Within the parameters set in goal 3) it was decided to include only structures and sites connected directly with the march proper of Rochambeau's little army, and of the Continental Army, for which primary source evidence exists. Movements of French forces and/or of French and American officers prior to the summer of 1781, e.g., the naval actions in the summer of 1778 or Chastellux many travels, or travels after the departure of Rochambeau's troops from New York, e.g., Lauzun's farewell journey in 1783 to Newport and New Windsor or Washington's stay at the DeWindt House prior to the evacuation of New York in 1783, were excluded. So were sites connected with actions of the French navy and those of Frenchmen in American service, especially the marquis de Lafayette, even though he spent much time in New York in his capacity as major general in the Continental Army. Also excluded were sites connected with the American troops under General William Heath after August 18, 1781, while Washington and Rochambeau were on their march to Virginia.
Also excluded were sites that could not be located with precision, esp. the bivouacs of the French army on its way to King's Ferry in August 1781 or the advance bivouac of the New Jersey line and Moses Hazen's Canadian Regiment near Kakiat for three days from August 22-25, 1781. For the same reason were also not included the Lauzun Legion Camp near Wampus Pond in July 1781, and the Chatterton Hill Camp of Lauzun's Legion in July 1781. Also excluded were the Continental Army Winter Camp of 1780/81 in Newburgh/New Windsor, the Continental Army Winter Camp of 1781/82, and the march of Lauzun's Legion from the Crompond encampment to Wilmington in October 1782
Within these parameters, not one, but numerous routes, or better: road segments taken by various components of the two armies in New York, emerged:
1) The route taken
by the French infantry forces to Philipsburg in July 1781
2) The route taken by Lauzun's Legion to Philipsburg in July 1781
3) The route taken by the American forces to Philipsburg in July 1781
4) The route taken by the French forces to Suffern in August 1781
5) The route taken by the American forces to Suffern in August 1781
6) The route taken by the New Jersey line and Moses Hazen's Canadian Regiment
from Sneeden's Landing to Chatham, New Jersey, in July 1781
7) The route taken by the American forces to Peekskill in September 1782
8) The route taken by French forces to Peekskill and on to Danbury in September
1782
9) The route taken by Lauzun's Legion from Peekskill to Wilmington in October
1782
Routes/road segments in this report are listed chronologically -- as much as possible, since some routes were traveled concurrently -- as they were visited by Washington's and Rochambeau's armies. Geographically they are organized as a modern traveler following the route(s) would encounters them in the field when traveling from the Connecticut State Line to the New Jersey State Line for the year 1781, and from the New Jersey State Line to the Connecticut State Line for the year 1782.
Fieldwork and photography were undertaken in October 2000. Copies of the final report, photographs and supporting materials are deposited at the Greenway Heritage Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley, Inc. French and German words are in italics unless they are included as English words in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine.
The historical and architectural survey was conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation (National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1983). A discussion of the general methodology that was utilized may be found in Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin 24 (Derry, Jandl, Shull, and Thorman, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1977; Parker, revised 1985).
The criteria used for the evaluation of properties were based on those of the National Register of Historic Places, administered by the National Park Service under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Recognition of these resources is intended to contribute to an understanding of the historical and cultural foundations of the nation.
The National Register's criteria for evaluating the significance of properties, which were developed to recognize the accomplishments of all peoples who made a contribution to the country's history and heritage, state the following:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineer-ing, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity in location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association and:
a) that are associated
with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
c) that embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
d) that have yielded,
or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Using these criteria, I inspected and inventoried all sites listed in this report.
The sites listed here are of six different types:
1) Campsites and bivouacs
2) Buildings and building sites
3) Plaques, tablets, and markers placed by the State of New York, by organizations such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Society of the Cincinnati as well as by individual communities and/or historical societies to commemorate campsites, buildings, and events connected with the W3R
4) Tombstones/grave markers and other emblems
5) Archeological Sites
6) Natural landscape features
Applying the criteria as outlined above, I identified 45 separate sites which
meet these requirements. These sites consist of:
12 Campsites and bivouacs
16 Buildings and building sites
12 Plaques, tablets, and markers
2 Tombstones/grave markers
2 Archeological sites
1 Natural landscape feature
Inventory Number. Each inventoried property is assigned an inventory number, which appears on the form and the slides. Site profiles and inventoried properties are arranged chronologically according to the marching sequence. Street names and street numbers are recorded as they appear in town records.
