E 241 T5 H2 Copy 1 THE CAPTURE OF TICONDEEOGA, IN 1775 A PAPER READ BEFORE THE AT MONTPELIEE, Tuesday, October 19th, 1869, By HILAND HALL. MONTPELIER : POLAJNDS' STEAM PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT, Journal Building, State Street. 1869. OFFICERS OF THE VERMONT STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, ELECTED OCTOBER 19, A. T>. 1869. President, GEORGE F. HOUGHTON, St. Albans. Vice Presidents, WILLIAM H. LORD, I). D., Montpelier, Gen. JOHN W. PHELPS, Brattleboro, Hox. GEORGE W. BENEDICT, Burlington. Recording Secretary, HENRY CLARK, Rutland. Corresponding Secretary, ALBERT D. HAGER, Proctors ville. Treasurer, HERMAN D. HOPKINS, Montpelier. Librarian, CHARLES REED, Montpelier. BOARD OF CURATORS, Hampden Cutts, Brattleboro, Charles Reed, Montpelier, George Grenville Benedict, Burlington, Philander D. Bradford, Northfield, Charles S. Smith, Montpelier, John R. Cleaveland, Brookfield, Orville S. Bliss, Georgia. All donations of Books, Pamphlets or Newspapers, should be addressed to Hon. Charles Reed, Librarian, Montpelier. THE CAPTURE OF TIOOKDEKOG-A, IN 1775. A PAPER READ BEFORE THE Fstmwmt ^istawcat $tx$wty, r AT MONTPELIEK, Tuesday, October 19th, 1869, By HILAND HALL, MONTPELIER : POLANDS' STEAM PEINTING ESTABLISHMENT, Journal Building, State Street. 1869. 'Of ADDRESS OF GOV. HALL. Mr. President of the Vermont Historical Society, and Ladies and Gentlemen : Before I commence the paper which I have been requested to read this evening, a word of explanation seems necessary. Within the past dozen years a special enmity toward the early inhabitants and institutions of Vermont has been exhibited by a few historical writers in New York City ; perhaps inherited from their land-jobbing ancestors. Their hostile demonstrations have not been made by any attempted production of facts or argu- ments, but in dark insinuations against the patriotism or integrity of the founders of our State, and by calling them an abundance of hard names. Ethan Allen has come in for a large share of their hostility, though it has generally been without assuming any tangible form. But in December last, Mr. B. F. DeCosta, who I understand is a retired clergyman living in New York city, so far departed from the previous practice as to come forward with an elaborate article in the Qalaxy Magazine, in which he under- takes to show that John Brown, Esq., of Pittsfield, and the traitor, Arnold, were the real heroes in the capture of Ticonde- roga, and that what Ethan Allen did was of very little account. The magazine article was very thoroughly and effectually an- swered by Professor George W. Benedict, in the Burlington Free Press, and by the Hon. J. Hammond Trumbull, in the Connecti- cut Courant, and in newspaper articles by others in Boston and St. Albans. The paper which I am about to read was prepared soon after the publication of the Galaxy article, under the impression that it might be advisable, at some future time, to publish a refu- tation of it, in a more permanent form than in the daily or weekly newspaper, but without intending to read it before this Society. It is read now, in consequence of the unexpected failure of the person selected to deliver the annual address on this occasion. THE CAPTURE OF TICONDEROGA IN 1775. "Who took Ticonderoga ? is a question recently asked in the Galaxy Magazine, by Mr. B. F. DeCosta, of New York city, which question he at once proceeded to answer by giving an ac- count of the event quite different from that which has been com- monly received. The leading facts relating to the capture have hitherto been re- garded to be, that the expedition was secretly planned by some gentlemen in Connecticut, who furnished a few men with funds for expenses and supplies for the undertaking ; that these men set off for Bennington with the intention of engaging Col. Ethan Allen in the enterprise, and with the expectation of raising the force for the capture on the New Hampshire Grants ; that on their way, at Salisbury and in Berkshire county, their number was increased to some fifty or sixty ; that on the New Hampshire Grants they were joined by nearly two hundred Green Mountain Boys col- lected by Allen and his associates, Allen being elected to the command of the whole ; that after the men had been mustered at Castleton for the attack, Benedict Arnold, with a single attend- ant, arrived there, and claimed the command by virtue of written instructions from the Committee of Safety of Massachusetts, au- thorizing him " to enlist " four hundred men, and with them seize the fortress ; that Arnold, having no authority to command these men already raised, and to whom he was an entire stranger, his claim was denied, and Allen was confirmed in the supreme com- mand ; that Arnold was allowed to join the party as an assistant, and when the fort was surprised, was permitted to enter it by the side of Allen at his left ; and that Allen, being thus in command of the expedition, demanded the surrender of the fort from Capt. Delaplace, its commander, " in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." Such is a brief outline of the account of the capture given by Gordon in his contemporaneous history ; by Holmes in his Annals ; by Sparks in his Lives of Allen and Arnold ; by Hildreth in his History of the United States ; by Irving in his Life of Washington ; and by Bancroft, and numerous other historians. In contravention