrants, according to Bailyn, migrated to other colonies once on the mainland; however, continuing to enter into the port of Philadelphia no doubt introduced many cultural and social aspects of German life into the colony. In fact, “life on the farms outside Philadelphia, Francis Michel reported with surprise in 1704, was ‘just like living in Germany.’”135 To this day there is even a borough of Philadelphia called Germantown.136

131 William Pencak, ed., Pennsylvania’s Revolution (University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010): 8. 132 John A. Nagy, Spies in the Continental Capital: Espionage Across Pennsylvania During the American Revolution (Yardley, Pa: Westholme Publishing, 2011): IX. Pencak, Beyond Philadelphia, IX. Though only a fraction of the total Pennsylvania population lived there. 133 Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America, 16. 134 Ibid, 9. 135 Ibid, 127. 136 Site of the Battle of Germantown, ending in a British victory in October of 1777. Hessian troops served prominently in the battle, and the success of the British further confirmed their hold over the city of Philadelphia. Although not all of them resided in Pennsylvania. In fact, as Bailyn points out, “some of the so-called “Germans” who settled in Pennsylvania were not “Pennsylvania Dutch” (that is, Deutsch = German) at all, but, paradoxically, really Dutch.” (Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America, 34). In

Daniel Krebs estimated 110,000 Germans to have immigrated to America from

1683-1775, about 81,000 of which settled and lived in Pennsylvania.137 After the

Germanic population, the next most significant population was British, followed by a minority of Scotch-Irish. Between these different ethnic groups, particularly with the

Germanic population largely speaking their native language, conflict, division, and localism were common features. But the web of conflict was not limited to ethnic diversity. Quakers, Moravians, Mennonites, Anglicans, and Presbyterians describe just a few of the religions found across Pennsylvania.

Upon immigrating in Philadelphia around 1749, a man by the name of

Christopher Ludwick, himself a German-born baker, felt at home with the large number of Germans present in the colony, who at that point had spread all across the social strata.138 Though despite his naturalization as a British citizen, he never lost his affinity for his German heritage.139 This became typical of the German immigrants. While they considered themselves British, they still held strong to their native language and culture.

At the onset of the Revolution, Ludwick became one of many German immigrants to actively oppose British tyranny.140 In fact, in stark contrast to the Germans in the other colonies, many of Pennsylvania’s German citizens supported the colonial cause. 141

Having been born in Hesse-Darmstadt, he understood the Hessians more than others.

total, he estimates 500,000 immigrants came to the American mainland from Germany and Switzerland in the 1700s. 137 Krebs, 134. 138 Ar St. Clair, Wm Irvine, Anty Wayne, Timothy Pickering, Thomas Mifflin, Christopher Ludwick, and William Ward Condit "Christopher Ludwick, Patriotic Gingerbread Baker," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 81.4 (1957: 365-390): 369. 139 St. Clair, 371. 140 Ibid, 372. 141 Riordan, 68.

During the war he was put to work encouraging them to desert and eventually was put in charge of German prisoners.142

About 80 miles west of Philadelphia, the community of Lancaster had close to

3,000 residents by 1770, which made it the large town within a county of 30,000 people and one of the largest inland communities in the British mainland.143 In the first half of the eighteenth century, the Germanic population of Lancaster was still a minority and faced prejudice and suspicion among their British neighbors.144 The German immigrants were able to adapt to British laws, but they still retained their own language and customs, which along with an increase of immigration in the 1730s led to a general fear that the

Germans were going to take over.145 Though, as Liam Riordan pointed out, the American

Revolution served to accelerate the ascendency of Pennsylvania Germans in the social hierarchy.146 Interestingly enough, about 30 years later it was the Quakers fearing the

Presbyterians would take control of the colony.147 In 1725 an oath of loyalty was instituted, and in the 1750s none other than Benjamin Franklin began to comment on his fears and observations of the increasing number of Germans.148 In May of 1753 Franklin wrote to Peter Collinson, “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant

Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”149 The relationship between the British and Germans in

Lancaster would continue to be fluid, fragmented, and evolving, however as second-

142 St. Clair, 374-375. 143 Ken Miller, Dangerous Guests: Enemy Captives and Revolutionary Communities During the War for Independence (Ithaca, N.Y.: University of Cornell Press): 13. 144 Ibid, 15. 145 Ibid, 15-17. 146 Riordan, 44-45. 147 Pencak, Pennsylvania’s Revolution, 7. 148 Miller, 16-17. 149 Packard Humanities Institute, “Benjamin Franklin to Peter Collinson: May 9, 1753,” The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Sponsored by the American Philosophical Society and Yale University, http://franklinpapers.org/franklin//framedVolumes.jsp;jsessionid=C8E516078116CC4F57B097EA8A707A C8.

54 generation German citizens began to vote and became active members of the community.150

By 1760 about 70% of Lancaster families were German-speaking, which was a larger proportion than Pennsylvania in general.151 The Lancaster English and Germans had created friendships and business and family relationships, however it was still ethnically divided in the 1770s.152 More often than not, the British and German residents still kept to themselves and the Germans still retained their cultural identities, though both groups also considered themselves subjects of the British Crown.153

The war transformed the community, however only for a time, by requiring

“unprecedented levels of interethnic and intercolonial cooperation.”154 While the freedom and opportunity the German population initially came to America for at first stood for an

“absence of constraint,” by the mid 1760s they had become more protective over the idea of freedom as a part of public responsibility and defense of personal property.155 In fact,

Heinrich Miller and Christopher Sauer, two prominent German publishers based out of

Philadelphia and Germantown, whose articles were often reprinted in English, encouraged the community as a whole to resist imperial policy.156 Though it should be noted that partisan politics still ran rampant across the colony, making it difficult to keep a focus on the imperial crisis.157 Though certainly there was some sense of what it would take for Pennsylvania, and the other thirteen colonies, to come together in support of revolution. David Waldstreicher pointed out that news of the Declaration of

150 Miller, 18. 151 Ibid, 15. 152 Ibid, 36-37. 153 Ibid, 38-39 154 Ibid, 43. 155 Ibid, 50-51. 156 Ibid, 52-53. 157 Pencak, Pennsylvania’s Revolution, 7.

Independence was met with a scene of rejoicing and merriment in Easton,

Pennsylvania.158 Still there was a long way to go in changing the paradigm that existed among the previously independent thirteen colonies.

The result was a region in which localism was dominant and there was no singular shared identity. This created a condition in which the Hessian soldiers that fought alongside the British during the war were simultaneously welcomed and not welcomed by the American colonists. Ironically the political situation in the Germanic states at the time was akin to the condition in the North American Mainland colonies. It would be another 95 years between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the unification of Germany. At the time in which the Hessian soldiers were sent to fight, they themselves came from a localist culture. While the Germanic states were still considered part of the Holy Roman Empire, by 1776, each miniature nation state was really run by local princes in charge of making laws and taxing their citizens. Someone from Prussia would typically think of themselves as being Prussian just as someone from Hesse-Cassel would consider themselves Hessian or as someone in South Carolina might think of themselves as a South Carolinian. Alternatively someone from Saxony might consider themselves European in the same way someone from Georgia might think of themselves as being first and foremost British. It is in this environment that the Hessians found themselves during the war.

From the minute they set foot on American soil the Hessians found themselves targets for American propaganda. On August 14, 1776, the Committee of

Correspondence approached the Continental Congress with a plan to entice Hessian

158 David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776-1820 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997): 33.

56 soldiers to desert. The plan was approved August 16, with one of the resolutions being to send land offers to those Hessians stationed on Staten Island.159 The Continental

Congress found it beneficial that the Hessians shared a common ancestry with so many colonists and capitalized on the connection. An example of this is when Christopher

Ludwick actually feigned interest in deserting the American ranks in favor of joining the

Hessians. Once inside the British-controlled Staten Island camp, Ludwick passed out handbills with the hopes of enticing Hessians to desert to the Patriot cause.160 He was assisted in this mission by Joshua Mersereau (famous for being a part of the Mersereau spy ring) and New Jersey Governor William Livingston.161 In a colony as diverse as

Pennsylvania, it was crucial to have trusted people in key positions because of the division between Loyalists and Patriots.162 Ludwick’s mission had a lot of risk and the fact that he was selected for it shows an incredible degree of trust in his convictions. The average colonist did not care to make the attempt to enlist Hessian aid, however right from the start of the war, the Patriot political leaders attempted to capitalize on the potential for desertions.

Likewise, the press of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution, in particular their treatment of the Hessians, serves as another example of how divided and unsure the colony was during the war. Newspapers took different sides, changed allegiances, and even interpreted the Hessian presence differently over the course of the war. This was a

159 Nagy, 17-18. 160 Ibid. 161 Nagy, 17-18. P. K. Rose, “The Founding Fathers of American Intelligence,” Central Intelligence Agency, (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and- monographs/the-founding-fathers-of-american-intelligence/art-1.html). The AMC series Turn has recently introduced the non-academic community to the story of the Culper Spy Ring, however they were just one of many spy cells operating at the command of General Washington. 162 In his book, Nagy points out that in central Pennsylvania the Mennonites and Dunkers remained loyal to the Crown (133).

57 period of time in which new newspapers were formed while others went out of business.

The makeup of these papers was in a state of constant flux and represents a society in discord. As the war approached, individual newspapers were forced to take sides. The

Pennsylvania Evening Post, for example, began to print dueling advertisements both for and against independence.163 Founded by William and Thomas Bradford, at first the paper vehemently supported revolution.164 But once the British regulars took control of

Philadelphia the paper quickly changed allegiances from Patriot to Loyalist.165 The printer at the time was a man by the name of Benjamin Towne, who was described as “a man of few principles.”166 As such, he tended to make decisions about his paper based on the current political climate and was quick to change sides if it ended up benefitting him.

The fact that Towne was not sure which side to lean towards suggests an ambiguity in the interpretation of the strife between Great Britain and the colonies. Because of its switching allegiances, The Pennsylvania Evening Post provides an interesting example of both colonial perspectives of the war.

While The Pennsylvania Evening Post existed as a paper sitting on both sides of the fence, The Freeman’s Journal and Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet were consistently in support of independence. The Freeman’s Journal was formed in 1776, as a result of revolution, and voraciously promoted the cause of the new American nation.167 Dunlap’s

Pennsylvania Packet also existed as a patriot paper. Rather than switch allegiances as the

British took Philadelphia, the paper moved to Lancaster for the duration of the British

163 Trish Loughran, The Republic in Print: Print Culture in the Age of U.S. Nation Building: 1770-1870, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007): 45-46. 164 Schlesinger, 262. Loughran, 45-46. 165 Bailyn, The Press & the American Revolution, 233. 166 Mott, 88. 167 Schlesinger, 258.

58 occupation.168 While these two papers were certainly not the only papers in support of revolution, they provide excellent examples of pro-independence rhetoric.

All three papers published articles on the Hessians over the course of the war, and had a huge presence in Pennsylvania during the American Revolution.169 At the start of the Revolution, journalists reported mostly informational pieces on the Hessians. Once the fighting intensified, negative emotions began to underlie the articles. Pennsylvanians displayed not just anger or dislike of the Hessian troops, but utter hatred for these men.

At the wars’ end, as a complete turn of course, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, which once called for Hessian genocide, reported on the injuries suffered by a Hessian at the hands of colonists. While some articles had not come to completely embrace the Hessian presence, they reflected the complexity of having a Germanic army hired to wage war against a Germanic people.

Local Tales and Superstitions

When it was announced in January 1776 that the British government had contracted the service of Hanoverian and Hessian troops for the purpose of putting down the American rebellion, the Patriots interpreted this course of action as firm proof that the

British government did not see them as equal citizens to the Crown. Hiring another country’s army was the kind of thing one did when engaging in conflict with a foreign nation. To hire the Hessians reaffirmed the colonial belief that they were not truly endowed with the rights of British subjects.

The following February Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet published an article reporting on news from Ireland that mentioned word of the Crown enlisting the services

168 Sidney Kobre, Development of American Journalism, (Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown Co., 1969): 89. 169 They fought at the Battle of Brandywine and the Battle of Germantown and also participated in the British occupation of Philadelphia.

59 of “six thousand Hessian troops.”170 In what would most likely have been one of the first mentions of the Hessian contract with Parliament, the author cautioned the colonists with a very clear warning; “Liberty I take care; you now stand in imminent danger. – A foreign army, to awe the subjects of Great Britain, is an attempt at arbitrary power which should make every real friend to the Constitution tremble.”171 Though this is more a reflection on feelings towards the British than of the Hessians, the fact that someone in

Ireland would point out the “foreign army” would “awe” the citizens of Great Britain implies a sense of foreboding. It almost suggests Parliament is attempting to call the

Patriots’ bluff. Though it is also clear in the article that others within the British Empire also saw the fact that Parliament would hire an army from another country to subdue the rebellion as bad form. Contracting an outside force for the purposes of military engagement is more the thing to do when going to war with France or Spain, but the citizens of the British crown that lived in the American mainland colonies were paying taxes to support the British Empire.172 This passage reflected many of the emotions that were similarly felt in New York when The New-York Gazette reported on the initial contracting of the Hessian menace.

The colonists had largely wanted reform in British colonial policy but now

Parliament was sending a very clear message that the colonists were not to be considered full-fledged British citizens. Perhaps most important here is what the colonists were implying about themselves. In their criticism of this Parliamentary decision Dunlap’s

Pennsylvania Packet stated that the colonists did not resort to abuses of power and intimidation games. This article took steps to cast heroes and villains in the coming

170 Editorial, Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, February 19, 1776. 171 Ibid. 172 Imagine if the United States military hired forces from China to put down protests in Puerto Rico.

60 conflict. There was no way to know it at the time, but a simple strategic decision on the part of the British government would soon condemn the Hessians to the role of enemy.

Another significant repercussion of this article is that it laid the foundation for the public about what to expect from the Hessians.

Shortly thereafter, and less than a month before independence was declared by the

American mainland colonies, The Pennsylvania Evening Post continued to tackle the issue of the Hessian presence in an article dated June 6, 1776. The article recounted a letter from General Yorke and extolled the foreign mercenaries as “most excellent troops.”173 The article proceeded to mention that they “seem fully satisfied with their destination. Not one man deserted during their first march.”174 Furthermore, “the only dissatisfaction shewn among the Hessian troops, is among those that are to continue home.”175 In this article, similarly published in New York, General Yorke was likely a reference to Joseph Yorke, a British officer.176 This appears to be another intimidation article, attempting to convince the Patriots to end their rebellion before things get worse.

It reads almost as a propaganda piece, giving the colonists a glimpse of what was in store for them.177 Having visibility to information like the fact that these mercenaries were excited to be on their way to America helped to perpetuate the perceptions many already had about the Hessians character as well as their motivations. By this time, though, the

Continental Congress would already be organizing their own propaganda campaign to

173 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 6, 1776. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid. 176 The London Gazette online archives has an article available on Yorke becoming a Baron (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/13024/pages/437). 177 The Hessians would not land on American soil until August of 1776 (AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG, “The Hessians: Chapter VI The Battle of Long Island, August 1776), http://www.americanrevolution.org/hessians/hess6.html). Gordon Wood also references this as occurring on August 27, 1776 (Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787 [Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998]: XV).

61 convince their fellow colonists that the Hessians were not a blight, but a people that could be reasoned with.

One week later the same paper published an article directly reflecting what the

Continental Congress wished the colonists to believe about the Hessians. The

Pennsylvania Evening Post explained that “though there is a clause in the Hessian treaty, that no soldier shall be suffered to settle in America, without the consent of his commanding officer, it is generally believed that very few will ever return.” 178 This portion of the article painted a picture of the Hessians using the war as an excuse to immigrate to America. The author continued “it is most profitable that those who do not get their brains knocked out, will insist upon staying among their own countrymen, who have emigrated there.”179 The clear aim in this article was to appeal to the shared ethnicity between so many colonists and the Hessians. It suggested these men had more in common with their Germanic cousins who had previously settled in America than one might otherwise believe and that the Hessians were ready to capitalize on it. After all, decades of European immigration had brought countless Germanic peoples to the colonies.180

Pennsylvania had long been established as an area of Germanic cultures. If the

Hessians bound for America had the ability to make use of the continent’s bountiful resources while living among people with whom they shared a common ancestry, then

178 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 6, 1776. There is a scene in Braveheart where the English hire the Irish to put down the Scottish rebellion. As they are about to come to blows on the battlefield, the Irish suddenly exchange handshakes and hugs with the Scottish and join their side. While not a great example of historical accuracy, this seems to parallel well with the view of the Hessians the Continental Congress attempted to construct. 179 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 6, 1776. 180 As quoted throughout this treatment, The Peopling of British North America does a great job detailing immigration into the British North American colonies in the generations leading up to the revolution; including those from the German states.