Historic Name. The historic name serves as a shorthand for indicating the site's significance. In the case of commercial buildings, churches, and public buildings, the historic name is straightforward and represents the buildings earliest known use. With houses, the historic name is usually the name of the family that built it or who lived there for many years. In some cases the name of the earliest owner could not be determined.
Date. Dates of construction are based on architectural evidence, information from primary and secondary sources (see bibliography), research files maintained by the Connecticut Historical Commission, original research in primary sources, and other historical documentation. The forms generally indicated the reason for ascribing a particular date to a building or site.
Materials. In cases where cement or other types of facing were applied to underpinnings it was not possible to determine, without access to cellars or scraping away the cement from the foundation of a monument, what the actual foundation materials were. "Asbestos siding" was checked off for houses with any type of rigid composition shingles; however, many of these are wood-pulp products containing no asbestos.
Dimensions. Building and monument dimensions are either taken from Tax Assessor's street cards or were determined by measuring the object itself in the field. The dimension of the elevation facing the street is given first.
Condition. Without extensive analysis, it was not possible to assess professionally the structural condition of any building. The judgement on the form is based simply on the external condition of the building, and the form's box denoting "good" was checked for any structure lacking obvious problems such as sagging walls. "Good" means that everything about the exterior appeared in order; "Fair" means that there were some problems (badly peeled paint, cracked siding, missing roof shingles, rust stains, deep scratches on plaques, missing fastening bolts etc.) which, if left unchecked, could lead to damage. "Deteriorated" was used for sites with severe exterior problems.
Threats to Buildings and Sites. Unless the survey personnel had direct knowledge of a specific threat, "None known" was checked.
Wherever possible National Register of Historic Places or National Historic Landmark registration forms addressing these issues were attached to the site form.
3.3 Other Parts of the Survey Report
In addition to the inventory forms and site profiles, which form the core of the survey, the project report includes an overview of the French army of the ancien régime, and of French forces in America before their march with the Continental Army through New York in July/August 1781 and again in October/November 1782. It also includes a discussion of primary resources still standing in the field as well as mention of resources listed in earlier sources that have since disappeared. A set of color slides for all sites surveyed is attached as well. Indices to the forms and the slides are included in the report.
Almost four dozen sites have been identified in this report as connected with the W3R in New York, and while all deserving buildings are all already listed on the NRH or the NHL, the campsites are not. Wherever possible an attempt should be made to work toward their protection and preservation by integrating them into the New York State Preservation Program files in the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with a view toward their nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Such protective measures are advocated in view of the second recommendation. Only a few of the sites are identified in the field as part of the W3R; most are not. This goes for well-established historic sites such as the Van Cortlandt House or Stony Point as well as for lesser known sites, which (especially the campsites) may prove tempting targets to relic hunters. Protection of sites and acquisition of open space stood at the beginning of the W3R efforts in Connecticut and it applies to New York as well. The restoration and maintenance of neglected historic sites has begun, e.g., the Odell House, and needs to be accelerated to meet the 2006 deadline. A concurrent step in the W3R project should be the compilation of a list of sites to be marked, once funds are available, as components of the W3R. Concurrently, site managers should make an effort to integrate the W3R into the interpretation of their sites. Identification (and possibly excavation and interpretation during Phase II of this project) of known sites such as the Gilbert Ward House, site of a French hospital in Philipsburg, or the Falconer House, Lauzun's headquarters, should be a goal of local historical societies. By 2006, all of these sites should form a string of fixed points along which an interconnected bicycle or automobile route or a heritage trail. Such a trail needs to be advertised and described in a guide/travel book to enable historically interested tourists as well as New Yorkers to trace the route taken by America and her allies in 1781 and 1782.
Lastly, I should
point out that Chapters 5 and 6 were written and published in slightly different
form as part of my reports for the State of Connecticut. I am very grateful
to Jack Shannahan, SHPO of the State of Connecticut, for permission to integrate
them into this report. Though the basic facts of history have not changed during
these past three years, historical research and writing is always "work
in progress." As new sources come to light, details will change and so
will the interpretation of events. The reader is therefore encouraged to contact
me -- to criticize, to suggest, and to add whatever he or she can to contribute
to the success of the task of making the WASHINGTON - ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY
ROUTE a reality. The advancement of historical knowledge, like all progress,
depends as much on sharing of information as it does on individual research.