of this uniform current of history, the writer in the Galaxy Magazine, disregarding the most important features of this account, claims that John Brown, a lawyer of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, " was the person who first suggested the enter- prise " by which the fortress was taken ; that he had visited Canada by the request of Gen. Joseph "Warren and Samuel Ad- ams, " to secure the aid of the people to the cause of indepen- dence," and that in the month of March, 1775, he had written to Warren and Adams, " that the fort of Ticonderoga must be seized, as soon as possible, should hostilities be committed by the king's troops ;" that Samuel Adams, who was a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress, while on his way to Philadelphia, was at Hartford on the twenty-seventh of April, 1775, when he and " a number of gentlemen met with the governor of Connecticut and resolved on the capture of Ticonderoga," in furtherance of " Brown's recommendation ;" that the party sent on the expedition from Connecticut, " at once reported to Brown for the express purpose of advising with him about the whole matter." Therefore, the writer concludes that Col. John Brown is entitled to the credit of originating the plan for the capture, (5 and especially that Ethan Allen had nothing whatever to do with it. In the actual capture of the fortress, the writer claims that Ar- nold held a joint and equal command with Allen, and is, in fact, entitled to the largest share of the honor. Mr. DeCosta, who professes to belong to a " new school of his- tory," commences his views of the capture of Ticonderoga with high claims to historical research and accuracy, as follows : " The study of American history" he says, "has noiv entered upon a new era. An intelligent patriotism no longer demands the unquestioned belief of every vainglorious tradition. Historical students have discovered that in order to enforce conviction they must produce authorities. " We are not disposed to controvert the rule which the writer thus lays down for historical research. Whether it belongs to an old or " a new era," it is peculiarly obligatory upon one, who like the Gtalaxy writer, propounds a new historical theory for the overthrow of a belief which has prevailed for nearly a century, and has hitherto been unquestioned. Now for the application of this rule to the article of Mr. De- Costa, that we may ascertain to what extent he " enforces convic- tion" of its truth "by the production of authorities." And first, in regard to his assumption that John Brown was the originator of the expedition by which Ticonderoga was taken. The first piece of evidence upon which the writer relies, is a let- ter written from Montreal by Brown to General Joseph Warren and Samuel Adams, in the month of March, 1775, from which he makes a quotation as follows : " One thing I must mention, to be kept a profound secret. The fort of Ticonderoga must be seized as soon as possible, should hos- tilities be committed by the king's troops. The people on the New Hampshire Grants have engaged to do the business, and, in my opinion, are the proper persons for the job." One would naturally suppose from the fact here stated by Brown, " that the people on the New Hampshire Cfrants had en- gaged to do the business ;" that he had been in consultation with the leaders of those people, persons who were accustomed to speak and act in their behalf and to enter into engagements for them. But this natural inference would interfere with the writer's theory that the project was wholly Brown's, by leaving it in doubt whether the capture was first suggested by him or by those with whom he had been in consultation on the New Hampshire Grants. It was, therefore, necessary for him to ignore any such inter- course with the leaders, which he does by asserting that " the only people he, [Brown] had anything to do with were a couple of old hunters who ferried him hurriedly down Lake Champlain." To be sure, this places Brown in the unenviable position of mak- ing a false representation to his employers, that the people on the Grants had made a certain important engagement with him, when he had not seen them and it was consequently impossible that they should have done any such thing. Hence we are compelled to infer, that in the ethics of the " new era," upon which " the study of American history has entered," a false representation is regarded as a very trifling matter. But let us inquire a little further into this mission of Mr. Brown into Canada, and his doings on the New Hampshire Grants. Early in the year 1775, an approaching struggle of the colonies with the mother country was clearly foreseen, and measures taken to prapare for it. On the 15th of February a resolution was passed by the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, which, after reciting that it appeared to be the design of the British ministry to engage the Canadians and Indians in hostile measures against the colonies, directed the committee of correspondence of the town of Boston, " in such way and manner as they should think proper, to open and establish an intimate correspondence and con- 8 nection with the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, and that they endeavor to put the same immediately into execution." That committee appointed Mr. Brown to repair to Canada for the purpose indicated by the resolution, furnishing