62 perhaps there was not much to fear in their presence. The fact that a clause in the Hessian contract prohibited settling in America suggests that some degree of interest (or at least the fear of interest) in desertion existed among the group of soldiers. However, once the

Hessians had arrived and became active in the American war for independence, the colonists had to confront the hesitations they had for the Hessians, which showed itself in anger and disgust for the men that came to kill the American colonists for money.

By this point in the war the majority of battles still had yet to be fought, the

Treaty of Paris was still about seven years away, and the Continental Congress had concluded from Philadelphia that the American mainland colonies were in fact free and independent states. They were the United States of America, though now they had the task of convincing the rest of the nation they were a nation. In fact, as David Armitage pointed out, when written, the Declaration of Independence “was a document of state- making, not of nation forming,” and nowhere indicates anything more than the thirteen colonies were simply free and independent states.181 The Hessians yet to set foot on

American soil.

When the Hessians finally landed in America the following August, they were surprised at the make up of the Patriot army. It had been made up of men from all different professions.182 The Hessians also originally sympathized more with the British and Loyalists once they witnessed homes being burned and people being enslaved.183 Not even the Germanic towns pleased the Hessians as they saw them as having too much

181 David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007): 17. 182 Atwood, 164-165. They also expressed surprise at just how bountiful the land was with natural resources. 183 Ibid, 166.

63 variation religion and the citizens as being ignorant and ill mannered.184 Clearly the initial expectation that they would be deserting en masse had been greatly exaggerated. They first landed in Staten Island, which had be seized by the British some months before and operated out of British-controlled New York. They did not have to wait long to see action as they became a part of the Battle of Long Island about two weeks later. It was one of many decisive British victories. 185 The Hessians were off to a great start.

Among the first Hessians to be captured in the war were taken by Pennsylvania militiamen from Staten Island in the fall of 1776. The moment of capture/surrender in these situations was always a contentious, regardless of who had the upper hand. Both relied on a degree of trust that could not be guaranteed.186 One wrong move or bit of extra resistance could mean the difference between life and death.

This early in the war, the Hessians appeared to embody everything the Patriots feared about them. It took the Battles of Trenton and Princeton and the subsequent capture of about 11,000 Hessians to begin to shift the colonial paradigm. The Hessians had to be sent somewhere and the decision was made strategically to keep many of them in the prisoner of war camps in Pennsylvania. In an area with a heavy Germanic population, housing Hessian prisoners in the area could only have been possible if

Pennsylvania Germans were mostly in support of the Patriot cause.187 At the same time, if the Hessians could glean a bit of kindred spirit by living among the German-Americans in Pennsylvania, perhaps they could open their minds to the Patriot cause and maybe

184 Ibid, 169. 185 Joseph T. Logan, Dec. 2001, The American Revolution - The Battle of Long Island (Brooklyn Heights), Retrieved April 25, 2014, Website url: www.theamericanrevolution.org/battledetail.aspx?battle=8. 186 In one of the early histories of the Revolution, Mercy Otis Warren argued that the idea of surrender was “annihilated by the indiscriminate ravages of the Hessian and British soldiery.” Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution: Interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations, vol. 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1970): 351. 187 Pencak, Beyond Philadelphia, XX.

64 even desert. The Patriot leaders assumed these men would want to desert as they had been oppressed and abused by the real enemy: the British.188

But Congress also needed the American people to overcome their fear of and anger towards the Hessians.189 While their actions in New York and New Jersey had angered the colonists, the fact that they were more emotionally detached to the larger struggle allowed the Hessians to be more inclined to consider the colonial lifestyle.190 To

Pennsylvanian communities, caring for prisoners presented logistical challenges. On the one hand room and board needed to be figured out, which might drain local resources.191

On the other hand they could be used as hostages, communicators, local consumers, physical proof of battle victories, propaganda tools, and laborers, which allowed those in charge of the camps to control an otherwise chaotic environment and prevented over- crowding.192 For example, Lion G. Miles pointed out that many Hessians “were used in the various ironworks of York, Lancaster, Berks, and Bucks Counties.”193 Giving the

Hessians a certain amount of freedom also required a degree of trust. Residents of

Reading, in Berks County, expressed concern early on in the war that the Hessians might sabotage gunpowder and ammunition reserves, though by 1781 the almost 1,000 prisoners in the area were general described as being peaceful and well-behaved (though they still required guards).194 Over time these men, albeit forcefully, had begun to integrate with society. Rather than keep them locked up in prisons or taking them to the gallows, they allowed these men to work and live among them.

188 Krebs, 184, 228. 189 Graeff, 96-97. 190 Ibid, 97-98. 191 Krebs, 7. 192 Krebs, 5-6. 193 Lion G. Miles, “The Iron Master and the Hessians,” Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, Inc. 2.1 (Millville, Pa: The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, 1981): 17. 194 Karen Guenther, “Berks County,” Pencak, Beyond Philadelphia, 78-79.

That Witching Hour

As 1777 began, The Pennsylvania Evening Post published an article describing the arrival of a French fleet. After previous concern that the upstart nation would find no outside help it finally appeared that the United States would not sit alone in the sea of war. Washington had been successful in the Battle of Trenton and the Battle of

Princeton.195 As Gordon Wood pointed out, these victories were integral to the war. He suggested that these successes in battle exponentially built morale among those in support of the patriot cause and that “oaths of loyalty to the king declined, and patriot militia moved back into control of local areas vacated by the withdrawing British troops.196

As the Patriots gained a second wind, the Pennsylvania Evening Post struck out with some choice words against those who opposed liberty. Of the newfound assistance, the author of the article believed that the French “no doubt will effectively divert the attention of Britain from pursuing her diabolical schemes against America.”197 The author went on to describe the Germanic assistants as “hireling companions in wickedness and brutality” and “Hessian banditti.”198 The author also appealed to God, asking that he

“give our soldiers grace and valor to drive [the Hessians] out of this continent, or to exterminate from the face of the earth.”199 As a final attempt at imagery for the injustices perpetrated by the Hessians, the author included a poem stating:

Our groaning country bleeds at every vein; Now murders, rapes, fell massacres prevail, And desolation covers all the land! Who can hear this, and not, with patriot zeal,

195 Gordon Wood’s The American Revolution: A History is a good reference for the significance of these battles and all things related to the revolution. 196 Ibid, 79. 197 Editorial. The Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 1, 1777. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid.

Nobly step forth, to guard their wives and children? And sheath a dagger in the villain’s heart Who’d rob us of our peace, our all, our honor!200

While citizens living amongst the Hessians in prison camps had begun to build personal relationships with the soldiers, the author of this article rather described them as plague sent to the Americans by the British. The image of “hireling companions” implied the

Hessians represented a kind of lackey or sidekick to the British forces, though just as vicious. The author invoked a hate for these men so strong he even wanted the Supreme

Being to grant them the ability to successfully commit genocide. The details of the poem asserted the necessity of action against the Hessians.

Their actions were so brutal that the author of this article argued that the whole country had been injured as a result of the rapes and murders around them. Conversely, the implication here is that the colonists fought a noble war. They fought for themselves and no one else, did not plunder ruthlessly, and refrained from inflicting unnecessary violence.201 The fact that the author wished the colonial troops to be the tool for Hessian extermination also implies the colonists were noble enough to fill that role, much like an archangel sent to drive Satan back to Hell. Furthermore, this article abandoned the optimistic view that Hessians might prefer to desert to the colonial cause and took the extreme view that these men are pure evil. Standing in contrast to the direction of the

Continental Congress and General Washington, as well as the efforts among

Pennsylvania Patriots to convince the Hessians to desert, the author indicated a disconnect among the residents of Pennsylvania. Had the American people approached the war truly as a “one” American people, discrepancies such as these would not exist. It

200 Ibid. 201 Whether or not this is actually true can be debated, however that would not stop the Patriot press from arguing they were the righteous combatants.

67 would still take more work from the American political leaders to construct that shared identity.

Later that month The Pennsylvania Evening Post continued to criticize the

Hessians by focusing on their perceived propensity for pillaging. In discussing the

“Hessian plunderer” that ravaged “the Jersieis, it is observable that no reservation is made of Tory property; which occasioned a Quaker... to exclaim, ‘Well, God made these men, but I am sure the Devil governs them.’”202 Despite the evolving relationships between the captured and the local Pennsylvanian colonists, in battle the Hessians continued to make a poor impression on both those they fought against as well as those they lived amongst.

Not only did they face resentment from their mere presence, and not only were they typecast as cronies to the crown, but now, in a way similar to the earlier call for Hessian annihilation, they were also seen among the Quakers as the Devil’s associates. Such an insult may not have the same sting more than two centuries after the events of the

American Revolution, but this type of an association reveals the animosity felt towards the Hessians. These men were viewed not just as enemies, but as evil incarnate ruled by the base instincts that the sophisticated citizens of modern nations deplored. The Quakers did not fight during the war because of their commitment to non-violence, but the

Hessians showed an utter disregard for that religious belief. Echoing the feelings of the previous article, the January 28, 1777 piece pushed again to an un-redeemable view of these men. However The Pennsylvania Evening Post did not remain universally anti-

Hessian, as was about to be seen.

The next day, the same paper published an article that recounted William Sterett’s

(a lieutenant in the Continental Army) experience in being taken prisoner by the “foreign

202 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 28, 1777.

68 mercenaries.” In his description he asserted that, “the Hessian officers were somewhat kind and polite, and the Hessian soldiers, after committing robberies on the prisoners, were obliging.”203 The account went on to indicate that the prisoners were provided with

“only two thirds of a British ration… the bread particularly was frequently exceedingly bad.”204 In addition to this, Sterett claimed that many of the wounded died out of neglect from the Hessian surgeons and that men frequently came in to attempt to recruit the prisoners to the British cause.

This source still conveyed a negative impression of the Hessian presence, though certainly not in with the same disgust from that previous January, or even the previous day. The concession that the Hessians maintained a degree of politeness, whether meant to be a statement of irony next to the list of injuries committed by them or a concession that they were not completely brutal, showed a sense of identity in flux. Though Sterrett’s experience was particular to his status and the individual Hessians who happened to take him captive, word of his experience was being shared across the Eastern Seaboard and being considered by those reading his story. Beyond Sterrett’s experience, it appeared in general that Hessians treated their prisoners better than the British did.205 Even if some still hated the Hessians, the issue was not one-dimensional. Interactions between colonists and Hessians became more numerous and more commonplace and thus the colonial view of these men began to evolve. Friendlier relations developed as they continued to be around one another and Patriot offers of land and protection to Hessian

203 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 29, 1777. 204 Ibid. 205 Atwood, 178.

69 deserters increase.206 As this view evolved, those in Philadelphia had no way to know their circumstances were about to change drastically.

By April 1777 Howe had decided to take his army to Philadelphia through New

Jersey by crossing the Delaware River. Ultimately he decided to attack by sea with the ultimate goal of taking control of the Patriot capital. Another factor in this decision was for Howe to make up for some of the embarrassment he had felt after his failures at

Trenton and Princeton.207 Knowing Howe’s ultimate goal of taking Philadelphia, General

Washington directed General Thomas Mifflin to establish a new spy network, based in the city in case Howe’s plans came to fruition.208 Washington wanted to be more prepared than he was in New York and specifically wanted to recruit members of the

Quaker community because their commitment to non-violence would arouse less suspicion from the British.209 In late August Howe landed 15,000 troops in Chesapeake

Bay in preparation for his facing Washington. It would be another five months before

Howe would reach Philadelphia, but the die had been cast, the Rubicon crossed.

As Howe made plans to take Philadelphia, The Pennsylvania Evening Post published in its April 8, 1777 issue reflecting a more positive (though somewhat odd) view of the men perceived to have been sent to steal American freedom in exchange for pay, particularly compared to previous articles published in under the paper.210 The letter, titled “of a Letter from Providence, Dated March 21,” indicated that the Hessian soldiers wanted to defect to the American side and simply needed the right opportunity to do so.

The author of the letter mentioned no less than a Hessian deserter (found in Newport)

206 Ibid, 182-183, 186. 207 Nagy, 32. 208 Ibid, 46. 209 Ibid. 210 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, April 8, 1777.

70 claimed the Hessian soldiers sent to America were only too willing to desert from their

British ranks to join the American cause.211 He also stated that, Hessian and British officers alike had a habit of meeting with “ladies of pleasure” because of their incredible beauty.212 Unfortunately General Prescott ordered the women to be confined to jail as a result of these frequent “meetings.”213

It was further revealed to the readers that a Hessian major fought in a duel with a

Hessian captain over a “Miss Sally Lake” (a lady of pleasure) in which the major was

“run through the body” and died.214 While the article was published in Pennsylvania, it was anonymously written (as far as has been determined) in Rhode Island. Based on the fact that the letter was written in America and spoke positively of the Continental army

(that it “fills fast”) and of the beauty of American “ladies of pleasure” (perhaps an odd aspect of colonial life to extol), one can surmise that the author held American interests at heart. Having gained a second wind from Trenton and Princeton some months earlier, this article also indicated the Americans began to feel less threatened by the foreign mercenaries. It would be another six months until the decisive American victory at

Saratoga but the situation seemed more promising for the fledgling nation.215 The

Pennsylvania Evening Post was likely interested in raising public morale over a difficult war with Great Britain. They wanted to spread good news. More than that, the paper relayed further proof that the colonists of Pennsylvania were still trying to reconcile the

211 Ibid. 212 Ibid. 213 Likely Richard Prescott. There is an article from The London Gazette in 1772 that mentions his appointment as Lieutenant-Colonel (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/11260/pages/1). 214 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, April 8, 1777. 215 General John Burgoyne surrendered on October 17, 1777.

Hessian presence. Not only may the Hessians prove potentially useful allies, but they also seemed to like the land and the women.

Three weeks later, The Pennsylvania Evening Post returned to its earlier position, viewing the Hessians as hired thugs. The paper published an affidavit against a group of

Hessian jägers for an attack on Reverend Rosburgh, described as a chaplain in the

Pennsylvania militia. Upon running into the Hessians, the account stated the Reverend

“surrendered himself a prisoner; notwithstanding which one of them struck him on the head with a sword or cutlass, and then stabbed him several times with a bayonet, whilst imploring mercy, and begging life at their hands.”216 While New York had begun to express the noble side of the Hessians, this article suggested a lack of honor among the

Germanic soldiers. The author continued to explain “after he was thus massacred, he was stripped naked, and in that condition left lying in the open field.”217 The article also pointed out that one of the Hessians responsible for the attack referred to Rosburgh simply as a “damn’d rebel minister.”218 The story had everything in it to support the

Patriot cause: an innocent victim pleading for his life, a heinous and unwarranted attack, and the fact that the Hessians responsible for the attack appeared not even to care about who this man was. More than that, it hindered the possibility of Pennsylvanians wishing to welcome the Hessians into their communities with open arms.

Adding fuel to the fire, William Darling recounted his life in a prisoner of war camp run by the Hessian soldiers less than a week after Sterett’s anecdote. On May 3,

1777 The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported that, according to Darling, “the prisoners

216 Legal Proceedings, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, April 29, 1777. 217 Ibid. 218 Ibid.

72 were very roughly used at Harlem.”219 More specifically, Darling pointed out, “at nine of the clock at evening the Hessian guards would come in and put out their fires, and would lay on the poor prisoners with heavy clubs for sitting round the fire.”220 He also mentioned “their water was very bad, as well as their bread… they [the prisoners] began to die like rotten sheep with cold, hunger, and dirt.”221 While all this was going on, “the enemy seemed to take a kind of infernal pleasure in their sufferings.”222 According to

Darling, not only did the Hessians mistreat the American prisoners of war, but they appeared to take pleasure in doing so.223 Here the Hessians emerge as sadists bent on destruction. Such recent articles would on serve to continue the feelings of hate and anger towards the Hessians.

