The
project set itself three goals. 1) to collect, interpret, and evaluate
American, French, British, and German primary and secondary sources
for information concerning the French involvement in the American
Revolutionary War with a view toward explaining the reasons, goals,
and results for and of that involvement. 2) to review these same sources
for information about the presence of French troops in Connecticut
and their interaction with the inhabitants of the state, and 3) to
identify historic buildings and sites as well as modern monuments
and markers associated with the march of the French forces under the
command of General the comte de Rochambeau from Newport across Connecticut
in the summer of 1781 on their way to New York and victory at Yorktown,
and again during their return march to Boston in the fall of 1782.
Goals
one and two were achieved by in-depth research in American and European
libraries and archives. In particular I tried to use previously unknown
and unpublished materials relating to the French involvement in the
American Revolutionary War. Local history research was done in the
Connecticut State Library and numerous public libraries across the
state during fieldwork in the fall of 1998. I have tried to include
all known, and accessible, primary and secondary sources on Rochambeau's
army in this report.[9]
Two published sources
were particularly helpful in preparation of this report. The first
is the three-volume set by Allan Forbes and Paul F. Cadman, France
and New England esp. volume 1, (Boston, 1925), pp. 136-189 and volume
2, (Boston, 1927), pp. 1-176. Forbes and Cadman traveled across New
England in the early 1920 along the route of Rochambeau's army and
compiled a complete a list of houses, monuments and sites as they
existed then. Unfortunately some of these sites, particularly buildings,
have since disappeared or been remodeled, thus losing their eighteenth-century
appearance.
The other indispensable
source is the compilation of maps, routes, and journals published
by Howard C. Rice, Jr. and Anne S. K. Brown, The American Campaigns
of Rochambeau's Army 1780, 1781, 1782, 1782, 2 volumes, (Providence
and New Haven, 1972). Volume two in particular contains orders and
arrangements for the march as well as maps of routes and campsites
that are an absolute necessity for anyone interested in the march
of Rochambeau and his troops across the State of Connecticut.
In an appendix to
Volume 1, Rice and Brown provide the most complete list of journals
available at the time of publication of their book. Very few additional
sources have appeared since then. To the 45 primary sources listed
by Rice and Brown,[10] must be
added the journal of Georg Daniel Flohr, an enlisted man in the Royal
Deux-Ponts in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Strasbourg, the
Journal Militaire of an anonymous grenadier in the Bourbonnais regiment
in the Library of Congress, and a letter by Jean-François de
Thuillière, a captain in the Royal Deux-Ponts preserved in
the Archives Nationales.[11] Also
added must be two letters by Louis Eberhard von Esebeck, lieutenant-colonel
in Royal Deux-Ponts, dated Jamestown Island, December 12, and December
16, 1781. [12]
The number is deceiving:
very few of the 49 primary sources turned out to be of much use for
this study. The location of the journals by the vicomte de Vioménil,
of Ollonne, Saint-Cyr, Menonville or Rosel listed by Rice and Brown
is unknown. Three items are collections of maps drawn by engineers
for the march and/or the siege of Yorktown. Numerous other primary
sources listed are collections of letters written during different
stages of the campaign, i.e. those of the comte de Vioménil,
Axel von Fersen, Esebeck, Graf Schwerin, Montesquieu, Mauduit du Plessis,
Charlus, Crublier d'Opterre or de Thuillière, and contain little
or no information on the march and/or Connecticut. Many more end with
the siege of Yorktown, e.g., the accounts by Berthier, Cromot du Bourg
or William de Deux-Ponts. Others again, i.e., those of Ségur
or Broglie begin only in 1782 when their authors arrived in America.
Of those who participated in the marches, some, such as Blanchard,
either marched two days ahead of the main army to check on campsites
etc., or, as in the case of Lauberdière follow behind the main
army because of duel wounds that need healing. Others again, such
as Brisout de Barneville simply gave a list of miles (his journal
also ends December 5, 1781), just like the grenadier from the Bourbonnais.
The marquis de Chastellux did not write a word about the march; the
duc de Lauzun and his Legion pursued a separate route in the summer
of 1781 and did not make the return march through Connecticut at all:
it remained at Crompond, New York, and marched south to Wilmington,
Delaware, from where it returned to France in the spring of 1783.
Desandrouins had the misfortune of losing his journal in the wreck
of the Duc de Bourgogne in the spring of 1783, and his description
of the march to Yorktown consists of 10 lines; those of the return
march are somewhat longer at four printed pages. Many of the journals
were written long after the fact and are heavily colored by the usually
negative experiences of the authors during the French Revolution.
The usefulness of
the majority of journals is further reduced by the fact that virtually
all officers who made the march to Yorktown kept their comments on
the return march very short, sometimes less than one page for the
distance from Newtown on October 25 to Canterbury on November 8, 1782.
Clermont-Crèvecœur's journal for example, an excellent
source for the march in the summer of 1781, devotes all of 20 lines
to the return march a year later. Fortunately Verger, who had remained
behind in Newport in June 1780 but sailed with the siege artillery
to Yorktown, fills some of that void. Only two journals, that of Baron
Closen, a captain in the Royal Deux-Ponts and that of Georg Daniel
Flohr, an enlisted man in Closen's unit, report details on both stages
of the march.