him with letters and pamphlets for friends in Montreal. It appears by Mr. Brown's letter from that place to Messrs. "Warren and Adams be- fore referred to, which bears date March 29, 1775, that immedi- ately after receiving the letters and papers lie went to Albany to open a correspondence with a Dr. Joseph Young, and also to as- certain the state of the lakes, which he says he found " impassa- ble at that time." He accordingly returned to Pittsfield, and about a fortnight afterward, " set out for Canada." That he took the most direct and convenient route through Bennington across the New Hampshire Grants, there can be no manner of doubt. It appears by his letter that on his arrival in Canada, the engagement with him to capture Ticonderoga, before mentioned, had been entered into, and that he had also accomplished one of the most important objects of his mission, indicated in the Massachusetts resolution, by establishing, as his letter states, " a channel of cor- respondence through the Neiv Hampshire Crrants, which might be depended on" neither of which could have been done if he had taken any other route. He says in his letter " two men from the New Hampshire Grants accompanied me " to Canada. These compan- ions and guides were furnished him by the committee of the New Hampshire Grants at Bennington, as appears by authentic and undoubted evidence. One of them was no other than Peleg Sun- derland, one of the eight persons who had been condemned to death without trial by the infamous New York outlawry act of 1774. In 1787, he petitioned the General Assembly of Vermont, stating that " in the month of March, 1775, he was called upon and requested by the Grand Committee at Bennington to go to Canada as a pilot to Major John Brown, who was sent by the Pro- 9 vincial Congress," etc.; that he was in that service twenty-one days, for which he had never received any compensation. The petition was referred to a committee who reported that " the peti- tioner did go to Canada by order of the authority, to pilot Major Brown as set up in his petition," and recommended that he be paid therefor from the State Treasury, the sum of eight pounds and fourteen shillings, being at the rate of one dollar per day, which payment was accordingly made. (See petition and report on file in the office of the Secretary of State at Montpelier, and Journals of Assembly, March 7, 1787 ; also Hall's Early History of Ver- mont, 198, 470. For Brown's letter to Warren and Adams, see Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 4th series, 243.) There would seem, then, to be no doubt that Mr. Brown did see other people on the New Hampshire Grants besides " the couple of old hunters, who ferried him hurriedly down Lake Cham- plain ;" that he did in fact confer with " the Grand Committee " of those people, and that there is, therefore, no reason to ques- tion the truth of Brown's statement, that " the people on the New Hampshire Grants" had engaged to capture Ticonderoga. It consequently follows that Mr. DeCosta's theory, which convicts Brown of misrepresentation and falsehood, falls to the ground. It is perhaps proper to notice here that Mr. DeCosta, after what he says about the two old hunters, adds the following: "With Allen, who lived far away from the lake, he (Brown) had no commu- nication as is shown by the declarations of Allen himself." We have no direct proof that Brown saw Allen on this occasion, though there is no reason to doubt that he did, for Allen's residence was at Bennington, and he was a member of the Grand Committee with whom Brown conferred. It is difficult to speak in words polite of the assertion of Mr. DeCosta, that " it is shown by the decla- rations of Allen himself '," that Brown did not see him. The wri- ter produces no authority for the statement, and can produce none. 10 It is either a random assertion made without thought or consider- ation, allowable only in his " new era of American history," or it is something worse. TJiere is not a word of truth in it. "Whether the suggestion in regard to the seizure of Ticonde- roga was first made by Allen, or by some other of the Green Mountain Boys with whom Brown was in conference, or by Brown himself, does not appear, nor is it material to know. The neces- sity of the seizure, in case of hostilities with the mother country, was too obvious to escape the attention of any intelligent person residing on the New Hampshire Grants, or indeed anywhere in New England. While the lake, which that fort commanded, had been in the possession of the French, the Northern frontier had been constantly exposed to their incursions, and had been repeat- edly ravaged by their Indian allies. That frontier, which had until then been Northern Massachusetts, was now, by the settlements on the New Hampshire Grants, on the very verge of the fortress. There could be no security whatever for the people on those Grants, if the fort was to remain in the possession of an enemy. The sug- gestion of its capture, the necessity for which could not but have been seen and felt by hundreds, could not add to the fame of either Allen or Brown. The speaking or writing of the propri- ety or necessity of the seizure of Ticonderoga, and the originat- ing of a plan which should result in its capture, are two very different things, which however, Mr. DeCosta does not seem to comprehend. Under the circumstances which actually existed, we