Two weeks later word of the Hessian prisoners of war from the Battle of Trenton found its way into the Pennsylvania press. It had been about five months after the fact, but followers of the colonial news now had an in-depth look at the men who had lost to

Washington. The article stated that the Hessian soldiers taken prisoner at the Battle of

Trenton “behaved indifferently, having an eye to the preservation of their plunder more than to fighting.”224 The content of their character was here described as being devoid of any moral fabric. Though while certainly not complimentary of these men, when put in parallel with the previous article the Hessians came off not as intimidating warriors, but as greedy opportunists. Being the captors instead of the prisoners crushed the myth and allowed the colonists to view the Hessians as fallible men.

219 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, May 3, 1777. 220 Ibid. Earlier in the article Darling also mentions being held in a “cold open house” with no insulation. 221 Ibid. 222 Ibid. 223 Fischer also points out that at the fall of Fort Washington, the Hessians “‘were extremely irritated at having lost a good many men in the attack’ and killed some of the riflemen after surrender, until the officers intervened to stop the slaughter” (Fischer, 113). 224 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, May 17, 1777.

The Pennsylvanian press seemed to be asserting that the Hessians did not need to fight to be satisfied with their time in North America, as long as they had their plunder. It also suggested to the colonists that the Hessians had something to lose in the fight after all. They may have been, in the eyes of some, pestilence on North America, but they could be defeated or at the very least negotiated with. Therein may have also laid an unconscious connection between the Hessians and the colonists. Over time the colonists in the British colonies had developed into a materialistic society. Personal property likely meant as much as to them as they perceived plunder meant to the Hessians. Perhaps they were willing to exploit that perceived weakness to their benefit should the opportunity present itself. Though deny it as them must, a shared culture did exist between many of the Pennsylvanians and the Hessians. Regardless of how they felt about the Hessians, it would come up given enough time.

The Philadelphia Campaign is considered to have officially started with the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777, which resulted in Howe defeating Washington, having suffered 89 dead, 488 wounded, and 6 captured compared to the colonial 300 killed, 600 wounded, and 400 captured.225 It had been nine months since Trenton and

Princeton and again Washington had needed this victory to boost morale among his troops. Unfortunately it was beyond his grasp this time. In response to the loss at

Brandywine, the Continental Congress abandoned its home in Philadelphia, fleeing to

Lancaster and finally settling in York. On September 26, 1777 the British marched his troops into Philadelphia unopposed. The city was theirs.

225 Joseph T. Logan, Dec. 2001, The American Revolution – The Battle of Brandywine, Retrieved April 25, 2014, Website url: www.theamericanrevolution.org/battledetail.aspx?battle=16.

The traditional European rules of war dictated that whoever takes the opponent’s capital wins the war. The British incorrectly assumed the capture of Philadelphia would end the rebellion, however, to their surprise, the Patriots continued fighting. This was a war defined by unusual tactics and driven by an almost primal urge for independence.

The Patriots were not about to let conventional rules end the struggle. Another unintended implication coming from the British was that in attempting to end the rebellion by capturing the Patriot capital, they may have further validated the fact that the

Patriots were not simply rebels, but a sovereign nation after all. Once the British had taken the city and it became apparent the fighting would not end, they sent troops, including Hessian forces, to hole up at Germantown. Washington had made a valiant attempt to take the city, but he instead he face yet another loss and was still short the victory he needed to rekindle that morale.

It had only been about a week, but at this point, the British had a firm hold on

Philadelphia and the press seemed to follow their lead. The following October 10, The

Pennsylvania Ledger published an article detailing an attack made on “Hessian Yagers” at the “Falls of Schulkill.” The article commended “this brave body of men... [who] drove more than thrice their own number from a very advantageous post.”226 The story told of the battle is more informational than anything else, though the article overwhelmingly represents the Loyalist side of the war. The implication here was that the Hessians were noble warriors out to put down an unwarranted rebellion among terrorists. Obviously catering to the new British residents in the city, the fact remained the British were not the only ones to read this paper. The Pennsylvanian colonists reading these words included

226 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Ledger, October 10, 1777.

Loyalists in support of the Crown. For those siding with the Patriots, this article also served as a piece of propaganda to try to sway them to the Loyalist side.

This article stands as evidence of a dichotomy between political factions among the Pennsylvania colonists during the American war for independence. Particularly when taken alongside The Pennsylvania Evening Post, which had been incredibly critical of the

Hessians, The Pennsylvania Ledger showed multiple political and social perspectives among colonists were in a state of flux. Granted this depended on the powers in charge of

Philadelphia. Still multiple views of the conflict existed.

As 1778 began conflict between the British Regulars and the Hessian soldiers became revealed in an article from The Pennsylvania Packet. The article described the reality that the “English and Hessians did not coalesce into one corps.”227 Had the

Hessians simply been “hireling companions” to the British regulars, perhaps comparable to how the Sleepy Hollow Boys were to Brom Bones, there would have been no cause for dissension between the two groups. The fact that they could not work seamlessly together suggests the two groups had their own motivations, opinions, and goals in the war. To harken back to earlier criticisms of the Hessian in the press, the author went on to describe the men as “naturally fierce” and stated that they “considered the country as an object of vengeance.”228 More than that, the author pointed out, “the country was certainly ravaged at a high rate; it is inconceivable the terror they raised in the

Americans, who trembled at the very name of a Hessian.”229 This again speaks to some of the earlier opinions of the Hessians; they were nothing more than ruthless mercenaries

227 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Packet, January 7, 1778. 228 Ibid. 229 Ibid.

76 that went around spreading fear, much as Irving’s “Galloping Hessian” would some 42 years later.

Also reflecting an earlier article, the author pointed out that, “the increase of their plunder was their only care; they would not move without it.”230 Perhaps Parliament was not as in charge of the Hessians as they assumed. While certainly not true historically, this article created the mood that the Hessians were barbarians, while implying that the

British were akin to Pandora and the colonists simply victims trying to put their homes right again. This article reveals that an older view of the Hessians still endured among colonists, though moods and opinions were changing and the press became more complimentary for the Hessians in the months to come.

About a year after the Sterett article was published, another article touching on the

Hessian presence appeared in The Pennsylvania Evening Post. The story covered communication that had occurred between the Hessian Landgraf and Lieutenant General

Knyphausen. In January of 1778, the war was in a different stage. With the Saratoga campaign some six months past, the Americans found even more vigor in fighting the

British. The French were a month away from forming an alliance with the Americans, which further cemented the coming American victory.231 Under this context, the newspaper article did not seek to paint the Hessians as murderous barbarians, but rather spoke of them somewhat complimentarily. The newspaper reported that, “the landgrave being informed by lieut. gen. Knyphausen, that the Hessian troops under his command in

America, had behaved in every action with the greatest bravery.”232 The actual text of the article, simply reporting on a Hessian officer’s account of Hessian actions to a Hessian

230 Ibid. 231 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Packet, February 6, 1778. 232 The Pennsylvania Evening Post, February, 6, 1778.

77 leader, cannot be considered an opinion piece. On the surface it may not even appear to be a representation of American interpretations of the Hessian presence.

The article stands in stark contrast the earlier calls for Hessian extermination, though at the time the British still controlled Philadelphia, something that would not endure much longer. Perhaps the article was a last-ditch effort to spread propaganda about the strength of the Hessians at a time when the Americans had begun to have the upper hand. However, if that were the case, the paper would switch courses to Hessian criticism once the British evacuated the city. As it turned out the opinions expressed in the Pennsylvania press would continue in favor of these men, though in different ways.

The British were still rapidly adjusting to both the decisive loss at Saratoga as well as the resignation of General Howe and as such, Clinton was directed to abandon

Philadelphia to better defend New York City against a naval attach by the French. They officially evacuated on June 18, 1778 and General Arnold, who had yet to betray General

Washington and the Patriot cause, had emerged from the whole ordeal as a hero.233 The evacuation of Philadelphia also marked the first significant period of Hessian desertion, with an estimated 236 leaving their ranks that March.234 The opportunity presented by the

Americans seems to have outweighed the potential consequences of staying with the

British.

In August of 1778 The Pennsylvania Packet published a letter that complimented the Hessians. The letter discussed two Hessian officers who had “contracted an affection for the country” and actually resigned their commission as a result.235 This would be significant to the colonists as the Hessian officers were typically less likely to desert than

233 Nagy, 143. 234 Atwood, 193. 235 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Packet, August 8, 1778.

78 the enlisted men. The observation furthered the long-standing assertion from the

Continental Congress that the Hessians might have a place alongside the French as valuable allies. Four months later the same paper published a letter from Charles Fearer and William Kleinsmeit, both identified as Hessian captains and former prisoners of war.

The letter is an explanation of their position on the war as well as the Americans. The captains claimed “whenever a Prince undertakes to sell his subjects to a foreign power for infamous and wicked purposes, without their knowledge or consent, we are of opinion such subjects have a right to vacate the contract as soon as an opportunity offers.”236 This in particular would speak to anyone in support of the Patriot cause. The sentiment expressed by the Hessians here related directly to the feelings the Patriots had about their treatment by the British. As a parallel to the criticisms they felt for their prince, the

Hessian captains pointed out that during their time in captivity, “every mark of attention and humanity was shewn... here we had an opportunity of knowing the nature of the contest.”237 The letter went on to describe the internal struggle the two felt in trying to reconcile their notions of honor and duty with the thought of fighting in what they increasingly considered an unjust war. Towards the end of the letter Captains Fearer and

Kleinsmeit stated very clearly that they consider themselves Americans, thus breaking their connection to the Hessian state.

This article acts as a visible bridge between the colonists and Hessians. Having such adamant passion for freedom coming from Hessian captains validated everything the Continental Congress had claimed to be true of the Hessians. It also indicated the

236 Editorial, The Pennsylvania Packet, December 24, 1778. On a side note, this letter published almost exactly two years after General Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River. Captains Fearer and Kleinsmeit also mention they were taken prisoner at the Battle of Trenton, the conflict that took place following Washington’s crossing. 237 Ibid.

Hessians would be welcomed among the Patriots with open arms. A decision to not only desert but to wholly renounce the actions of the British against the Americans also allowed these Hessians to join American society as newly naturalized citizens.238 These men found a niche in American society at a crucial time and would form new lives and families. Assimilation, for those that wished it, would still prove difficult, but a door and most certainly been opened, and right at a time when the war was about to be decided.

A Labyrinth of Whims and Caprices

The Battle of Yorktown, began October 9, 1781, was the final, conclusive battle of the American Revolution. The battle ended on October 17 when the British surrendered. Cornwallis, claiming to be sick, refused to meet with Washington formally or to participate in the ceremony of surrender. With the war lost to the British as a result of Yorktown, support at home diminished quickly and talks of peace began. The treaty had not yet been signed, but the victors had been decided. The decision for Hessians to desert at this point would have been far more tempting and mutually beneficial. Even though the United States had essentially won the war, they were bankrupt and in need of men, so the Congress began to recruit Hessian prisoners with the alternative option to either enter into an indentured servitude agreement or else to pay a ransom for their freedom (the British did not have this same option).239

As 1782 began The Freeman’s Journal published a poem suggested to be the last will and testament of James Rivington. Highly critical of the pro-British side of the war

(as a name like The Freeman’s Journal might suggest), the poem “bequeaths” items to people like the King George III, “Arnold the traitor and Satan his brother,” and Sir Henry

238 Just as the common Pennsylvanian soldiers found themselves able to do as pointed out by Knouff. 239 Krebs, 8, 229-230, 273.

Clinton.240 In the middle of the poem the author took aim at the Hessian forces in

America:

To Baron Knyphausen, his heirs and assigns, I bequeath my old bock, and my Burgundy wines, To a true Hessian drunkard no liquors are sweeter, And I know the old man is no foe to the creature.241

Accounts of Hessians abusing alcohol did appear in early accounts, even beyond the press. However such mentions in the earlier years of the revolution tended to be tied to moments where the Hessians were involved in pillaging and violence. In this case the sole focus of this stanza appeared to be on the alcohol abuse.

By this time in the war the significant numbers of Hessian defectors combined with significant British/Hessian losses at the Battle of Trenton, the Battle of Saratoga, and other key campaigns, the Hessians had become far less threatening to the newly formed American nation. This article speaks to the fact that there was no longer any sense of intimidation felt towards the Hessians. Instead it made light of the perception that the

Hessians have a penchant for drinking. What the poem also accomplished was that it alienated a people with sizeable numbers that had already joined the Patriot side. With the war won, and scores of Hessians coming to the Patriots on their own, the author of this poem clearly held no concern for ruffling feathers.

Several months later, the same paper published another poem with passing mention of the Hessians. While the poem itself was congratulatory of the colonial cause it granted a backhanded compliment to the Hessians:

240 Editorial, The Freeman’s Journal, February 27, 1782. 241 Ibid.

The short of the matter is thus, as I take it,– New York of true Britons is plainly left naked, And their conduct amounts to an honest consession, That they cannot depend on a runaway Hessian:242

New York had been in British control for the whole of the war. Now with the struggle coming to a close, the author of this poem threw a final dig at the British as they left the city. It also implied the British regulars were shortsighted in trusting the mercenaries from Hesse-Cassel. The poem asserted that the Hessians had a propensity for desertion.

This really is a bizarre criticism of the Hessians for joining the Patriot side of the war as if to say something of the strength in their national allegiances. Though by no means reflective of the entire group, the poem implied the Hessians that did defect were turncoats but at the same time did the right thing in supporting the Patriot cause. These two descriptions seem to be at odds with each other in much the same way the citizens of

Pennsylvania were.

Though with all the Hessian criticism seen in the press as the war drew to a close,

The Freeman’s Journal offered a new sense of sympathy for these men. On December

18, 1782 the newspaper reported that “a Hessian deserter, after being beaten and robbed by some soldiers of gen. Hazen’s regiment, was forced contrary to his will to give a bond for thirty pounds… as if he had been a prisoner of war.”243 That previous November, according to General Moses Hazen, the price of freedom for Hessian captives was $80, or

“30 pounds in Pennsylvania and New Jersey currency,” to be paid by the Germans themselves or whoever they entered into an indentured servitude agreement with.244

242 Editorial, The Freeman’s Journal, July 10, 1782. 243 Editorial, The Freeman’s Journal, December 18, 1782. 244 Lion G. Miles, “The Iron Master and the Hessians,” 18. 244 Karen Guenther, “Berks County,” Pencak, Beyond Philadelphia, 78-79.

Robert Morris would go on the help those who opted for indentured servitude to become citizens of the United States, not simply citizens of an individual state.245

However, forcing Hessian prisoners to enlist in the army, or else pay for freedom or enter into indentured servitude, did not help relations with the men Washington hoped to sway, so after April 1782 enlisting became voluntary.246 In addition to this, as professional soldiers and prisoners of war, forcing some into indentured servitude was against the law.247 In the story reported by The Freemans’ Journal, there was a defenseless Hessian, who had seen the light and attempted to join the American cause, brutally assaulted by American forces and forced into indentured servitude, just the kind of situation deemed illegal and immoral several months earlier. The fact that he was not even a prisoner of war, but a deserter speaks to the character of the Patriot soldiers who abused him.

This story related conflicting views of the Hessians. On the one hand, there are still Pennsylvanians out there, some of them soldiers, who seek to enact violence on the

Hessians, regardless of their position on the war. On the other hand, the men responsible for this terrible act are being called out and criticized, showing the ability to sympathize with and relate to the Hessian deserter. The war was about to end and while huge steps had been made to construct a positive relationship between the Hessians and the

Germanic Pennsylvanians, the colonists were still in conflict for how to treat these men.

