Two published sources
were particularly helpful in the preparation of this report. One is
the three-volume set by Allan Forbes and Paul F. Cadman, France
and New England especially 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 1920s along the route of Rochambeau's
and Lauzun's troops and compiled a list of houses, monuments and sites
as they existed then. Unfortunately some of the sites, particularly
buildings, have since disappeared or been remodeled, thus losing their
eighteenth-century appearance.
The other indispensable
source are the 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 2 in particular contains the only known order for the
march of Lauzun's Legion. 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.[5] Few
sources have come to light since then, fewer still are pertinent to
this study.[6] Primary-source information
is scarce: most of the journals written by French officers mention
the conferences at Hartford and Wethersfield, but only a very few
of the accounts written by aides who accompanied Rochambeau to Hartford
shed any light on the route and proceedings at the conference. In
the case of Wethersfield we have no French eyewitness account at all,
and we know neither the composition of Rochambeau's party nor where
they stayed in Wethersfield.
In the case of Lauzun's
Legion, its winter quarters, and its march from Lebanon to White Plains
in the summer of 1781, there is an even greater dearth of primary
sources.[7] Contemporary French sources
mention the stay of Lauzun's legion in Lebanon in the winter of 1780/81
and its route to White Plains. But there is not a single detailed
eye-witness account: Lauzun assigned only 25 pages of his memoirs
to his time in America.[8] The only
other known primary source, Hugau's Détails intéressants,
does not begin until after the siege of Yorktown.[9]
This means that I have had to rely heavily on American sources
such as the letters and writings of George Washington, the Jeremiah
Wadsworth Papers, or the Trumbull Papers in the Connecticut Historical
Society. Secondary American sources such as local histories were often
inaccurate and of little help in the preparation of this report. If
the memory of the march of Rochambeau's infantry through Connecticut
has faded over the centuries, it has disappeared in the case of the
Legion.
The dearth of primary
source material has made the study of Lauzun's route much more conjectural
than the corresponding report for Phase I. The lack of maps or detailed
instructions as to where the Legion was to march and camp makes it
virtually impossible to locate sites in the field. Even the most detailed
location for any camp, that for camp one, simply places it "on
the west bank of Salmon Brook opposite the landslide caused by flood
waters." For all other camps there is not even that much information.
Within the parameters
set in the third goal, it was decided to include only: 1) structures
and sites connected directly with the route to the conferences and
the conferences proper, 2) structures and sites connected directly
with the winter quarters of Lauzun's troops in Lebanon, 3) with the
(possible) exception of the Colonel Henry Champion and John Taintor
homes in Colchester, only structures and sites connected directly
with the march proper of the cavalry and infantry portions of Lauzun's
contingent for which primary source evidence exists have been listed.
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 a general in
the Continental Army, were once again excluded.
The sites inventoried
on-site in Connecticut during the month of September 1999 are of four
different types:
1) Buildings connected
with the Hartford and Wethersfield conferences and the winter quarters
and march of Lauzun's forces in Connecticut during 1780 and 1781.
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,
or communities to commemorate campsites, buildings, and events
3) Markers erected by the Connecticut Department of Transportation
and supporting organizations pursuant to 1957 state legislation to
indicate campsites of Lauzun's Legion.
4) Paintings and murals.
In order to preserve
the historical course of events, sites are listed in chronological
order as they were visited either by Rochambeau on his way to or from
the Hartford or Wethersfield conferences or by Lauzun's legion between
November 1780 and June 1781 as they appear in the field for someone
who wanted to trace the route chronologically. The reader is cautioned,
however, that the route as defined in this, the project historian's,
report is determined by above ground resources and the modern road
system. The actual route as determined by the mapmaking team may vary
from the route outlined here.
Fieldwork and photography
were undertaken in September 1999. 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:
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 25 sites that meet all requirements.
These sites consist of:
11 buildings.
8 SAR, DAR, and Society of the Cincinnati plaques.
4 Department of Transportation markers erected in 1957. According
to state records, 8 such markers were put up across the state.
1 wood panel
1 painting
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 building's 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 judgment 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 extent
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.