have seen that the former would be a small matter. The lat- ter, on the contrary, would be quite an important one. If the expedition from Connecticut which eventuated in the seizure of the fortress, was started in consequence of Brown's letter to War- ren and Adams, and with the design that Brown as the originator of it, should aid in its execution, as is contended by Mr. DeCosta, then Brown is entitled to an honor which has not hitherto been 11 accorded to him, and which it is not known that he ever claimed. We will now proceed to inquire into the origin of the expedi- tion, which, it is agreed on all hands, was first put in motion at Hartford. Since the publication in 1860, by the Connecticut Historical Society, under the direction of J. Hammond Trumbull, its distinguished' President, of sundry original documents, princi- pally from the public archives of that State, there seems no room for doubt about its origin. The capture was concerted at Hart- ford on the 27th of April, 1775, between Col. Samuel H. Par- sons, Col. Samuel Wyllys and Silas Deane, who associated with them Christopher Leffingwell, Thomas Mumford and Adam Bab- cock. These six gentlemen on the following day, for the sake of secrecy and dispatch, without any consultation with the Assem- bly or other persons, obtained from the Colony Treasury on their personal obligations, three hundred pounds for the purposes of the undertaking. This was on Friday, the 28th of April, and on the same day Capt. Noah Phelps and Bernard Romans were dis- patched with the money to the northward to obtain men and sup- plies ; and the next clay they were followed by Capt. Edward Mott, Jeremiah Halsey, Epaphras Bull, William Nichols and two others, and were overtaken by them on Sunday evening at Salis- bury, some forty miles from Hartford. The receipts to the Treas- urer for the money bear date the 28th of April, and the evidence in proof of the time of the departure of the expedition is full and unquestionable. (Conn. Hist. Col., Vol. 1, 162-188.) According to Mr. DeCosta, Samuel Adams, one of the gen- tlemen to whom Mr. Brown's letter from Montreal had been ad- dressed, was in Hartford on the 21th of April on his way to Phila- delphia, with John Hancock and others, and on that day the plan for the capture of the fortress was arranged by him and other gentlemen with the governor and council of Connecticut. Now if Samuel Adams was not at Hartford on the 27th of April when the 12 expedition was planned, Mr. DeCosta's theory and superstructure fall to the ground. That he could not have been there on that day is beyond question. On the 24th of April, John Hancock wrote from Worcester to the Massachusetts committee of safety, among other things, as follows : " Mr. S. Adams and myself just arrived here, find no intelligence from you and no guard. * * ****** u ow arG we to proceed ? Where are our brethren? ******* Where is Gushing? Are Mr. Paine and Mr. John Adams to be with us ? [They were the other three delegates to the Continental Congress.] * * Pray remember Mr. Adams and myself to all friends." (Force's Archives, 4th Series, Vol. 2, 384.) On the 26th, he wrote again : " I set out to-morrow morning." (Ibid, 401.) The dis- tance from Worcester to Hartford, seventy or eighty miles, was two good clays' travel in those days, and the delegates could not have reached there till the evening of the 28th or the morning of the 29th, after Phelps and Romans were well on their way to Salisbury. In support of his claim that Mr. Adams was at Hartford on the 27th of April, Mr. DeCosta relies upon two authorities, both of which flatly contradict his position. One of them is the life of Samuel Adams by Mr. Wells, who instead of stating that -Mr. Adams was at Hartford on that day, says he left Worcester on the 27th, and was at Hartford on the 29th. (Vol. 2, 207.) The other authority is an anonymous letter found in Force's American Archives, (Vol. 2, 507) from a gentleman in Pittsfield, dated May 4, 1775, which erroneously states that the expedition had been concerted the previous Saturday by Samuel Adams and Col. Hancock with the governor of Connecticut and others. But the previous Saturday was the 29th of April, and not the 27th, which, as we have seen, was the next day after the advance party of the expeditionists had left Hartford. It is, therefore, very clear that 13 Mr. Adams could not have had any hand in planning the expe- dition, and of consequence that Brown's letter to him and War- ren had nothing to do with it. It is proper to state in this con- nection that Mr. Bancroft in the first edition of his History of the United States followed the Pittsfield letter, in stating that the ex- pedition had been concerted by Adams and Hancock with the governor of Connecticut at Hartford, " On Saturday, the 29£A of April;" but in his later edition, issued since the publication of the Connecticut Historical Collections, before mentioned, he expunged that statement as unfounded, and ascribed the origin of the adventure to the private gentlemen we have[.before named. (Bancroft, Vol. 7, editions of 1858, and of 1864, p. 338.) It was reserved for Mr. DeCosta to discover that Saturday the 29th of April, was Thursday the 27th ; and there can be no doubt that he does belong to " a new school of history ;" one that in support of a favorite theory, not only wrests authorities from their obvious meaning, but relies upon those