Reflections on the Keystone State

It had been over a year since Cornwallis’s surrender and it would be another nine months until the war would officially end, but the Americans knew what they had

245 Krebs, 230. 246 Lion G. Miles, “The Iron Master and the Hessians,” 29. 247 Ibid.

83 accomplished.248 At this stage the Hessians were no longer seen as a threat. Significant numbers had deserted either to settle in America or even to take arms against the

British.249 In interacting more with the enemy, and getting to know them more personally, allowed many Hessians to be accepted as members of American society in the post-war years, but their legacy from the war years still endured, as was evident when Irving chose to represent them in literature as a rapacious specter in “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

In the decades leading up to the American Revolution, Pennsylvania existed in a state of turmoil between conflicting ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. Once imagined as an experimental Utopia, all the colonists had proved over time was that they preferred to keep to their own. Even those of a shared Germanic ancestry remained divided based on Religious lines. The result was a chaotic society that rivaled New York.

Once it was announced that the Hessians were contracted to fight under the

British, some assumed this common ancestry along with the wealth of land and opportunity in the colony would create an environment in which desertions became the norm. While not totally inaccurate, time would prove this was not a guarantee. Even though the war allowed certain groups to come together in the spirit of independence, it also introduced new tensions. Pennsylvania remained divided between Loyalist and

Patriot. Hessian and British prisoners of war introduced to the region created social and logistical challenges. While many Pennsylvanians shared a common ancestry with the

Hessian soldiers, there was no strong natural relationship between these Germanic cousins. Many German colonists had long since considered themselves citizens of the

248 October 19, 1781 at Yorktown, Pa. and September 3, 1783, respectively. 249 Most estimates say around 5,000 of the 30,000 Germanic mercenaries (about 13,000 of which were true Hessians) remained and settled in America after the war.

British crown. In addition to this, the Hessians could, at times, act as a reminder of why they chose to immigrate to America in the first place.

With such a tremendous amount of diversity, the press of Pennsylvania reflected a wide range of opinions on the Hessian presence. Some portrayed the Hessians as hireling sidekicks to the British villains. Others argued the Hessians served the Devil himself and were ruled by their own base instincts. Different articles would come to compliment the

Hessian military prowess or to argue the majority wanted to desert (possibly due to their interest in American women). Later papers would take quick jabs at the Hessian character or else would come to their defense when treated unjustly by the Americans. The fact that over the course of the war some articles could call for Hessian extermination while others could seek hope in the possibility of conscripting them for the rebel cause indicates a lack of cohesion among the Pennsylvanians.

CHAPTER 3

THE SLEEPY HOLLOW BOYS: AMERICA’S FIRST HISTORIANS

In the decades following the American Revolution the first generation of

American historians went to work telling the story of how the states came to be united.

The new American historians wrote at least fifteen patriot histories between David

Ramsay (History of the Revolution of South-Carolina from a British Province to an

Independent State, 1785) and John Marshall (Life of George Washington, 1804-1807).250

These writings demonstrated a concern for the United States’ present and future, as there was a fear of widespread government corruption at the time.251 These early historians aspired to create a national identity by uniting disparate ideologies and ethics.252 Given that the American Revolution was not a black and white tale of righteous Americans pitted against dastardly British, these published works can be read to glean insight into the state of national identity in the first decades of America’s existence.253

Many of these authors lived through the American Revolution and witnessed first- hand the failure of the Confederation, the development of the Constitution, and the subsequent success of the Republican experiment. The subject of the Hessians represents just one of the revealing topics explored in these histories. Most literary works

250 Lester H. Cohen, “Explaining the Revolution: Ideology and Ethics in Mercy Otis Warren's Historical Theory,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 37.2 (April 1980, 200-218): 200. 251 Ibid, 200-201. 252 Ibid. 253 At the time these early histories were written there were still strong ties between the states and the nations in Europe. The newly founded nation had a lot to prove, not just domestically, but also internationally.

86 immediately following the war aimed at nation-building, as the authors of the time wanted to alleviate fears that American society was fractured, regionally diversified, and compromised by slavery.254 The need to create a consolidated identity resulted in either ignoring or overly simplifying the Hessian role during the war.

A perception has been created over time that the end of the American Revolution was the moment of success for the United States government, however independence was simply the first step. In the 1780s America faced a time in which they were by all accounts on their own and on the brink of bankruptcy without any solid credit. The people were split between regions, cultures, and political leanings. These differences threatened to tear apart the young nation.

Small Shrewdness and Simple Credulity

For several historians, including David Ramsay, John Marshall, and Mercy Otis

Warren, the need to capture the story of the United States stemmed from the actual experience of living through the Revolution. David Ramsay was born in Pennsylvania during the spring of 1749; however, he lived in South Carolina during the war and even found himself imprisoned in St. Augustine, Florida, after the fall of Charleston. His

History of the American Revolution (1789) represented the first and possibly the most accomplished history of the Revolutionary War.255 He viewed the war as “a catalyst for a larger process of social, political, and moral improvement that would create a new nation” and believed Americans were removed from “European corruption.”256 In

254 Ibid, 1. 255 Karen O’Brien, “David Ramsay and the Delayed Americanization of American History,” Early American Literature 29, no. 1 (March 1994: 1-18): 1. 256 Jordan Barkalow, "Forging American Identity: The Revolutionary Histories of Mercy Warren and David Ramsay," Conference Papers – Midwestern Political Science Association, (2009: 1-26): 16.

87 contrast to Warren, Ramsay argued that virtue and sacrifice were not factors in the

Revolution, but rather it was fought out of fear and selfishness.257

John Marshall, author and Supreme Court Justice, was a young man during the time of the war, like Ramsay, having been born in 1755. 258 He served as a lieutenant and later a captain stationed at Valley Forge under General Washington.259 As such he has carried more weight as a Washington biographer because Marshall actually knew and observed the man.260 He published his five-volume biography of George Washington between 1804 and 1807, and wrote out of deep respect for the former general and

President.261 Marshall’s biography on Washington appeared just as Thomas Jefferson was seeking re-election, and its value to the historical community grew in the decades since.262 Washington Irving, another George Washington biographer, would later officially attest to its accuracy.263

As with Marshall and Ramsay, Mercy Otis Warren lived through the American

Revolution and brought first-hand knowledge to her writing of the subject. Warren was a native of Massachusetts, and as such, experienced the war from a New England perspective. Her education was rather atypical for a woman in her time. Her father, brother, and husband were all deeply involved in Massachusetts politics and she grew up

257 Ibid, 20-21. 258 “Who Served Here? John Marshall,” USHistory.org, 8 December, 2012, . Today, Germantown, VA, is now called Midland. 259 Ibid. 260 John Marshall, Robert K Faulkner, Paul Carrese, The Life of George Washington (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000): xi. 261 “Who Served Here? John Marshall,” USHistory.org, 8 December, 2012, . Today, Germantown, VA, is now called Midland. 262 William A. Foran, “John Marshall as a Historian,” American Historical Review 43, no. 1 (Oct. 1937: 51- 64): 51. Despite the earlier writings of Warren, Marshall, Ramsay, and others, Irving holds the title of “America’s first great author.” 263 Ibid.

88 learning and reading whatever her father taught to her brother.264 She often found her history compared to Marshall because they represented opposing political positions and came out around the same time.265 In contrast to Ramsay and Marshall, she provided a woman’s view of the war, giving an invaluable and unique perspective on the subject.

Lifelong friends with John and Abigail Adams, Warren participated in the Patriotic cause starting with her 1772 publication of The Adulateur.266 Warren hoped her history would serve as a political work to justify the Revolution.267 Furthermore, she saw her history as a way to show how American society could be improved and to warn about the dangers of corruption.268 She felt society had become distanced from Revolutionary ideals and her concern was that the nation would be overcome with greed.269

These patriots recognized that building a new nation did not end with Treaty of

Paris in 1783. They continued to live in, and comment on, a nation struggling not just to find a sense of itself, but also struggling to survive. Warren, Marshall, and Ramsay all entered into a larger conversation about the direction of the nation and how it lived up to

(or in some cases did not) Revolutionary ideals. Warren, for example, was united to others “by an emotional and intellectual commitment to the Revolution derived from firsthand experience.”270In September of 1787, just two years prior to David Ramsay’s

History of the American Revolution, a Constitutional Convention was held to fix what

264 Martha King, "The 'Pen of the Historian': Mercy Otis Warren's History of the American Revolution," Princeton University Library Chronicle, 72.2 (2011: 513-531): 514. 265 Lawrence J. Friedman and Arthur H Shaffer, "Mercy Otis Warren and the Politics of Historical Nationalism," The New England Quarterly, 48.2 (1975: 194-215): 194. 266 “‘The Decisive Day is Come’ The Battle of Bunker Hill,” Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), Massachusetts Historical Society Online, 8 December, 2012, . 267 Ibid, 204. 268 Barkalow, 8. 269 Ibid, 11. 270 Friedman, "Mercy Otis Warren and the Politics of Historical Nationalism," 196.

89 had gone wrong under the Articles of Confederation. Of course, controversy and disagreement over the ratification of the Constitution divided the nation and threatened its chances of passing.

Because the Constitution consolidated federal power, many took an Antifederalist stand out of fear that the American government would regress back to a tyrannical state.271 Those supporting the Constitution saw the Antifederalists as traitors, while the

Antifederalists themselves resented the term and its implications.272 In fact, they were ardently in support of preserving the Confederation.273 Mercy Otis Warren, for example, stood in direct opposition of the Constitution, despite her patriotic leanings, because of her fear that a centralized government would infringe on the rights of the people.274 The

Electoral College, she argued, would become nothing more than “‘an aristocratic junto.’”275 She also felt, in opposition to Federalists, that confusion would result because of the ambiguity left in the Constitution.276 However, it is important to note that she did favor a strong federal government; she simply did not want to sacrifice the liberty of the people.277 Later in life, she too would admit that the ratification served to unite the people as never before.278

John Marshall, in contrast, thought that the Constitution was the true path to democracy.279 In fact, it was primarily Marshall’s, as well as James Madison’s

271 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 47. 272 Ibid, 71, 93. 273 Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, N.C., 1961), xxiii. 274 Main, 133. 275 Ibid, 140. 276 Barkalow, 14. 277 Main, 186. 278 Maier, 456. 279 Main 131.

90 arguments, that convinced others at the Philadelphia Convention to approve ratification of the Constitution.280 Alongside Marshall, David Ramsay also supported the Federalist cause. He believed “those who opposed ratification… were apprehensive that ‘we can make no more instalment laws–no more paper money–& that we will be obliged to pay our debts & taxes.’”281 Ramsay believed the main reason for opposing the Constitution was a fear of financial impact. Time would prove the ratification of the Constitution would eventually bring the nation together, just as the early American historians strove to do in their writings.282 Of course, the evolution of the American identity did not stop with the Bill of Rights. It continued to evolve, and some continued to comment on it.

Federalists, in general, had a concern about the disorder exhibited by the Confederation and as such they created the Constitution “as a political device designed to control the social forces the Revolution had released.”283

A generation later, Washington Irving would enter into the American historical conversation, though rather than aiming to construct a national identity, he reflected back on 80 years of American history at a time when differences between the South and North threatened to tear the nation apart. Irving was raised in the newly free United States, growing up under the generation who had fought for American independence. He was born in the last several months of the war in Manhattan, on April 3, 1783. New York still sat under the British flag, a condition it would endure for the next eighteen months.284

Though he was born too late to retain any first-person memories of the Revolution, his

280 B. Ramage, "John Marshall, Southern Federalist," The Sewanee Review, 9.2 (1901: 129-155): 136. 281 Main, 217. 282 Maier, xi. 283 Wood, The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2009): 476. 284 Andrew Myers, “The New York Years in Irving’s The Life of George Washington,” Early American Literature 11.1 (March 1976: 68-83): 71.

91 family found themselves deeply entrenched in the struggle. As a proponent of the rebel cause, Irving’s father, William, initially took the family to Rahway, New Jersey, at outbreak of local hostilities. However, they returned two years later after enduring harassment by British soldiers for sympathizing with the Patriots. During the war, his mother aided rebel prisoners by visiting local prisons with clothes and blankets.285

Irving actually met his namesake, George Washington, when he was about six years old, during a time when New York briefly became the first federal capital.286

Known for his fictional works, Irving chose to write a biography on Washington in the mid-nineteenth century in order to show the humanity of the president, rather than the legend that the rest of the nation began constructing.287 While Irving’s focus was to tell the story of America’s first President, as with Marshall’s text, one cannot recount

Washington’s life without including the history of the American Revolution. The two are inarguably intertwined.

Irving had witnessed the evolution of the nation, and would have been about five years old when the Constitution was ratified. During his prominence as an author, he chose to comment on just how different the nation had become through his most popular short story, “Rip Van Winkle.”288 Everything had grown busy and fast, and society had become unrecognizable by Van Winkle. Irving favored English culture, but still acknowledged the greatness of the Republican experiment undertaken by the United

285 Ibid. 286 Ibid. 287 Ibid. 80. 288 Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 1.

States.289 Irving felt Americans didn’t realize how fortunate they were and were

“themselves their own worst enemies.”290

Administering Justice with Discrimination: Four Views of the Hessians

Writing with the goal of constructing a shared American identity, the quandary of how to interpret the Hessian presence during the war certainly presented a problem for

America’s first historians. The amount of detail spent on the German visitors varied by historian, and in the end the true story of their role in the war ended up being misrepresented and obscured. Despite the fact that they all approached the American

Revolution from different backgrounds, Warren, Ramsey, and Marshall all worked towards the same goal. Warren was an Antifederalist from New England, while Marshall was a Virginian that relocated to Pennsylvania. Ramsay was born in Pennsylvania and relocated to South Carolina. In fact, as Jordan Barkalow points out of Ramsay and

Warren “both authors, despite their differences… actively sought to overcome the difference between American behavior and the nation’s most basic symbols by giving the

American Revolution mythical qualities.”291 Approaching the subject with a different purpose in mind, Irving was a native New Yorker who was born at the end of the

Revolution and wrote as the Civil War loomed in the distance. Furthermore, the literary master preferred British culture. While these diverse backgrounds affected how each historian experienced the war, the need for Warren, Marshall, and Ramsay to construct an

289 Wood, Empire of Liberty, 3. 290 Pierre Munroe Irving, The Life and Letters of Washington Irving, Volume 1, (New York, London: G.P. Putnam's sons: 1857): 78. 291 Barkalow, 3.

American story implies that one did not naturally exist.292 By Irving’s time the nation still existed in the plural.

Ramsay’s take on the Hessians was neutral at first. For a people so deeply involved in the struggle, they remain largely absent from his narrative. However, when interpretation of these men comes through in his text, it is not complimentary. Ramsay saw these men as being unlike Americans in their brutality and their bloodlust, thus type casted them as vicious warriors in contrast to the noble Americans. Such an assertion worked to promote the paradigm of a singular American people. Marshall likewise would go on to reflect these same feelings.

Marshall’s early mention of the Hessians in America appeared just as objective as

Ramsay’s. His discussion of the Hessian involvement in the Battle of Long Island and the subsequent evacuation, as well as the Battles of Brooklyn, White Plains, and Trenton all appeared as a mere factual recounting.293 Marshall’s interpretation of the Hessian role during the American Revolution in many ways mirrored Ramsay’s, however he went into significantly greater detail concerning the Hessians, and exhibited a more negative tone.

While Marshall’s account was more detailed, neither historian spent much time exploring these men and their presence when compared to their later contemporaries.

They both did a good job explaining the number of Hessians present, killed, and captured in pivotal battles during the war, but typically left their story there. Neither was as critical of the Hessians as of the other British allies during the war, like the American Indians, for

292 In Irving’s case, he experienced the war not just from the perspective of a New Yorker, but as one generation removed from the struggle. 293 John Marshall, The Life of George Washington, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, During the War Which Established the Independence of his Country, and First President of the United States, vol. 2 (Fredericksburg, Va.: The Citizens’ Guild of Washington’s Boyhood Home, 1926), 169, 172-173, 214-215, 217-218, 246-247, 250.