Within the parameters
set in the third goal, it was decided to include only structures and
sites connected directly with the march proper of the infantry and
field artillery portions of Rochambeau's little army for which primary
source evidence exists. Movements of French forces and/or of French
officers prior to the summer of 1781, e.g., General Rochambeau's meetings
with General George Washington in Hartford and Wethersfield do not
form part of this report. Also excluded are the movements of Lauzun's
Legion, which, though the cavalry portion of the French forces, stood
under the command of the minister of the navy, its quartering in Lebanon
during the winter of 1780/81 and the flanking march in the summer
of 1781. Also excluded were those 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 Connecticut
in his capacity as major general in the Continental Army.
The sites inventoried
on-site in Connecticut during the month of September 1998 are of three
different types:
1) Buildings connected with the march of the French forces under Rochambeau
through Connecticut during June and July 1781 on the march to Virginia
and during the return march to Boston in October and November 1782.
2) Plaques placed on sites by the State of Connecticut, 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 in the course of this century to commemorate campsites,
buildings, and events.
3) Roadside markers erected by the Connecticut Department of Transportation
as well as supporting organizations pursuant to state legislation
in 1957 to indicate campsites.
4) Signs erected by the Rotary Clubs of Connecticut in the mid-1970s
to mark and identify Rochambeau's route.
5) Paintings and murals
For the sake of
clarity the sites in this report are listed as they were visited by
Rochambeau's army. In Chapter 7.2: The March through Connecticut,
June 10-July 3, 1781, and Chapter 7.3: The Return March through Connecticut,
July 1782, the sites are listed and numbered as they appear in the
field for someone who wanted to trace the route chronologically. Such
an approach preserves the historical course of events. On the other
hand, since most readers interested in tracing Rochambeau's route
may not want to drive back and forth across the state, beautiful as
it is!, I have also listed the sites as they are encountered in the
field when traveling from the Rhode Island State line to the New York
State line, though the reader is cautioned to keep in mind that the
sites refer to different years and stages of the march. In addition
the reader is cautioned to remember that the route as delineated in
this, the project historian's, report was determined by the above
ground resources in the field and the modern road system. The actual
route as determined by the map-making team and/or the archaeologists
may vary considerably in some areas, especially between Marion and
the New York State line, from the route outlined here.
Fieldwork and photography
were undertaken in September 1998. Copies of the final report and
survey forms are deposited at the Connecticut Historical Commission,
59 South Prospect Street, Hartford, Connecticut, 06106. 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 methodo-logy 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,
survey personnel personally inspected all listed sites and ensured
that all properties likely to be found eligible for the National Register
were included.
Applying the criteria as outlined above, I identified 42 separate
sites that meet these requirements. These sites consist of:
12 Buildings, all but two of them, the Timothy Forbes house and the
Rose Farm, are former inns and taverns.
One site, the Eliza Pitkin house, has
been listed even though the house has been relocated to
Guilford, Connecticut.
13 SAR, DAR, and 1976 Bicentennial plaques. One of them, the "Frog
Pond" marker, in Windham, predates
the march of the French forces.
8 Department of Transportation markers erected in 1957. According
to state records, 27 markers were
put up across the state. On one site (intersection
Artillery Road and Breakneck Hill Road in Middlebury)
the metal post alone was left in October 1998.
5 Stone monuments
2 Signs maintained by the Rotary Clubs (?) of Connecticut. There
should be 10 of these signs which
commemorate the 1781/82 route of the French forces.
1 mural
1 marker pointing to another site (sites 28 and 29)
7 sites important for the march of 1781 as well as 1782 have been
listed twice.
For every historic
resource included in this survey, a standard Connecticut Historic
Resource Inventory form or an Outdoor Sculpture form was prepared
according to guidelines specified by the Connecticut Historical Commission,
the state agency responsible for historic preservation. Much of the
form is descriptive and was filled out by the survey field workers
on site. Later, using the records of the town tax assessors, names
and addresses of property owners were added. Although many items are
self-explanatory, several of the form's specific entries require further
explanation:
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.
Style. In determining the styles of buildings, the
survey personnel attempted to use commonly accepted terms, following
closely A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester.
The most frequently used stylistic designations are:
Colonial
(1700-1820). Colonial is used for the traditional architecture of
the eighteenth century, characterized by a central chimney, clapboard
siding, multi-light divided sash, windows, and (usually) a symmetrical
five-bay façade.
Federal
(1780-1830). Federal-style buildings are distinguished chiefly by
the elegance of their decorative features, which include fanlights
in the gables and over doorways, fancy cornices with elaborate moldings,
and pilasters.
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.