to sustain it which prove it to be false. Mr. DeCosta refers to another authority in relation to " Col. John Brown," with what object it is difficult to conceive, unless it was to convince his readers that it was utterly impossible for him to understand correctly, and properly apply, any peice of histori- cal evidence whatever. He says, " only three days after the de- cision of the people at Hartford, General Warren wrote to Alex- ander McDougal of New York, saying that it had been proposed to take Ticonderoga ;" and Mr. DeCosta asks, " By whom was this proposition made ?" And then in answer says, " the only person of whom we have any knowledge who had urged this upon Warren was Col. John Brown in his letter from Montreal the pre- vious March." This letter of Warren to McDougal bears date the 30th of April, and on the same page of Force's Archives, (Vol. 2, 450) where Mr. DeCosta finds it, and immediately pre- 14 ceding it, is a letter from Benedict Arnold to Warren of the same date, stating the condition of the fort at Ticonderoga, show- ing most conclusively that it was Arnold's and not Brown's propo- sition to which the letter to McDougal referred. How it was pos- sible for the writer of the Gralaxy article to overlook the connec- tion between these two letters of the same date, thus found to- gether on the same page, is a mystery, which can only be solved by Mr. DeCosta himself. Mr. DeCosta, seeking to confirm his theory that it was part of the programme of the expedition from Hartford, that Brown was to take a part in it, says, " the party from Connecticut moved at once to Col. John Brown, at Pittsfield, for the express purpose of advising with him about the whole matter." Again he says, " the party from Connecticut at once reported to Brown," and thus " ac- knowledged his agency." Now, there is no foundation whatever for this statement, and if the writer had paid but a moderate at- tention to the abundant authentic evidence bearing on the point, he certainly could not have hazarded any such assertion ; unless, indeed, the habit of misunderstanding and perverting the mean- ing of authorities, which we have seen he had fallen into, in his " new school of history," had become too inveterate to be overcome. From the papers published in the Connecticut Historical Col- lections, before mentioned, consisting of the journal of the expe- dition kept by Capt. Edward Mott, T and a contemporaneous account by Elisha Phelps, and also by the official report made to the Mas- sachusetts Congress by the committee having charge of the expe- dition, it fully appears that it was no part of the original design of the Connecticut party to call upon Brown at all ; that the men from Hartford were to stop at Salisbury, and after being joined there by a few others, were, in the language of Captain Mott, " to keep their business secret and ride through the country un- 15 armed until they came to the new settlements on the Grants," where they were to raise the men to make the capture. The party pursued that intention until they arrived at Pittsfield, where, stopping to tarry over night, they fell in with Col. James Easton and John Brown, Esq., and learning that the latter had lately been to Canada, concluded to inform them of their project and to take their advice. The result of their conference was, that it was resolved to raise a portion of the force for the expedition in Berkshire county, and both Easton and Brown agreed to take part in it. (See Conn. Collections, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175 ; Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 557-559, and Jour. Mass. Cong., 696.) The only authority which Mr. DeCosta cites in support of this part of his theory, is the before mentioned Pittsfield letter, the meaning of which he distorts and falsifies after his usual manner. He quotes it as stating the fact that " the Connecticut volunteers reported to Col. Brown" — whereas the letter states no such thing. It merely says that the Connecticut men at Pittsfield had " been joined by Col. Easton, Capt. Dickinson and Mr. Brown with forty soldiers." Here is no intimation that the volunteers, in pursu- ance of previous instructions, reported to Brown. Brown merely joined them. It might, at least with equal propriety be asserted that they reported to Col. Easton or Capt. Dickinson, their names being mentioned prior to that of Brown's. (Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 507.) Although Brown had no part in originating the Ticonderoga expedition, his services, after he joined it, were undoubtedly earn- est and valuable, and they were duly appreciated and acknowl- edged by his associates. There is no reason to suppose that lie ever, in his lifetime, claimed the peculiar honor which Mr. DeCosta seems determined to thrust upon him. It is evident, however, from Mr. DeCosta's whole article, that he was much less anxious to increase the fame of Brown, than to lessen that of Col. Allen. 