94 example. First of all, Ramsay and Marshall wrote earlier than Warren and Irving, at a time when the Revolution was still fresh in people’s minds. Additionally, Ramsay grew up in a state know for its large Germanic population and then fought in the South during the war where he faced bigger threats from Loyalists than from the Hessians. Marshall likewise fought in the South as he was from Virginia. That being said there are a couple of significant instances in both works that highlighted the violence perpetuated on the colonists by the Hessians. Approaching their role in the American Revolution in such a way argued an overly simplistic view that the Hessians were merely present for the war and not much more than savage pillagers. Mercy Otis Warren, however, challenged the

Marshall and Ramsay interpretations by telling a more multi-layered story.

As with other authors, one of Warren’s first mentions of the Hessians seemed largely neutral. As she included an interpretation of the initial reports that they were contracted to serve alongside the British during the rebellion, she pointed out that “calling in the aid of foreigners, and introducing a large body of German mercenaries in British pay, to settle a domestic quarrel with the colonies, was mortifying to the pride and valor of every uncorrupted Englishman.” 294 Interestingly, Warren described the colonists at this point at Englishmen, implying that they did not become American until after independence had been declared. She continued to suggest that “the torrent of secret influence was irresistible… prerogative and conquest was the ministerial creed; power the princely object; and on the approbatory speech of the monarch… there appeared a coolness that bordered on apathy.295 In her description, Warren’s roots in Massachusetts become visible. Ever first in line for Revolution, key citizens of the colony (like Samuel

294 Warren, II, 282. 295 Warren, II, 282.

95 and John Adams) refused to hold back their criticism for the Crown. Here Warren asserted her belief that the seductive lure of power was more than enough to convince even the noblest of Englishmen to contract out the Hessian soldiers. Even worse, according to Warren, anyone who did not lead the charge to hire the Hessians appeared uncaring towards the fate of the colonies.

Warren’s take on the Hessians was somewhat complimentary while at the same time deprecating of the men. This shows a true struggle to define the Hessians. Are they friends or foes? How do you adapt to a borderline ruthless enemy becoming your neighbor? As the Revolutionary generation left the Earth to meet Divine Providence and the first true generation of natural-born Americans grew into old age, famed author

Washington Irving addressed this quandary by taking a more one-sided approach to these

Hessians.

Since for Irving the Hessian soldiers served as the inspiration for the Headless

Horseman about a quarter of a century before his treatment on George Washington, it would have been indeed surprising had he left the Hessians out of his latter narrative.

While the idea of a decapitate ghost on a horse had been gleaned from European legends, it is clear that the Hessian involvement during the war stuck a chord with the author.

Irving knew these men had a legacy for ruthlessness, based in part by the earlier

American histories, and he did not want to ignore it, especially given the Hessian presence in New York and General Washington’s interactions with the group. Those familiar with his story of Crane’s struggle can see a similar characterization come through with his Washington biography.

In writing about the Hessians, Irving focused more on ruthlessness and violence in opposition to Warren’s sympathetic characters. Of course, portraying a more noble and even sympathetic enemy would have taken some of the bite away from Irving’s more infamous villain. Instead facing a nemesis that has but one goal and cannot be reasoned or negotiated with is indeed horrifying. Irving knew the actions these men took during the war had a lasting effect despite the fact that several thousand of them had settled and produced families that were now reading his works. Furthermore, having been born and raised in New York, Irving no doubt heard several first-hand accounts of the nature of the

Hessian presence during the occupation. Irving followed suit in his history with Ramsay,

Marshall, and even the more sympathetic Warren in portraying the savagery of the

Hessians during the war. He, like the others, continued to place these men in the role of supporting villain.

The Moody and Dogged Silence: Conniving Underlings or Noble Warriors

Over the course of history, the Hessians have been interpreted dually as amoral brutes and as noble warriors. Ramsay largely chose not to interpret the Hessians through either of these lenses. Marshall floated between the two interpretations leaning, at different points, on both sides. Like Marshall, Warren went back and forth on the

Hessians. She, however, almost excused some of their actions by arguing they were a product of the system that bore them. Irving offered no such excuse. In his history, the

Hessians were savage, indiscriminate plunderers. The only agreement among these four historians was that there is no agreement for whether or not the Hessians were noble.

They instead focused on different traits and emphasize different moments in the Hessian experience during the war.

Ramsay stated about the Battle of Long Island, “General de Heister, with his

Hessians, took post at Flatbush, in the evening... An attack was made very early in the morning by the Hessians from Flatbush, under general de Heister, and by general Grant on the coast...”296 He made a point to describe their tactics at Flatbush, but left it there. As a point of comparison, Ramsay stated “the king’s troops displayed great valour... British discipline in every instance, triumphed over the native valour of raw troops who had never been in action, and whose officers were unacquainted with the stratagems of war.”297 While certainly complimentary of the British, Ramsay’s lack of interpretation altogether on these Germanic soldiers implied that he felt their role in the struggle did not contribute to the story of American independence in a meaningful way. As a final thought, he further pointed out that “the British after their victory were so impetuous, that it was with difficulty, they could be restrained from attacking the American lines.”298

While there had been criticism of Hessian brutality during the war, here Ramsay ignored these men while focusing on the rapaciousness of the British.

Ramsay continued his discourse with purely factual retellings of the Hessian role in the war. He discussed Fort Washington much in the same way as the Battle of Long

Island.299 Likewise, Ramsay’s explanation of the Battle of Trenton appeared similarly straight to the point, though he did highlight the importance of Trenton in the overall success or defeat of the Americans.300 He also followed suit with General Burgoyne’s invasion as well as with military engagements at Paulus Hook, Charleston, South

296 David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution in Two Volumes, vol. 1 (Indianapolis: LibertyClassics, 1990): 281-82. 297 Ibid, 282. 298 Ibid, 282. 299 Ibid, 291. 300 Ibid, 300-302.

Carolina, the Guilford Courthouse, and Virginia.301 In all of these instances, one will see facts and figures about how many Hessians were present as well as their tactical moves, but Ramsay said nothing about how these men were viewed or what he thought of them.

Where his commentary and analysis is stated in is during his discussion of the

British decision to hire the Hessians to put down the American rebellion. A decision rife with controversy, for those against the presence of Hessian soldiers in America, Ramsay pointed out of those opposing the contracting of the Hessians “the measure was severely condemned. The necessity of the war was denied, and the nation was represented as disgraced by applying to the petty princes of Germany, for succours against her own rebellious subjects.”302 According to Ramsay, even among the Loyalists the struggle was seen as an internal affair because the colonies, and their citizens, were a part of the

British Empire. The thought that Parliament deemed it necessary to hire another nation’s military to put down a purely British dispute was insulting to the colonists.

However, in the same sentence condemning the Crown for its actions, Ramsay also took a swipe at the rulers of the various German states in mentioning the “petty princes.” As much as the British government was at fault for hiring the Hessian troops, the German princes likewise acted dishonorably by hiring out their soldiers for pay.

Though this in its own way still minimized the Hessian role. Ramsay’s criticism was with the British and Hessian governments, not with the common soldiers.

Marshall’s history, on the other hand, did focus on the Hessian soldiers rather than their Landgraf. His discussion of Hessian involvement during the campaign in New

York lacked analysis; however he applied more reflection during the fall of New Jersey.

301 Ramsay, II, 437, 477, 480, 561, and 583. 302 Ramsay, I, 269.

While speaking more generally of both the British and the Hessians, Marshall pointed out that General Howe did not restrain his soldiers who treated “the inhabitants rather as conquering rebels than returning friends.”303 He further pointed out that “the lukewarm, and even the loyalists, were the victims of this indiscriminating spirit of rapine and violence.”304 Marshall went on to explain that “a sense of personal wrongs produced a temper… and, when the battles of Trenton and Princeton relieved the inhabitants from fears inspired by the presence of their invaders, the great body of the people flew to arms.” 305 While not called out by name, the Battles of Trenton and Princeton were fought primarily against the Hessians. The engagements resulted in the capture of many among their ranks, which directly resulted in the colonists losing the sense of fear and intimidation they had for the Hessians.

Marshall continued to explain “numbers who could not be brought into the field to check the advancing enemy, and prevent the ravages which uniformly afflict a country that becomes a seat of war, were prompt in avenging those ravages.”306 Here Marshall described feelings of such animosity directed towards the Hessians that even those who could not stop them in battle were compelled to take their revenge on the prisoners. For colonists to exhibit such disgust for the German soldiers, it is surprising they do not appear more prominently in his text.

While discussing the siege on Philadelphia, Marshall explained how a group of

Hessian soldiers commanded by Colonel Donop “crossed the Delaware at Philadelphia...

Late in the evening of the twenty-second [of October, 1777], Count Donop appeared

303 Marshall, II, 261. 304 Ibid, 261-62. 305 Ibid, 262. 306 Ibid, 262.

100 before the fort [at Redbank], and attacked it with great intrepidity.” 307 The most that can be interpreted about Marshall’s view of the Hessian presence from this quote is the mention of the “great intrepidity” with which the Hessian, under Count Donop, attacked the fort. Perhaps complimentary, perhaps respectful, the fact that Marshall stated that the

Americans “defended with equal resolution” at the very most gave the Hessians a pat on the back, at the very least pointed out that the Americans were equally as strong. The

Battle of Saratoga left an equally ambiguous feeling about the Hessians.308 Marshall simply stated the facts and left things at that. Articles in the press during the war had similarly been able to acknowledge Hessian strengths and here Marshall appeared to be following in that tradition. Though this again lacks deep analysis of the Hessians.

In a more passionate passage, Marshall discussed the conflict at Elizabethtown

Point, New Jersey, by pointing out that “in a spirit of revenge, unworthy the general of an army, more in the character of Tryon who was present, than of Knyphausen who commanded, this settlement was reduced to ashes.” 309 Though critical of the Hessian commander, Marshall was more insulting of William Tryon, Colonial Governor of New

York during the war. He suggested Knyphausen, and by association the Hessians, held themselves to a higher standard than the British (or at least Tryon). In the accompanying footnote, Marshall went on to explain:

This circumstance would scarcely have deserved notice had it not been accompanied by one of those melancholy events, which even war does not authorize, and which made, at the time, a very deep impression. Mrs. Caldwell, the wife of the clergyman of the village, had been induced to remain in her house, under the persuasion that her presence might protect it from pillage, and that her person could not be endangered. . . . While sitting in the midst of her children, with a suckling infant in her arms, a

307 Ibid, 332-33. 308 Ibid, 391. 309 Ibid, 223-24.

101

soldier came up to the window and discharged his musket at her. She received the ball in her bosom, and instantly expired.310

Again not explicitly stated, the soldier responsible for such a ruthless and unjust murder reported to Knyphausen and was thus a Hessian. The analysis of the incident also revealed something in Marshall’s interpretation. He described a tragic story that no doubt stirred the hearts of those that read his history. The perception Marshall created for the

Hessians was that as bad as Tryon was, they were a people equally capable of committing wanton murder.

In contrast to this, Warren excused the Hessians from total fault. She existed as a voice in partial support of the Hessians.311 As an Antifederalist, Warren opposed a strong central government for fear of a stronger potential for dictatorship. Approaching politics from this perspective, her opinion would have been more critical of the British and of the

Hessian Landgraf that made the deal to send the Hessians to the colonies in the first place. Both Marshall and Ramsay essentially stick to the facts of the Battle of Trenton without much interpretation, aside from the reality that it was a decisive turning point in the war.

Warren further pointed out “Colonel Rhal, an officer of decided bravery, commanded a detachment of twelve hundred Hessians stationed there [in Trenton], where they lay in perfect security.”312 She went on to discuss the fact that the Hessians were caught off guard, offered little resistance, and that Rall was mortally wounded. This was a rather curt examination of a significant victory during the war, though Warren acknowledged Colonel Rall as a brave soldier. There is no reason why Warren would

310 Ibid, 224. 311 Warren is quick to point out Hessian abuses, but shows some sympathy at the very least for the common soldier. 312 Marshall, II, 347.

102 have needed to include this assessment of Rall’s character. It would have been simple to keep to the discussion of Trenton left by Ramsay and Marshall; however Warren made a point to commend Rall’s bravery.313 The fact that she did whereas other historians remained silent on the issue showed a unique view of the Hessian commander. However, this mention ended up standing in stark contrast to her later description of the common

Hessian soldiers.

In discussing the loss of Philadelphia, Warren began a diatribe against the

Hessians by stating “colonel Losbourg with a Hessian brigade in conjunction with [a detachment of the British army], was piratically plundering the neighbouring coasts [to

Newport], and burning the scattered villages of the state of Rhode Island.”314 “Piratically plundering” was a very poetic term and certainly portrayed these men as vicious bandits, however in her assessment of the Hessian involvement at Saratoga and Stillwater, she mentioned “the Americans sustained the combat for several hours, against officers of distinguished bravery, and more experience than themselves, who commanded some of the best troops the princes of Germany, or even the monarch of Britain could boast...”315

In mentioning how the capture of General John Burgoyne in the aftermath of the Battle of

Saratoga boosted the American spirit, much as in the Battle of Trenton, Warren stated

“her [America’s] sons paraded in the style of the conqueror, before the humiliated bands of veteran British and German prisoners.”316 This perhaps was not meant to be complimentary of the Hessians, however the change in image seems necessary when trying to promote American valor.

313 Ironically, Rall, unable to defend his actions from beyond the grave, was officially blamed for the colossal defeat. 314 Warren, I, 378. 315 Warren, II, 22-23. 316 Ibid, 51.

103

Though just as the Hessians seemed reprieved from the criticism that they ravaged the newly founded nation incessantly, Warren chose to comment again on the offenses committed by this group of men. She pointed out:

About the beginning of July [1779], governor Tryon with a number of disaffected Americans, and general Garth with a ravaging party of British troops and German yaughers, landed at New Haven, took possession of the town with little resistance, plundered and insulted the inhabitants, on whom every cruelty was perpetrated, except burning their houses: this was delayed from their thirst for plunder, and the barbarous abuse of the hapless females who fell sacrifices to their wanton and riotous appetites.317

Again, the Hessians were not solely to blame for such indiscretions, but rather were included in explanation of general British abuses. Governor Tryon appeared, this time alongside British General George Garth, as perhaps the one responsible for such repugnant actions. In a way story served to simplify the struggle for independence.

Casting the Hessians as characters that exist to bolster the British ferocity during the war made the story much more black and white. When one examined the Hessians as multi- dimensional characters that in some ways were neither good nor evil, it called into question the motivations for American independence. Once one begins to examine the character of those involved in the struggle, one finds the enemy is not all bad and the hero is not all good. While not simply one-dimensional beings in Warren’s history, the

Hessians largely exist as an antagonistic group.

A final note by Warren about the Hessian moral code that rings of social commentary was a small piece in general reference to the common soldier. She pointed out that “the auxiliaries on the part of Britain, were the feudal vassals of despotic lords, the mere automatons of German princes, who held them as their hereditary property.”318

317 Ibid, 145-46. 318 Warren, III, 3.

104

In a ballet-like fashion, Warren addressed the subject of the Hessians by dancing back and forth between the different viewpoints on these men. She, on the one hand, garnered sympathy for these men by suggesting they had no choice in being sent to America, while on the other hand, showed them as violent warriors. In between the two extremes, she took the time to compliment these men on their valor in battle.

Washington Irving would have no such praises for the Hessians. In his discussion of the Battle of Long Island, Irving noted, “by this time De Heister and his Hessians had come up, and now commenced a scene of confusion, consternation, and slaughter.” 319 He further pointed out that “some were cut down and trampled by the cavalry, others bayoneted without mercy by the Hessians.”320 Irving continued by stating “give the words of one who mingled in the fight, and whom we have heard speak with horror of the sanguinary fury with which the Hessians plied the bayonet.” 321

Ever the storyteller, Irving painted a vivid picture with his mention of slaughter, of the Americans being “bayoneted without mercy by the Hessians,” and of the

“sanguinary fury with which the Hessians plied the bayonet.” These men were clearly antagonists in his story of the war. Complimenting this piece, Irving mentioned of the attack on Fort Washington, “the worst sight of all, was to behold his men cut down and bayoneted by the Hessians while begging quarter. It is said so completely to have overcome [Washington], that he wept ‘with the tenderness of a child.’”322 Evidently, when it came to the field of battle Irving wished to portray these men as brutal warriors choosing to ignore the rules of war.