Besides the descriptive
part of the form, which is amplified under "Other Notable Features"
on the reverse side, the form asks for historical and architectural
significance as assessed by several standards: 1) Does the building
or monument retain most of its original material? 2) To what extend
does it embody a particular style or theory of architecture or visual/decorative
arts? 3) How does it compare with other examples in Connecticut? 4)
Is it in any way particularly beautiful, unusual, or inventive? Answers
to these and similar questions put the building, site or monument
in its context as an expression of architecture or art at the time
it was constructed.
For the sake of clarity
the sites in this report are listed as they were visited by Rochambeau's
army. In Chapter 7.2: The March through Connecticut, June 10-July
3, 1781, and Chapter 7.3: The Return March through Connecticut, July
1782, the sites are listed and numbered as they appear in the field
for someone who wanted to trace the route chronologically. Such an
approach preserves the historical course of events. On the other hand,
since most readers interested in tracing Rochambeau's route may not
want to drive back and forth across the state, beautiful as it is!,
I have also listed the sites as they are encountered in the field
when traveling from the Rhode Island State line to the New York State
line, though the reader is cautioned to keep in mind that the sites
refer to different years and stages of the march. In addition the
reader is cautioned to remember that the route as delineated in this,
the project historian's, report was determined by the above ground
resources in the field and the modern road system. The actual route
as determined by the map-making team and/or the archaeologists may
vary considerably in some areas, especially between Marion and the
New York State line, from the route outlined here.
Research files have
been deposited with the Connecticut Historical Commission and may
be used by appointment.
In addition to the
inventory forms and site profiles, which are 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 through Connecticut in June/July 1781 and again in October/November
1782. It also includes a discussion of primary resources still standing
in the field as well as mention and, where possible, images of resources
that have disappeared since Forbes and Cadman surveyed the state in
the 1920s. It also includes recommendations assessing which buildings
may meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places as well as information on some questionable sites. A set of
color slides for all sites surveyed and included in this report is
attached as well. Indices to these forms as well as to the slides
accompany the report.
There is only one
building that truly deserves nomination for the National Register
of Historic Places, the Oliver White Tavern at 2 Brandy Street in
Bolton (SITE 11). The home has been restored to its eighteenth-century
appearance. A potential listing is the Francis Homestead in Canterbury,
but more research is needed before a recommendation can be made.
Three sites are included
in this report because of their connection with Rochambeau's route,
but they can be recommended based on secondary grounds only. One is
the Rose Farm, a nineteenth-century structure surrounded by modern
farm buildings, in Bolton. It would take considerable work to restore
the building(s) to its/their original appearance. Because of its location
on the grounds where Rochambeau's troops camped in June 1781 and again
in November 1782, the buildings could be included however as part
of a larger site. Another building that has been listed in this report
despite doubts is the Lebanon Crank Inn, today known as "The
Landmark," in Columbia. It too has retained none of its eighteenth-century
appearance; neither has the Elm Tree Inn in Farmington.
Besides further research
concerning the above-mentioned homes, Phase II of this 'Rochambeau
in Connecticut: Tracing His Journey' project should address four aspects
of the French presence in Connecticut. 1) Lauzun's Legion, their winter
quarters in Lebanon and the flanking route taken in 1781. 2) The conferences
of Rochambeau and Washington in Wethersfield and Hartford in 1780
and 1781. 3) "Leisure" travel by officers such as the marquis
de Chastellux as well as official business by Rochambeau's aides through
the state with a view toward learning about French-Connecticut interaction
on a personal level. In the context of this research "questionable"
sites such as the grave of the French buried in Norwich could also
be evaluated. 4) A thorough research into and analysis of the Jeremiah
Wadsworth and Governor Trumbull papers to get a more realistic idea
of what it took to feed, clothe, and house the thousands of Frenchmen
not only during their march through the state but also during the
11 months in neighboring Rhode Island.
I do not believe
that research into French volunteers such as the marquis de Lafayette
or the presence of the French navy in the state has a place in this
phase of the project --unless the focus is changed from "Rochambeau"
to "Frenchmen in Connecticut." One aspect that should be
approached, however, is making a concerted effort to try and pull
neighboring states into the "Washington-Rochambeau Historic Route"
project. The more people know about it, the more people will want
to travel it. The long-range goal has to be to fill the route with
people anxious to travel Rochambeau's route, the road that led to
American independence.
For a list of sources see the bibliography beginning on p. 82.
The list can be found in Rice and Brown, eds., American Campaigns,
Vol. 1, pp. 285-348. The reader is referred to the bibliographic information
available there. Bibliographic information on primary sources used
for this study can be found in the appropriate footnotes below.
The letter is catalogued under B4 172, Marine.
[9] For a list of sources see the bibliography beginning on p. 82.
[10] The list can be found in Rice and Brown, eds., American Campaigns,
Vol. 1, pp. 285-348. The reader is referred to the bibliographic information
available there. Bibliographic information on primary sources used
for this study can be found in the appropriate footnotes below.
[11]The letter is catalogued under B4 172, Marine
[12]John M. Lenhart, "Letter of an Officer of the Zweibrücken Regiment," Central-Blatt and Social Justice, Vol. 28, (January 1936), pp. 321-322, and Vol. 28, (February 1936), pp. 350-360.
BACK TO TOP
|