16 After stating what he claims for Brown in originating the expedi- tion, when he comes to his statement that the Connecticut men re- ported to Brown, he says, " with all these transactions Ethan Allen had nothing whatever to do." Again, he says, " we are justified in declaring that Brown's recommendation was carried to Hartford and acted upon ;" and he adds, " certainly Ethan Allen was in no way concerned." And he winds up this branch of his tirade against Allen as follows : " In view of the testimony which has been brought to bear on the subject, it will be idle any longer to support the claim of Ethan Allen as the originator of the plan to capture Ticonderoga" If, under the inspiration of his "new historical school," it had been allowable for Mr. DeCosta to have paid some little attention to the actual history of the expedition about which he was under- taking to write, he would readily have discovered that there was no necessity whatever for manufacturing John Brown into a new hero of Ticonderoga, for the purpose of supplanting Allen ; and for the very plain reason that Allen had never made any pretensions to have done what the writer claims for Brown. Allen never claimed that he was the originator of the Ticonderoga expedition, but always admitted and declared that it was set on foot in Con- necticut. It is so stated in his letter from Ticonderoga to the Al- bany Committee, of May 11, and also in one from Crown Point, of June 2, 1775, to the New York Congress. (Force's Archives, Yol. 2, 606, 891. In his narrative of his captivity, he speaks of it as follows : " The bloody attempt at Lexington to enslave America, thoroughly electrified my mind, and fully determined me to take part with my country ; and while I was wishing for an opportunity to signalize myself in its behalf, directions were pri- vately sent me from the then Colony (now State) of Connecticut, to raise the Green Mountain Boys, and, if possible, with them to surprise the fortress, Ticonderoga. This enterprise I cheerfully 17 undertook," etc. So it turns out that Mr. DeCosta, in his eager- ness to tarnish the fair fame of Col. Allen, has thus far been combatting a phantom of his own creation, and has thus expended a vast amount of labor in falsifying history to no purpose what- ever. Leaving then, to the writer of this philippic against Allen, all the glory he lias acquired by inventing and discussing this false issue, we will proceed to inquire into the real facts of the enter- prise ; and in this inquiry we will not overlook any additional light which Mr. DeCosta has attempted to throw upon it. We have already seen from the statements of Captains Mott and Phelps, two of the principal persons who were sent from Hartford to superintend the expedition, that it was their original intention, and according to their instructions, to raise the men to carry it into execution on the New Hampshire Grants. Such be- ing their design, it was indispensable to secure the aid of Col. Ethan Allen, the then well known active and fearless leader of those people, who under the name of Green Mountain Boys, had for years successfully defended their farms against the efforts of the land-jobbing government of New York to dispossess them. Their bravery and local position, pointed them out to the Connecti- cut men, as well as to John Brown, as " the most proper persons for the job." From Hartford, therefore, the conductors of the enterprise, in- stead of reporting " at once to Col. Brown," as Mr. DeCosta has it, went straight to Salisbury, the old home of Ethan Allen, where his brothers Heman and Levi were living, who both joined the party. At Pittsfield, we have seen that the purpose of the lead- ers was so far changed, that it was determined to raise a portion of the necessary force in Berkshire county, and Col. Easton and others set about doing it. An account of the expedition published in the Hartford Courant, of May 22, 1775, twelve days after the capture, after stating that the Connecticut party had engaged 2 18 Easton and Brown in the enterprise, says, " they likewise imme- diately [doubtless that night] dispatched an express to the in- trepid Col. Ethan Allen, of Bennington, desiring him to be ready to join them with a party of his valiant Green Mountain Boys." The Pittsfield letter, before referred to, after stating that the men of the expedition had left that place on Tuesday, adds, " a post having previously taken his departure to inform Col. Ethan Allen of the design, and desiring him to hold his Green Mountain Boys in readiness." But here we encounter an authority, produced by Mr. DeCosta, which he says has " recently been brought to public light from the Archives of Connecticut," and which he intro- duces with a great flourish, as if it were perfectly annihilating to the fame of Allen. It is the account of Bernard Romans with the Colony of Connecticut for monies expended in the capture of Ticonderoga. One item of the account is in the following words : " Paid Heman Allen going express after Ethan Allen, 120 miles, £ 2.16s." " Thus,' 1 '' adds Mr. DeCosta, "Allen himself had to be drummed up." Without stopping to take exception to the pecu- liar language of this assertion, we arc free to admit that the fact implied in it, is undoubtedly true. It was in the original pro- gramme of the expedition at Hartford, that Allen should be found — notified — hunted up, — or if you please, " drummed up," and induced to join it ; for if that was not done, the enterprise would be likely to fail. The fact that it was deemed essential to the success of the undertaking that Allen should be "drummed up" — which is confirmed, beyond question, by this account of Ro- mans — is highly creditable to the colonel ; and for its discovery, if it had been as hidden as Mr. DeCosta seems to suppose, we should be inclined to thank him quite heartily. The