319 Washington Irving, Life of George Washington, vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1857): 376-77. 320 Ibid. 321 Ibid. 322 Ibid, 489-90.

105

Irving’s perspective continued as he shifted to the moments leading up to the

Battle of Trenton. In preparation for the conflict, Irving suggested Washington

“calculated upon the eager support of his troops, who were burning to revenge the outrages on their homes and families committed by these foreign mercenaries.” 323 This account argued that the Americans stood ready to exact justice against the foreign mercenaries for their continued abuses. He continued to point out the colonists

“considered the Hessians mere hirelings; slaves to a despot, fighting for sordid pay, and actuated by no sentiment of patriotism or honor. They had rendered themselves the horror of the Jerseys, by rapine, brutality, and heartlessness.” 324 Here Irving painted the

Hessians as the opposite of oppressed slaves. He further argued “at first, their military discipline had inspired awe, but of late they had become careless and unguarded, knowing the broken and dispirited state of the Americans, and considering them incapable of any offensive enterprise.”325 More than just cruel, according to Irving, the prejudice the Hessians harbored for the Patriots allowed them to grow stagnant in battle.

According to Irving’s biography of Washington, conditions did not seem to improve for the Hessians upon the success of the Americans at the Battle of Trenton.

Once a sizable number of these men were taken prisoner following the conflict, Irving wrote “the Hessian prisoners were subsequently transferred from place to place… people thronged from far and near to see these terrible beings of whom they had received such formidable accounts; and were surprised and disappointed to find them looking like other men.” 326 The image of the Hessian warrior had been broken. Upon facing the colonists

323 Ibid, 2, 542. 324 Ibid, 2, 542. 325 Ibid, 2, 542. 326 Ibid, 2, 567.

106 they attempted to subjugate “at first they had to endure the hootings and revilings of the multitude, for having hired themselves out to the trade of blood; and they especially speak of the scoldings they received from old women in the villages.”327 At this point

Irving spoke up for Washington’s character and mentioned that according to a Hessian corporal “‘General Washington had written notices put up in town and country, that we were innocent of this war and had joined in it not of our free will, but through compulsion. We should, therefore, be treated not as enemies, but friends.’”328 The

Hessian corporal stated that following Washington’s decree they were treated with

“‘kindness and humanity.’”329 Irving’s retelling of this point in the war was consistent with other historical accounts as well as primary source evidence, though Warren,

Ramsay, and Marshall neglected this amount of detail in their histories.

These accounts perhaps perfectly explained the Hessian place in Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary America. The Hessians were portrayed simply as subjects of a dictator that performed horrible acts because they were told to (and out of no sense of honor). At the same time the fear they inspired melted away once the colonists saw them face-to-face. The legend had died in their defeats and capture. Arguably, the diary of

Johannes Reuber would not have been available to the early American historians for reference, however at the same time it is unlikely they would have been interested in incorporating the above account as it did nothing to help with their construction of an

American identity. Interestingly, these passages were the only place in Irving’s biography of Washington where he was not completely critical of these foreign mercenaries.

327 Ibid, 2, 567. 328 Ibid, 2, 567. The accompanying footnote to this block of text identifies the Hessian corporal as Tagebuch des Corporals Johannes Reuber. 329 Ibid, 2, 567.

107

Of course, in continuing the theme that the Hessians represented an amoral people, the topic of plunder was regularly addressed by the various early American historians. Irving, for example, was quick to point out how the sense of ire the colonists felt against the actions of the Hessians required an address by their British commanders, but that “the proclamations and printed protections of the British commanders… had proved of no avail. The Hessians could not or would not understand them, but plundered friend and foe alike.”330 Warren suggested the same of the American Indians while remaining more complimentary to the Hessians, however here Irving accuses the

Germanic men of indiscriminately ravaging the countryside.

Irving went on to say that “the British soldiery often followed their example, and the plunderings of both were at times attended by those brutal outrages on the weaker sex, which inflame the dullest spirits to revenge.”331 Continuing the theme of violence,

Irving stated that alongside the British ravages in New Jersey, Casimir Pulaski’s horse was killed and the “wanton butchery of unarmed men” commenced. He further pointed out “none were more in this ravage than a party of about one hundred of Captain Donop’s

Hessian yagers, and they were in full maraud between Tarrytown and Dobb’s Ferry...”332

Here was yet another example of the merciless Hessians exacting dishonorable war on the righteous Americans.

While Ramsay, Marshall, Warren, and Irving all told the same story they did so in four different ways, each colored by their own life experience, political and social motivations, and worldviews. With varying arguments on the nature of the Hessian

330 Ibid. The accompanying footnote also points out that “‘These rascals plunder all indiscriminately. If they see anything they like, they say, ‘Rebel good for Hesse-mans,’ and seize upon it for their own use. They have no idea of the distinctions between whig and tory.’ – Letter of Hazard the Postmaster.” 331 Ibid, 27. 332 Ibid, 543.

108 character, and thus the role of Hessians during the war, the only real consistency was in relegating these men to the background of the conflict. Periodically they step into the limelight, but quickly thereafter return to the backdrop.

A Rather Lonely but Pleasant Situation: Prisoners of War

Some of the most fruitful interpretations of the Hessian involvement during the

Revolution came in the form of discussion about the treatment of prisoners of war. The prison camps operating during the American Revolution presented perhaps the best opportunity for social interaction between the Hessians and the American colonists.

These situations served as moments in which the American colonists not only learned more about the enemy on a personal level, but also constructed their own identity in contrast. The ways in which the early American historians discussed the Hessians in relation to the prisoner of war camps further highlighted the importance of their role in the struggle. When it came down to it, whether they were the captors or the prisoners, the nation’s first historians described the Hessian prisoners of war differently from one another.

The final significant mention of the Hessians in Ramsay’s work was in response to Hessian prisoners of war, specifically in regards to General Charles Lee’s capture.

Most of the recounting is very matter-of-fact. Ramsay pointed out that “six Hessian field officers were offered in exchange for him, but this was refused. It was said by the British, that Lee was a deserter from their service, and as such could not expect the indulgences usually given to prisoners of war.”333 While not specifically sympathetic or critical of the

Hessians, the incident in which they were involved opened up a frank discussion of the

333 Ramsay, I, 599.

109 proper treatment for prisoners of war.334 While focus on the subject pertained most specifically to the British, during the war there had been criticism for the way the

Hessians had treated their prisoners. In this situation too they were involved, however peripherally, in the discussion. The choice to neglect the level of detail the Hessians played in the subject of prisoners of war seemed an obvious attempt on Ramsay’s part to simplify the story of the Revolution. Marshall, however, would offer more opinion on the subject.

Marshall’s integration and interpretation of the Hessians into his worldview started with his discussion of the treatment of prisoners. While not specifically calling the

Hessian soldiers into question, Marshall argued, “Among the various improvements which struggling humanity has gradually engrafted on the belligerent code, none have contributed more to diminish the calamities of war, than those which meliorate the condition of prisoners.”335 Clearly, he felt that society had constructed much-needed articles of war to abide by. However, even in a “civilized” society, one cannot guarantee those rules will be honored. Throughout the war, General Washington encouraged the respectful treatment of prisoners while accounts of maltreatment in the hands of the

Hessians and the British regulars abound.

Marshall went on to point out “in contests between different parts of the same empire, those practices which mitigate the horrors of war yield, too frequently, to the calculations of a blind and erring resentment.”336 As an example of the lack of compassion the American prisoners received at the hands of the British, he mentioned

“General [Thomas] Gage, as Commander-in-chief of the British Army, in the harshness

334 Ibid, 599-601. 335 Marshall, II, 453. 336 Ibid, 453-54.

110 of spirit which had not been excited while governor of Massachusetts, not only threw all his prisoners into a common jail, but rejected every proposition for an exchange with them.”337 By this account, Marshall meant to show Gage had ignored basic rules of war by rejecting prisoner exchanges.

Marshall continued to describe the experience at the hands of the British by stating the prisoners “complained of suffering almost the extremity of famine, that even the supply of provisions allowed them was unsound, and that they became victims of disease.”338 Howe denied the truth of these accusations and, as Marshall pointed out, was not overly cruel to the enemy in other aspects of the war. He also conceded that at that point in the war, supplies in general were lacking both in quantity and quality.339

However, the treatment of prisoners was clearly a subject that Marshall thought was an integral aspect of the war.

The Hessians entered this particular story, as in Ramsay’s history, with a discussion that “the capture of General [Charles] Lee furnished an additional ground of controversy on the subject of prisoners.” 340 Marshall continued on, stating that, “on receiving information of this circumstance, congress directed General [William] Howe to be assured that… five Hessian field-officers, should be detained, and should experience precisely the fate of General Lee.”341 Without a doubt, retaliation fueled this decision in an effort to strike back at the British. So what does this say about the Hessians? It demonstrated that in this case the rebels saw their Hessian counterparts as bargaining

337 Ibid, 454. 338 Ibid, 454. 339 Ibid, 455. 340 Ibid, 455-56. Lee was a British officer from the Seven Years War that moved to America in 1773 and joined the rebel army as early as 1775. 341 Marshall, II, 455-56.

111 chips in a larger struggle. It also suggested that for Marshall the Hessian role in the story the Revolution was as characters present to help accentuate the violence perpetrated by the British.

Marshall further pointed out that in 1778, General Washington, who adamantly opposed acts of retaliation on the enemy, wrote a letter to Congress as a response to the declaration of General Lee’s capture stating that “‘suppose the treatment prescribed for the Hessian officers should be pursued, will it not establish what the enemy have been aiming to effect by every artifice, and the grossest misrepresentations?’”342 In other words Washington wanted to take the high road and prove the Patriots the more moral people. Marshall continued to relay Washington’s letter stating “the Hessians will hear of the punishments with all the circumstances of heightened exaggeration, and would feel the injury without investigating the cause, or reasoning upon the justice of it.”343 Perhaps part of the reason why Washington was so inspiring was because of moral reflections such as these.

The future Commander in Chief clearly showed a desire not only to act more ethically than the British, he also hoped to prove the rumors of colonial boorishness to be untrue. Beyond that, there was an acute fear that Hessians would react extremely should their captured soldiers be mistreated thereby demonstrating the brutal and quick-tempered nature of the Hessians in contrast to American civility. Marshall placed the Hessians as minor characters whose role is to add layer to the American story. In this passage, they appeared as a tangible threat, a beast that was best to avoid poking, in parallel to the great

American general who was pushing society to be better than it already was.

342 Ibid, 517-18. 343 Ibid, 517-18.

112

Along with Marshall and Ramsay, Warren also addressed the capture of General

Charles Lee and the subsequent debate over the treatment of prisoners. She pointed out the value the British had in capturing such a high-ranking officer, and beyond that, a deserter. In regards to the Hessians, Warren stated “the Americans… made the most strenuous efforts for [Lee’s] release. A colonel Campbell with five Hessian field-officers, were soon after offered for exchange.”344 Warren made an interesting point about the

Americans having no British prisoners of equal rank. In this instance the Hessians were, again, seen as bargaining chips (though apparently it took five Hessian officers to and a

British colonel to equal one American general).

Warren continued to point out “when this was refused, general Washington advertised sir William Howe, that their blood must atone for his life, if Lee fell a sacrifice to the resentment of his enemies.”345 Here, Warren also interpreted General Washington in a different light. Whereas Marshall attested to Washington’s convictions about treating the Hessians with more civility than would the British, Warren told a story where

Washington embraced the idea of punishing the Hessians in kind; this represents a disparity in the view that Americans were, by nature, more civil than the Hessians.

Interestingly enough, Warren’s interpretation of the Hessians became more complimentary when she addressed the Battle of Trenton and focused on those taken prisoner because as a result of the struggle.

In parallel to her focus on a perceived sprit of vengeance at General Lee’s capture, here Warren emphasized Washington’s kindness in detaining the enemy soldiers.

As she pointed out “his humanity to the prisoners who fell into his hands, was a contrast

344 Ibid, 337. 345 Ibid, 337.

113 to… the victims in other places, that fell under the power of either Hessians or

Britons.”346 Warren went on to describe that Colonel Rall was ordered to hand over all

American belligerents found without an officer. She then argued “this instance may serve as a sample of cruel designs, and summary modes of proceeding to execution among military masters, who hold themselves above the censure or control of civil authority, or the restraints of humanity.”347 While categorized alongside the British in this instance,

Warren chose to depict the Hessians as cruel captors and lesser men when compared to the benevolence shown by the Americans.

Warren further argued “the lenity shewn by general Washington… disarmed the prejudices of many, and multitudes flocked to the American standard, who, in the beginning of the dispute, were favorers of the royal cause…”348 Though the downside to being the ones on the moral high ground was that “every favorable impression was erased, and every idea of submission annihilated, by the indiscriminate ravages of the

Hessian and British soldiery in their route through the Jersies.”349 According to Warren

“the elegant houses of some of their own most devoted partisans were burnt: their wives and daughters pursued and ravished in the woods to which they had fled for shelter.”

While the Americans were making the humane choice, the Hessians and British showed not such regard for them. Warren continued to relate that “many unfortunate fathers, in the stupor of grief, beheld the misery of their female connexions, without being able to

346 Warren, I, 350-51. 347 Ibid. 348 Ibid, 351-52. 349 Ibid.

114 relieve them, and heard the shrieks of infant innocence, subjected to the brutal lust of

British grenadiers, or Hessian Yaughers.”350

This powerful passage created a strong mental image for the experience of the innocent colonists at the hands of the Hessians. “Indiscriminate ravages” coupled with

“wives and daughters” being “pursued and ravished” and the “unfortunate fathers” stuck with the “stupor of grief” at the “brutal lust” of the Hessians certainly expressed an emotion-laden sentiment of agony felt by the colonists. The fact that Warren chose to highlight General Washington’s wish to show lenity to the Hessians despite their ravages against the colonists also bolstered the thesis that the colonists expressed a civility not seen in their enemies.

The public paid heeds to Washington’s words and actually started to treat the prisoners of war with a degree of civility. It is here that Washington Irving continued the

Hessian story from where we leave Warren. In Irving’s mind the legend behind these men began to melt away and they actually began to be seen on as normal humans rather than something more brutal and primal. In regards to the prisoners taken during the Battle of Trenton, Irving even began to show a bit of deference to the Germanic foes. He made a point to state that while General Howe stood by waiting to descend on Philadelphia

“tidings were brought to him for the surprise and capture of the Hessians at Trenton.

‘That three old established regiments of a people who made war their profession, should lay down their arms to a ragged and undisciplined militia… was a matter of amazement.”351 While existing as a commentary on the military prowess of the Hessians rather than any form of brutal covetousness, it was important to note that the Americans

350 Ibid. 351 Irving, Life of George Washington, vol. 2, 576.

115 were surprised the supposedly superior military forces failed in battle. More than that, it was amazing to the colonists, and worthy of mention by Irving, that the Hessians surrendered as gentlemen rather than fight out of bloodlust.

Irving continued to provide sympathy to the Hessians by following them through the experience of holding American prisoners of war. As much as the Hessians were criticized for their harsh treatment of prisoners, Irving suggested that “the British officers looked down with haughty contempt upon the American officers… it was observed that

American prisoners were better treated by the Hessians than by the British.”352 He further pointed out “it was not until our countrymen had made themselves formidable by their successes that they were treated, when prisoners, with common decency and humanity.”353 Irving made the argument that the British were more ruthless in their treatment of prisoners than were the Hessians. Given the reputation of the Hessians in their treatment of prisoners of war, they set the barometer by which the British soldiers are here measured. To sum up Irving’s point, the British mistreated colonial prisoners of war until they proved themselves as worthy foes. This quote told the reader what Irving thought of the Hessians by putting them in parallel to the British. Clearly, he thought of these men as being resolute in their administration of punishment, but not at ruthless as their British contemporaries.

Spirited Away by Supernatural Means: The Lasting Legend of the Hessians

Paradigms of how Hessians acted during the war had a profound impact on their overall legacy. These paradigms would impact the first generation of true Americans as countless citizens grew up either listening to stories of the Hessians during the war, or

352 Ibid, 50. 353 Ibid.

116 even living near (or possibly being related to) ex-Hessian soldiers in the fledgling nation.354 Some would push the idea that they were ruthless mercenaries, while others perpetuated the view of Hessians as warriors to view with a sense of awe. Some asserted the belief that the Hessians were unnecessarily harsh in their treatment of prisoners. More often than not, their role in the American Revolution would be minimized or largely ignored, as with Marshall. David Ramsay would have little more to say about the

Hessians, however what he does say about them is certainly not complimentary.

Ramsay interpreted the presence of the Hessians in a way that presented them as minor, not even supporting, characters in the war. They were discussed throughout the two volumes of Ramsay’s retelling of the Revolution, however primarily in a factual context. While the Hessians were mentioned in major battles and conflicts, the information about these men was typically kept to the numbers of soldiers involved in the struggle and how they attacked or counter-attacked on the battlefield.

However, despite his continual decision to designate the Hessians as minor characters in the struggle, there were a few small instances when he could not help but analyze them further. When discussing the news of the treaty that brought the Hessian soldiers into British service, Ramsay pointed out “the measure was supported on the necessity of prosecuting the war, and the impracticability of raising a sufficient number of domestic levies.”355 He also mentioned it was “urged ‘that foreign troops inspired with the military maxims, and ideas of implicit submission, would be less apt to be biased by that false lenity… at the expence of national interest.”356 Here Ramsay explained the

354 In this case, by “true Americans” I mean those among the first to be born into the United States of America, rather than the British-held colonies. 355 Ramsay, I, 268. 356 Ibid.

117 logic of contracting the Hessians. It would have been impractical to raise the number of troops needed for the war, and the Hessians would be less likely to sympathize with the

Americans.

At the same time, he gave the Hessians a backhanded compliment. He extolled their military prowess, but also commented on their “ideas of implicit submission.” As the actions from the colonists at that point and time were anything but submissive, there was an implication here of how unalike the Hessians and Americans were, and there was also a criticism of how these men followed orders blindly rather than consider the moral implications of their actions. The argument that one was just following orders does not imply noble or honorable warfare.

Perhaps the most dramatic description of the Hessians was in Ramsay’s account of the New Jersey campaign. Here was the only place in his history that spoke so frankly about the impression of the Hessian character rather than a simple retelling of the battles in which they were present. Ramsay pointed out that “unrestrained by the terrors of civil law, uncontrolled by the severity of discipline, and elated by their success, the soldiers of the royal army, and particularly the Hessians, gave full scope to the selfish and ferocious passions of human nature.”357 Ramsay further described “Infants, children, old men and women… stripped of their blankets and cloathing,” furniture being destroyed, livestock and other household goods being seized, and how “rapes and brutalities committed on women, and even on very young girls, would shock the ears of modesty.”358 He argued these abhorrent acts occurred despite “printed protections, signed by order of the commander in chief” because “the Hessians could not read them, and the British soldiers

357 Ibid, 304. 358 Ibid.

118 thought they were entitled to a share of the booty, equally with their foreign associates.”359

Unlike most of his two volumes on the war, here Ramsay provided a very clear, descriptive account of the Hessian malice. Although the British are not absolved of these same crimes, this passage provided valuable insight into Ramsay’s largely silent analysis of the Hessians. However, just as he began to paint a clear picture of Hessian brutalities and injustices Ramsay removed some of the blame from these soldiers. He went on to state that in the throes of war common soldiers needed to be kept in line “that discipline, without which an army is a band of armed plunderers, was as far, as respected the inhabitants, either neglected, of but feebly administered in the royal army.”360 As ruthless as the Hessians appeared in this portion of Ramsay’s history, here he absolved them slightly by stating a universal truth that all armies sit on the edge of essentially becoming pirates.

Time from, and perhaps perspective of, the war made things unclear with regards to the Hessian legacy. In contrast to Ramsay, Warren’s assessment of the Hessians found them as more complicated men serving in a difficult position. Warren did not ignore accounts of Hessian abuse from the war, however she became a more sympathetic voice for these men.

In reflecting on the Hessian presence, Warren explained that the “ barbarous strangers were to assist in the entire subjugation of the colonies, if not otherwise reduced to unworthy submission.”361 On the one hand, the Hessians were forced into a

“compulsory system” which might garner sympathy amongst the colonists for these men

359 Ibid. 360 Ibid. 361 Marshall, II, 283.

119 that may not have even wanted to leave their homeland. On the other hand, she assigned the Hessians the title of “barbarous strangers” which made clear her perception of their character. Warren further pointed out that when the Hessians finally arrived on the continent, “Lord Howe had been long expected with his motley mercenaries from Hesse,

Hanover, and Brunswick.”362 The use of the word “motley” also served to paint a clear picture of how these men were perceived, and mention that they had been “long expected” suggested a feeling of trepidation at the impending arrival of the Hessian troops.

In explanation of the October 28, 1776 conflict near White Plains, New York, she stated “the attack was begun by the Hessians, the forlorn hope of the British army.”363

This passage may not typically warrant particular attention, but the point Warren made to describe the Hessians as the “forlorn hope” further cast the Hessians in an almost tragic light. Unlike the other mentions of these men, not only in Warren’s history but also with

Marshall and Ramsay, here the focus turned to the Hessians as a group of men that the

British were desperately hoping will be victorious despite overwhelming odds against them.

Of the group, Warren continued to address these men while assessing the Battle of

Trenton. She stated that the Americans “had viewed the Hessians as a most terrific enemy, and… as an invulnerable foe. To see such a body of them surprised in their camp, and yielding themselves prisoners inspired them with a boldness that an action of the greatest magnitude might not have… awakened in different circumstances.”364 Here,

362 Ibid, 298. 363 Ibid, 327. 364 Warren, I, 347-48.

120

Warren paralleled the burgeoning and newly inspired American spirit with the shifting view of the Hessians from unstoppable to human and fallible. Much like the way in which the colonial view of the Hessians evolved over time, so did Warren’s in her analysis.

One final note on the Hessian legacy comes from an analysis of the man who cemented the Hessians’ place in American literature. To return to his commentary on the

Battle of Trenton, at that point, the colonists had built such a strong image of these men in their minds that viewing them for the first time following their capture was much like expecting to slay a dragon and instead finding a lizard. Such hateful verbiage chosen by

Irving to describe the encounter, like “terrible beings,” “hootings and revilings of the multitude,” and mention of the Hessians hiring “themselves out to the trade of blood,” created a grim reality of hate these men were forced to face. 365 In Irving’s own words, it was only out of General Washington’s command to the public that the Hessians be treated with a degree of civility. Fortunately, those words were indeed powerful and treatment of the Hessians did improve. The Hessian legacy at one point in American history expressed deep feelings of either awe or resentment. In capturing that history, some chose to ignore the Hessian role in the War for Independence. In the modern day the Hessian legacy is largely lost, however at the time these histories were written, the

Hessians existed as a very conscious part of the American mind, regardless of whether it was in a negative or positive context.

If I Can but Reach that Bridge

In the end, the early American historians, such as David Ramsay, John Marshall, and Mercy Otis Warren needed to find a way to conceive of the Hessians during a time in

365 Irving, Life of George Washington, vol. 2, 567.

121 which national identity was still being formed. Oftentimes their tactic was to ignore or downplay their role in the American Revolution. As a nation founded with no inherent cultural and ethnic base and it was difficult to interpret the presence of wartime enemies that shared a common ancestry with a significant portion of the nation. These early historians believed the key to constructing this early American identity was by focusing on how non-British they were as a people. Just as the Declaration of Independence served to argue the American rebellion was legal because the thirteen colonies had evolved into one nation, the early histories of the Revolution argued the Americans had truly become one people. The problem with including the Hessians in that dialogue is that they drew focus from the struggle against Great Britain and might even call into question just how united the states had become. Despite efforts to minimize their role in the conflict, the fact that the Hessians were as prevalent in the war did not allow for them to be written out of the history all together.

It should be acknowledged that despite coming from different backgrounds, political beliefs, and regions within the United States, Marshall, Ramsay, and Warren were all able to approach their histories with the same goal in mind. Though a cohesive identity did not yet exist in America, as can be implied by the need for the early historians to create a singular American story, the fact that these historians could all work towards a like goal serves as a sign of things to come.

Irving, writing later, looked at the nation differently. By the time he composed his biography of Washington, the United States had successfully navigated the

Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, the War of 1812, the California Gold

Rush, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Mexican-American war. America had become a

122 firmly established nation and Irving had become a firmly established author. The

Revolutionary generation had passed and Irving was now writing for a generation lacking the same emotional investment in the war. To him the Hessians were not a memory of the past but an image of terror and darkness. Unfortunately, the habit of ignoring and marginalizing the Hessians became a routine practice among historians through the nineteenth century. This resulted in misperceptions about the Hessians being created and perpetuated for the two centuries following the war.

123

CONCLUSION

THE TRANQUIL SOLITUDES OF SLEEPY HOLLOW

As the United States chose to assemble as a singular nation seeking independence from Great Britain, they, at the same time, plodded along in search of what it meant to be

American. This was exceedingly complicated because there was no singular ethnic, cultural, or religious background shared among the residents of the original thirteen colonies. The ethnic and cultural makeup was far more diverse than other nations at that time. Many colonies, especially New York and Pennsylvania, contained a hodgepodge of

European cultures, with no singular language. Furthermore, migration between the colonies added to the mixture. Some areas, like Germantown in Pennsylvania, more closely resembled the residents’ country of origin than anything that might be considered

“American.” In addition to this, the introduction and importation of African slaves, as well as the proximity of the native population, further increased the regional diversity of the Eastern Seaboard.

The decision by the British government to contract out several thousand Hessian soldiers to bolster their ranks while attempting to put down the rebellion added further complexity to the attempt to define what it meant to be American. Subjects of the British

Crown, regardless of their ethnic background, were standing up to the British government. The Hessians, on the other hand, had no political stake in the war and shared a common ancestry with a substantial portion of the colonial population, especially in

124 areas like New York and Pennsylvania. A critical reading of the press from these two colonies throughout the war reveals this lack of national identity.

At the time of the war, New York was a chaotic and disorganized collection of different cultural and ethnic groups in constant conflict with one another. Those within the colony could not even agree on whether or not to vote for independence. Despite the fact that the British took control of New York early on in the American Revolution, this theme continued throughout the conflict. An environment was created in which Patriots,

Loyalists, British Regulars, and Hessian soldiers lived amongst each other and interacted on a daily basis. Studying the Hessians presence reveals these divisions.

While the press of New York initially reported disdain at the thought of the

Hessians fighting in the war, it quickly flipped positions to take a complimentary stance of the soldiers once the British took control of the area. Despite the seemingly consistent view of the Hessians in the press, further research reveals constant divisions among New

Yorkers. While the press wrote with a Loyalist agenda, they served a dual purpose of promoting pro-Hessian propaganda. This suggests not all New Yorkers were pleased by the Hessian presence. In addition to this, Patriot campaigns within the area sent to encourage Hessian desertions reveals divided loyalties. Finally, reports of colonists abusing Hessians and the subsequent proclamations that they should be treated with kindness and cordiality show that even within the Patriot ranks the colonists did not agree on how they felt about the Hessians. Looking at the Hessian presence in New York reveals one of many ways in which the colonists lacked a shared identity.

Interpreting the Hessian presence in Pennsylvania also reveals divisions within the communities. As with New York, Pennsylvania contained a great mixture of cultures

125 and ethnicities at the time of the war. Many of these groups were Germanic and existed as somewhat isolated communities. The press in Pennsylvania, similar to New York, initially reported displeasure at their impending arrival, though colonial leaders immediately saw an opportunity to attempt to capitalize on the shared ancestry. As such,

Hessian prisoners of war were strategically sent to Germanic communities in

Pennsylvania as a way to convince them that the American cause was the noble one. The

Continental Congress and General Washington had hoped mixing the Hessian prisoners in with the pre-existing Germanic population would result in more desertions.

Throughout this time the press in Pennsylvania, rather than match the goals of the

Revolutionary leaders, remained inconsistent in their treatment on the Hessians. They were at times portrayed as great warriors and on other occasions described as vile lackeys. One article might claim the Hessians as a whole wanted nothing more than to desert to the American cause while others argued they were a plague that needed to be wiped off the earth. Still yet some took opportunities to insult the Hessians as drunkards while others leaped to their defense in the face of cruel treatment at the hands of the

Americans. Over time there was no on direction the press in Pennsylvania progressed in about the Hessian presence, even up through the end of the war. Especially considering the ethnic and cultural similarities, this becomes revealing to Pennsylvanian society. At the time of the American Revolution, as with New York, there existed no shared identity in Pennsylvania.

The difficulty of interpreting the Hessian presence and what that meant in the search for a national identity continued into the first decades following the establishment of the United States. While concerned with creating a national story, and defining what it

126 meant to be “American,” John Marshall, David Ramsay, Mercy Otis Warren, and later

Washington Irving all took different approaches and different focuses on the American

Revolution, and in particular in focusing on the Hessians. The one commonality across the group was that they tended to overlook the significance of the Hessian role in the war, despite the fact that many of them lived through the American Revolution.

Each historian viewed the war from a different perspective. Ramsay was a

Pennsylvania native who moved to South Carolina and experienced the conflict from a

Southern perspective. His take on the war debated the belief that America had a special destiny over other nations. In chronicling the war, Ramsay avoided strong interpretation of the Hessians as friend or foe. Marshall was born in Germantown, Virginia and experienced the war as a soldier. Adamantly in favor of strong central government,

Marshall used his biography on President Washington as a way to create a sense of national identity. While initially reluctant to interpret the Hessian presence, Marshall took a negative spin on these men, though his discussion of these men more closely mirrors

Ramsay’s when compared to the writings of Mercy Otis Warren.

Warren was born and raised in Massachusetts. She too lived through the war, but provided a feminine perspective on the war. As she was not just a woman, but a New

Englander besides, Warren’s experience was far different than either Ramsay or

Marshall. In contrast to Marshall, Warren disputed the benefits of centralized government. Warren spent more time discussing the Hessians compared to Ramsay and

Marshall. She expressed an interesting combination of condemnation for Hessian rapacity and sympathy to the men that had, in her eyes, been forced into a “compulsory system.”

Irving was born five months to the day before the signing of the Treaty of Paris, and can

127 claim to be among the first true generation of citizens that were born American. A native of New York, Irving spent decades wrestling with and writing about the American character. He wrote “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” about 25 years before he wrote his biography of Washington, but nonetheless described similar character traits between the

Headless Horseman and his historical treatment of the Hessians. The Hessians in Irving’s history are just as violent as “the favorite spectre of Sleepy Hollow.” By the time Irving wrote his biography on Washington, the nation was focused less on American identity and more on the next looming threat to the United States, the issue of slavery. The

Hessians, and their legacy, were quickly becoming antiquated in popular American culture by that time.

In all actuality, there was no single way to identify the Hessians during the war and in the first several decades following the Treaty of Paris. They were at the same time considered enemies and potential allies; even within individual colonies. The record shows that even the colonists at the time were not able to come to an agreement on how to address these individuals, whether looking at them across different regions or across different times during the war. By the time of the war most of the German immigrants considered themselves to be British subjects. In the end, 5,000 of these men successfully integrated into American society where they married, had children, and raised families.

The descendants of these Hessians are Americans and have been for Generations.