production of this authority in the Galaxy article, is another example of the proneness of "the new school of history" to rely upon evidence that disproves the positions it aims to establish. Whether Heman Allen was paid for his actual travel from his house in Salisbury, 19 or for his travel each way, or only one way, or precisely where he found his brother, is not stated. His mission, however, was successful ; for we learn from Captain Elisha Phelps that when the men from Pittsfield reached Bennington they " met Colonel Allen, who was much pleased with the intended expedition." (Conn. His. Col., 175.) He having been thus " drummed up," and his effi- cient services secured, the expedition proceeded to its successful issue. The great object of the writer of the Gralaxy article is to pro- duce some substitute for Ethan Allen as the hero of Ticonderoga ; and having now done all in his power for Col. Brown, he expends his subsequent efforts in favor of Benedict Arnold, who he claims was in joint and equal command with Allen, and is indeed entitled to the largest share of the honor of the capture. It should here be stated that on the 3d of May, the day on which the party from Connecticut reached Bennington, on their way to Ticonderoga, Benedict Arnold, who was at Cambridge, near Boston, was appointed by the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, " Colonel and commander-in-chief over a body of men not -exceeding four hundred," whom he was directed to enlist, and with them to proceed and reduce the fort at Ticonderoga. By the terms of his orders he was to enlist the men with whom he was to seize the fortress, and he was not authorized to command any other men. (See copy of his orders, Force's Archives, vol. 2, 485.) He proceeded to the western part of Massachusetts, where he had scarcely begun his attempt to raise men, when he learned that a party from Connecticut was in advance of him in the enterprise. Stopping only to engage a few officers to enlist troops and follow him, he pushed on in pursuit with a single attendant, and reached Castleton, after the Green Mountain Boys had been rallied by Allen and his associates, and the whole force liad been mustered at that place for the attack. We have an official account of the expedition from its com- 20 mencement at Hartford, till its termination, addressed by Edward Mott, as chairman of the committee of war of the expedition, to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, dated the 11th day of May, 1775, the next day after the capture, which is undoubtedly entitled to full credit. The following is the language of so much of it as relates to the part taken by Benedict Arnold : " On Sunday evening, the 7th of this instant, May, we arrived at Castleton, where, on the next day, was held a council of war by a committee chosen for that purpose, of which committee I had the honor to be chairman. After debating and consulting on differ- ent methods of procedure in order to accomplish our designs, it was concluded and voted that we would proceed in the following manner, viz.: That a party of thirty men, under the command of Capt. Herrick, should, on the next day in the afternoon, proceed to Skenesborough and take into custody Major Skene and his party, and take possession of all the boats that they should find there, and in the night proceed up the lake to Shoreham [where they were to meet] with the remainder of our men, which were about one hundred and forty, who were under the command of Col. Ethan Allen, and Col. James Eastern as his second, and Captain Warner, the third in command. As these three men were the persons who raised the men, they were chosen to the command, and to rank according to the number of men that each one raised. We also sent oft* Capt. Douglass, of Jericho, [Hancock,] to proceed directly to Panton, and there consult his brother-in-law, who lived there, and send down some boats to Shoreham, if possi- ble, to help our people over to the fort. All this it was concluded should be done or attempted, and was voted universally. " After this affair was all settled, and the men pitched on to go in each party, all were preparing for their march, being then with- in about nine miles of Skenesborough, and about twenty-five miles, on the way we went, from Ticonderoga, Colonel Arnold arrived to us from you with his orders. We were extremely rejoiced to see 21 that you fully agreed with us as to the expediency and importance of taking possession of the garrisons. But we were shockingly surprised when Col. Arnold presumed to contend for the command of those forces that we had raised, whom we had assured should go under the command of their own officers, and be paid and main- tained by the colony of Connecticut. But Mr. Arnold, after we had generously told him our whole plan, strenuously contended and insisted that he had a right to command them and all their officers ; which bred such a mutiny amongst the soldiers as almost frustrated our whole design. Our men were for clubbing their firelocks and marching home, but were prevented by Col. Allen and Col. Easton, who told them that he should not have the com- mand of them, and if he had, their pay would be the same as though they were under their command ; but they would damn the pay, and say they would not be commanded by any others but those they engaged with. " After the garrison was surrendered," continues the official