In many ways, the need to define this enemy was inevitably tied to the need to define themselves as a new nation. There was no need to rely on the other colonies prior to the Revolution, but now these “new Americans” needed to band together. If the succeeding generations were to write American history, there needed to be an American

128 nation, not thirteen connected city-states. This did not happen overnight. The need for a

Constitutional Convention to overhaul the government shows that the American people were still in a process of figuring things out.366 The fact that the Hessian soldiers that remained in America were able to assimilate into society in the decades following the war is evidence of a communal coming together. A compartmentalized view of these men grew as Americans became more removed from the war. The Hessians, in some cases, were remembered as having committed horrible atrocities during the war, but it was popularly accepted that some of them lived in American and raised families.367 The image of the foreign Hessian mercenary remained static in time, while the individual men that stayed grew and assimilated. As generations of Hessian-descended Americans grew farther from their European origins, it became easier to typecast their forefathers either as brutal ruffians or as greedy lackeys.

Studying the creation of an American national identity through the lens of the

Hessian presence is an approach that has been lacking in American historiography for far too long. Yet looking at the subject in this way reveals that a shared identity did not evolve naturally, but had to be constructed. Kenneth Miller, the first to link national identity with the Hessian presence, shows this by looking at the experience in Lancaster,

Pennsylvania as a prison camp during the Revolution. While Miller shows the artificial construct of an American identity during the war, this study shows that the situation in the whole of Pennsylvania as well as in New York lacked a cohesive identity at that time.

366 Wood, Empire of Liberty, 17. Wood mentions “by the 1780s, it was obvious to many, including Madison, that ‘a spirit of locality’ was destroying ‘the aggregate interests of the community.’” He continues that the idea of having local communities elect state bodies continued to foster an environment in which citizens were more concerned with the interests of the community rather than the nation as a whole. 367 In one of the early histories of the Revolution, Mercy Otis Warren argues that the idea of surrender was “annihilated by the indiscriminate ravages of the Hessian and British soldiery.” Warren, I, 351.

129

It was the first American historians in the decades following the conflict that helped construct the American story. While our studies may seem in conflict, they both point to temporary and constructed identities rather than one that was natural and pre-existing.

This thesis furthers the historical argument that a national identity did not exist at the time of the Revolution by looking at the inability to conclusively define the Hessians as friend or foe. While on the surface it should have been simple to either condemn or welcome them, they were the subjects of great debate from the top of the continental government all the way down to the local communities. Even those with shared ancestry did not view the Hessians the same way. This reveals a distinct lack of identity among the

American colonists.

As the United States continued on in search of itself, Irving deliberately cast one of the Hessian “mercenaries” as quite possibly the most famous ghost in American folklore. Ichabod Crane attempted to escape the specter, but no one (except for Irving himself) knows for sure if he reached the bridge. If the bridge were to represent the achievement of national identity, and Crane the thirteen original states, then the prospect of achieving such a feat would seem certainly impossible. To this day, it could be argued that a singular national identity remains absent in the United States. A once complicated view of the men sent to the American colonies to fight in exchange for pay, had become both split and simplified in the few decades since independence had been won. The war was over, and the children of the Hessian soldiers that had since settled in the now United

States of America were reading the same words from Irving’s pen as those whose families had been on the continent for generations.368 After an autumn evening of reading

368 The children of the Hessian soldiers that remained in the United States would, like Irving make up the first true generation of Americans.

130

Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” it is easy to imagine some young child contemplating whether or not there actually was a ghost of an old enemy lying in wait, out of a desire for vengeance, for a head to steal. One has to wonder how many Hessian descendants living today realize their ancestors are one and the same as Irving’s villain.

131

APPENDIX A

RESOLUTION FROM THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS – AUGUST 14, 1776

Figure 1. Resolution from the Continental Congress – August 14, 1776. This resolution urges the Hessian soldiers to desert. It was translated into German and handed out to the Hessians en masse. This copy of the resolution is the only one known to still exist. Courtesy of the Hessian State Archives, Marburg.

132

APPENDIX B

RESOLUTION FROM THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS – AUGUST 27, 1776

Figure 2. Resolution from the Continental Congress – August 27, 1776. This is a revised resolution from the Continental Congress offering more incentives to Hessian officers should they choose to desert. As with the August 14 resolution, it was translated into German and handed out to the Hessians en masse. Courtesy of the Hessian State Archives, Marburg.

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Adlum, John. Memoirs of the Life of John Adlum in the Revolutionary War. Chicago, IL: Published for the William L. Clements Library Associates by the Caxton Club, 1968.

The Constitutional Gazette. New York, NY: 1775-1776.

Doehlemann, Johann Christoph and Henry J. Retzer. “Diary of Johann Christoph Doehlemann, Grenadier Company, Ansbach Regiment March 1777 to September 1778.” The Hessians: Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, vol. 11. Millville, PA: The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, 2008: 11- 17.

Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet. Philadelphia, PA: 1773-1777.

Eelking, Max von. Memoirs, Letters, and Journals of Major General Riedesel, vol. 1-2. New York, NY: New York Times, 1969.

Ewald, Johann von. Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979.

The Freeman’s Journal. Philadelphia, PA: 1781-1792.

The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress: 1741-1799 (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html). Accessed October 3, 2015.

Irving, Washington. Life of George Washington, vol. 2. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1857.

Irving, Washington. The Sketch-Book. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996.

The London Gazette. London, UK: 1665-Present.

Marshall, John. The Life of George Washington, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, During the War Which Established the Independence of his Country, and First President of the United States, vol. 1-5. Fredericksburg, VA: The Citizens’ Guild of Washington’s Boyhood Home, 1926.

Marshall, John, Robert K Faulkner, Paul Carrese. The Life of George Washington. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2000.

134

The New-York Gazette. New York, NY: 1768-1783.

The New-York Journal. New York, NY: 1766-1776.

Packard Humanities Institute. The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Sponsored by the American Philosophical Society and Yale University (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin//). Accessed January 21, 2016.

The Pennsylvania Evening Post. Philadelphia, PA: 1775-1784.

Prechtel, Johann Ernst, and Bruce E. Burgoyne. A Hessian Officer's Diary of the American Revolution. Westminster, MD: Heritage, 1994.

Ramsay, David. The History of the American Revolution in Two Volumes, vol. 1-2. Indianapolis, IN: LibertyClassics, 1990.

Riedesel, Friederike Charlotte Luise von Massow, and Friedrich Adolf Riedesel. Letters and Journals. New York, NY: New York Times, 1968.

The Royal Gazette. New York, NY: 1777-1783.

Von Krafft, John Charles Philip. Journal of Lieutenant John Charles Philip Von Krafft. New York, NY: New York Times, 1968.

Warren, Mercy Otis. History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution: Interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations, vol. 1-3. New York, NY: AMS Press, 1970.

Secondary Sources

Anthony, Katherine. The First Lady of the Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1958.

Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence: A Global History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Atwood, Rodney. The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hesse-Kassel in the American Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1986.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Press & the American Revolution. Worcester, NY: American Antiquarian Society, 1980.

135

Barkalow, Jordon. "Forging American Identity: The Revolutionary Histories of Mercy Warren and David Ramsay." Conference Papers – Midwestern Political Science Association, (2009): 1-26.

Beeman, Richard, Stephen Botein, and Edward C. Carter II. Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity. Williamsburg, VA: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Boston, MA: Mariner Books, 2002.

Boorstin, Daniel. The Americans: The National Experience. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965.

Cheng, Eileen Ka-May. “American Historical Writers and the Loyalists, 1788-1856: Dissent, Consensus, and American Nationality.” Journal of the Early Republic, 23.4. University of Pennsylvania Press, Winter 2003, pp. 491-515.

Cohen, Lester H. "Explaining the Revolution: Ideology and Ethics in Mercy Otis Warren's Historical Theory." The William and Mary Quarterly, 37.2 (1980): 200-218.

Coordes, Gesa. “A New Find Translated from the Frankfurter Rundschau Newspaper of 26 March 2008: This Damned Throat-Cutting.” The Hessians: Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, vol. 11. Millville, PA: The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, 2008: 99.

Countryman, Edward. A People in Revolution: The American Revolution and Political Society in New York, 1760-1790. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.

The Disney Insider (http://disney.go.com/disneyinsider/history/movies/the-adventures-of- ichabod-and-mr-toad). Accessed November 4, 2011.

Doob, Nick, Dir., Assume the Position with Mr. Wuhl, Home Box Office, Inc., 2006.

Elkins, Stanley and Erik McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2000.

Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency George Washington. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Ellis, Joseph J. Passionate Sage. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.

136

Ellis, Joseph. "To Be an American: David Ramsay and the Making of the American Consciousness." Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography, 116.4 (1992): 531-533.

Fischer, David Hackett. Washington’s Crossing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Foran, William A. "John Marshall as a Historian." The American Historical Review, 43.1 (1937): 51-64.

Friedman, Lawrence, and Arthur Shaffer. "History, Politics, and Health in Early American Thought: The Case of David Ramsay." Journal of American Studies, 13.1 (1979): 37-56.

Friedman, Lawrence J, and Arthur H Shaffer. "Mercy Otis Warren and the Politics of Historical Nationalism." The New England Quarterly, 48.2 (1975): 194-215.

Gelles, Edith. "Bonds of Friendship: The Correspondence of Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren." Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 108 (1996): 35-71.

Graeff, Arthur. The Relations Between the Pennsylvania Germans and the British Authorities (1750-1776). Norristown, PA: Norristown Herald, Inc., 1935.

Higginbotham, Don, ed. George Washington Reconsidered. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001.

Irving, Pierre Munroe. The Life and Letters of Washington Irving. volumes 1-3. New York, London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1857.

Jasanoff, Maya. Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.

Johnston, Johanna. The Heart that Would Not Hold: A Biography of Washington Irving. New York, NY: M. Evans and Company Inc., 1971.

King, Martha. "The 'Pen of the Historian': Mercy Otis Warren's History of the American Revolution." Princeton University Library Chronicle, 72.2 (2011): 513-531.

Knouff, Gregory T. The Soldiers’ Revolution: Pennsylvanians in Arms and the Forging of Early American Identity. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Kobre, Sidney. Development of American Journalism. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown Co., 1969.

137

Kornfeld, Eve. “From Republicanism to Liberalism: The Intellectual Journey of David Ramsay.” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 9, No. 3. University of Pennsylvania Press, Autumn 1989, pp. 289-313.

Krebs, Daniel. A Generous and Merciful Enemy: Life for German Prisoners of War during the American Revolution. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013.

Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington: A Military Life. New York, NY: Random House, 2007.

Lockhart, Paul. The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of the American Army. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2008.

Logan, Joseph T. "The American Revolution - (Home)." The American Revolution: The Glorious Cause for American Independence. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. .

Loughran, Trish. The Republic in Print: Print Culture in the Age of U.S. Nation Building: 1770-1870. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Lowell, Edward J. The Hessians: And the Other German Auxilliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1884. AmericanRevolution.org: Your Gateway to the American Revolution. Edward St. Germain/The JDN Group, LLC. Web. 7 July 2012. .

Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Main, Jackson Turner. The Antifederalists; Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Mauch, Christof. "Images of America - Political Myths - Historiography: 'Hessians' in the War of Independence." Amerikastudien, 48.3 (2003): 411-423.

McCullough, David G. 1776. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

McGann, Jerome. "Washington Irving, 'A History of New York,' and American History." Early American Literature, 47.2 (2012): 349-376.

Messer, Peter C. “From a Revolutionary History to a History of Revolution: David Ramsay and the American Revolution.” Journal of the Early Republic, 22.2. University of Pennsylvania Press, Summer 2002, pp. 205-233.

138

Miles, Lion G. “The Iron Master and the Hessians.” Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, Inc. 2.1, Millville, PA: The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, 1981.

Miles, Lion G. The Hessians of Lewis Miller. Millville, PA: The Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, 1983.

“The Military Loyalists of the American Revolution.” (http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/musters/nyv/nyvcam1.htm). Accessed December 10, 2011.

Miller, Ken. Dangerous Guests: Enemy Captives and Revolutionary Communities During the War for Independence. Ithaca, NY: University of Cornell Press, 2014.

Mott, Frank Luther. American Journalism: A History, 1690-1960. New York, NY: Macmillan Press, 1962.

Myers, Andrew. "The New York Years in Irving's 'The Life of George Washington'." Early American Literature, 11.1 (1976): 68-83.

Nagy, John A. Spies in the Continental Capital: Espionage Across Pennsylvania During the American Revolution. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, 2011.

O'Brien, Karen. "David Ramsay and the Delayed Americanization of American History." Early American Literature, 29.1 (1994): 1-18.

Oreovicz, Cheryl. "Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814)." Legacy, 13.1 (1996): 54-64.

Papas, Philip. That Ever Loyal Island: Staten Island and the American Revolution. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2007.

Pencak, William, ed. Beyond Philadelphia: The American Revolution in the Pennsylvania Hinterland. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.

Pencak, William, ed. Pennsylvania’s Revolution. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010.

Quidor, John. The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane. 1858, oil on canvas, 68.3 cm x 86.1 cm. Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington D.C. (http://americanart.si.edu/images/1994/1994.120_1a.jpg). Accessed February 28, 2014.

Railton, Ben. Redefining American Identity: From Cabeza de Vaca to Barack Obama. New York, NY: Palmgrave McMillon, 2011.

139

Ramage, B. "John Marshall, Southern Federalist." The Sewanee Review, 9.2 (1901): 129- 155.

Ranlet, Philip. The New York Loyalists, Second Edition. New York, NY: University Press of America, 2002.

Red Bank Battlefield Park Website (http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/depts/p/parks/parkgolf/redbank/). Accessed December 14, 2015.

Richter Green, Kate, dir. "Rob Lowe." Who Do You Think You Are? NBC. KNBC, Los Angeles, CA, 27 Apr. 2012. Television.

Riordan, Liam. Many Identities, One Nation: The Revolution and Its Legacy in the Mid- Atlantic. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Roberts, Cokie. Founding Mothers. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2004.

Rose, P.K. “The Founding Fathers of American Intelligence.” Central Intelligence Agency. (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi- publications/books-and-monographs/the-founding-fathers-of-american- intelligence/art-1.html). Posted March 16, 2007. Updated July 7, 2008. Accessed January 18, 2016.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764- 1776. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1980.

Silverman, Kenneth. A Cultural History of the American Revolution. New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976.

Sizemore, Michelle. "'Changing by Enchantment: ' Temporal Convergence, Early National Comparisons, and Washington Irving's Sketchbook." Studies in American Fiction, 40.2 (2013): 157-183.

Smith, Page. "David Ramsay and the Causes of the American Revolution." The William and Mary Quarterly, 17.1 (1960): 51-77.

St. Clair, Ar, Wm Irvine, Anty Wayne, Timothy Pickering, Thomas Mifflin, Christopher Ludwick, and William Ward Condit. "Christopher Ludwick, Patriotic Gingerbread Baker." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 81.4, 1957: 365-390.

Stewart, Nancy Rubin. The Muse of the Revolution. Boston, MA: BeaconPress, 2008.

Thompson, Terry. "'Lively but Complicated': English Hegemony in 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'." Midwest Quarterly, 54.2 (2013): 136-148.

140

Tiedemann, Joseph S. and Eugene R. Fingerhut, eds. The Other New York: The American Revolution beyond New York City, 1763-1767. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005.

Torsella, Joseph. "American National Identity, 1750-1790: Samples from the Popular Press." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 112.2 (1988): 167- 187.

Van Buskirk, Judith L. Generous Enemies: Patriots and Loyalists in Revolutionary New York. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Waldsteicher, David. In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776-1820. Williamsburg, VA: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Williams, Julie Hedgepeth and W. David Sloan. The Early American Press, 1690-1783. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Wilson, Raymond Jackson. Figures of Speech: American Writers and the Literary Marketplace, from Benjamin Franklin to Emily Dickinson. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf: Distributed by Random House, 1989.

Wolf, Bryan Jay. Romantic Re-Vision: Culture and Consciousness in Nineteenth-Century American Painting and Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Wood, Gordon. The American Revolution: A History. New York, NY: The Modern Library, 2002.

Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Wood, Gordon. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Wood, Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1991.

Yokota, Kariann Akemi. Unbecoming British: How Revolutionary America Became a Postcolonial Nation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1999.