account, " Mr. Arnold again assumed the command, although he had not one man there, and demanded it of Col. Allen, on which we gave Col. Allen his orders in writing, as follows, viz.: " ' To Col. Ethan" Allen, " ' Sir: — Whereas, agreeably to the power and authority to us given by the Colony of Connecticut, we have appointed you to take the command of a party of men, and reduce and take possession of the garrison at Ticonderoga and the dependencies thereto belonging ; and as you are now in actual possession of the same, your are hereby required to keep the command and posses- sion of the same, for the use of the American colonies, until you have further orders from the colony of Connecticut, or the Con- tinental Congress. " ' Signed per order of the Committee of War. " ' EDWARD MOTT, Chairman of said Committee: " Thus far in the words of the official document. The report then gives an account of the surprise of the fort, aud speaks favorably 22 of the services of Col. Easton, and recommends " John Brown, Esq., of Pittsfield, as an able counsellor, full of spirit and resolu- tion, as well as great good conduct." Accompanying this report of the committee of war to the Massa- chusetts Congress, was a certificate, signed by James Easton, Epaphras Bull, Edward Mott and Noah Phelps as " committee of war for the expedition against Ticondcroga and Crown Point," confirming the foregoing statement of Mott as their chairman. Capt. Mott, also, in his journal of the expedition, gives a similar account of Arnold's claim to the command, and of the decisive denial of his claim, both before and after the surrender of the fort. (Journal Mass. Cong., 696-699; Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 556-560.) Gordon, in his history speaks as follows of the application of Arnold for the command : " A council of war was called ; his powers were examined ; and at length it was agreed, that he should be admitted to join and act with them, that so the public might be benefited. It was settled, however, that Col. Allen should have the supreme command, and Col. Arnold was to be his assistant ; with which the latter appeared satisfied, as he had no right by his commission either to command or interfere with the others." (Vol. 2, 11.) In the face of all this full and trustworthy contemporary evi- dence, Mr. DeCosta comes forward, at this late day, and says : " It is true that the command of the volunteers raised was at first given to Allen, but when Benedict Arnold arrived at Castleton, with authority from the Massachusetts committee, the command was divided, and it ivas definitely arranged that Arnold and Allen should exercise an equal authority, wliicli is a point that has not been generally understood.'''' Certainly, Mr. DeCosta is right in saying that " point has not been generally understood," and he might have said with equal force that it never would be. The statement itself is altogether improbable. A divided command 23 would be a novel experiment in military operations, quite too rash and dangerous, one would think, to be attempted. Indeed, the idea that a body of intelligent persons about to make a perilous attack upon a fortified post, should have deliberately consented and " definitely arranged " that two men should exercise an equal authority over them, the one be allowed to direct one thing, and the other with equal right to forbid it and direct another, seems too absurd to be credited of sane men. Certainly, no one can be expected to believe it but upon the production of the fullest proof from sources altogether beyond suspicion. There is no such proof. The only authorities to sustain this story of a divided command are the statements of Arnold himself, and an anonymous and suspicious newspaper article. These statements, as we shall see, are inconsistent with each other, and being contradicted by all other evidence, are not entitled to any credit whatever. Arnold had been ambitious of the honor of capturing the for- tress, and was sorely disappointed in finding that another expedi- tion was in advance of him. Possessed of unbounded assurance, he made claims of authority under his commission, which it in no sense warranted, and to which lie could have no equitable preten- sions, in the hope that his arrogant assumptions would induce tlie men already embodied to accept him as their commander. Foiled in this, the next day after the capture he wrote a long letter to the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, from whom he had received his commission, railing bitterly against Allen and his associates in the expedition, and claiming great merit for himself, with the hope, no doubt, of inducing the committee to favor his pretensions, and place him in the command of the post. Envious of the honor acquired by Allen, and anxious to share at least a portion of it, he falsely wrote to the committee that " on and before taking pos- session " of the fort he " had agreed with Col. Allen to issue future orders jointly," but that " Allen, finding he had the ascen- dency over his people," had violated the agreement, and refused 24 to allow him any command. He claimed that he " was the first person who entered and took possession of the fort," and says he " shall keep it at every hazard ;" and he states that the men at the fort " are in the greatest confusion and anarchy, destroying and plundering private property, and committing every enormity,"