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,
this report also includes an overview of the history of Lauzun's legion
from its founding in March 1780 to its dissolution in July 1783. It
also includes a discussion of primary resources still standing in
the field 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
3.4.1 National Register
Nominations
There is only one additional
building that deserves nomination to the National Register, the "Basset
Home" in Monroe. (SITE 25)
3.4.2 Recommendations
The impetus behind the
“Rochambeau in Connecticut” project has been three-fold:
· historic preservation of man-made evidence connected with
the French presence
· environmental preservation of physical evidence in the Connecticut
landscape
· provide opportunities for heritage-based tourism for the
benefit of the state
The next few years
provide a unique opportunity for achieving these three goals, but
they can only be achieved if the work of project historian, archaeologist
and mapmaker does not end up gathering dust in a warehouse or on library
shelves somewhere. The Rochambeau Route is a prime example of the
interconnectedness of Connecticut’s historical and environmental
resources, viz., Bolton’s Rose Farm. Historic preservation,
environmental protection, and heritage-based tourism need not be contradictory;
they should, and can, supplement each. Carefully managed and marketed
they serve as a basis for heritage-based tourism for the mutual benefit
of all Connecticutians.
But the public be
made aware of what and where these resources are. In the spring of
2000, a “Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Road” committee
constituted itself at White Plains, again with strong participation
from the Constitution State. Federal agencies such as the National
Park Service and legislators have shown great interest in discussing,
and funding, larger heritage corridor from Newport, Rhode Island to
Yorktown, Virginia. Connecticut, which took the lead with its Rochambeau
in Connecticut project, should continue to participate in these
discussions across state lines.
Within the state
the historically interested public needs to be educated: the more
people know about the Rochambeau Route, the more people will want
to travel it. The long-range goal has to be to advertise the route
and to fill it with people anxious to travel the road to American
independence. There is great interest in such an undertaking both
in France as well as in the United States. The first activities in
what will be a whole series of 225th anniversary celebrations of events
in the American Revolutionary War have already taken place –
with strong participation by private citizens from Connecticut --
in Lexington and Concord. These events are raising historical awareness
on all levels; they should be used as a vehicle for public education
and to draw attention to the Rochambeau Route through advertisements,
flyers, and activities. Connecticut has gone a long way, futher than
any other state, to make these ideas become reality, but continued
legislative commitment, funding and support are are necessary for
the state to reap the benefits and rewards of ahead.
In order to achieve the goals outlined here, I submit the following
recommendations.
1) Historical research and writing, including, but not restricted
to:
· Produce a scholarly/trade book focusing on Franco-American
interaction on the local level in Connecticut in 1780-82 based on
the two reports by the project historian, plus information contained
in the report of the archaeologist and/or map-maker (as far as legally
possible) general distribution and sale. Such a micro-history based
to a large degree on new and unknown materials has never been done
before.
If such a book were to be published to commemorate the 225th anniversary
of the signing of the Franco-American alliance in 1778, i.e., in the
spring of 2003, as part of a series of 225th anniversaries across
the United States, work would have to begin this summer since a draft
manuscript should reach the publisher by the fall of 2001.
· Produce an (60-80 pages) illustrated booklet on the French
presence in Connecticut that is historically sound but for the general
reader providing the background of French involvement, illustrative
of French army life, listing the route, sites open to the public,
annual events commemorating the Revolutionary War etc. etc., to be
sold at a low (less than $10.00) price for wide circulation. If included
in Phase III, such a booklet could be completed and published by late
spring 2001 in time for the summer 2001 tourist season.
· Create brochures, flyers and/or short announcing and creating
the route for free distribution at places such Tourist Information
Centers or Connecticut Welcome Centers on Interstate Highways, again
in time for the 2001 tourist season.
· Create a Middle school/High school curriculum package/teaching
materials. These materials could, and should, be integrative, i.e.,
address social, military, political aspects of history, as well as
interdisciplinary, e.g., include foreign language text for use in
teaching French and/or German. These packages could include transparencies,
slides, audiotapes and/or videos
· List the Rochambeau project on History Day guidelines, and
provide supporting materials to teachers across the state involved
in the annual History Day projects
2) Public education activities to raise awareness of the route, incl.,
but not restricted to:
· New marker program/unified markers identifying the route.
There is enough information available to
a) replace the markers that have disappeared since 1956
b) repair those markers that are in bad condition
c) correct errors on existing markers
d) put markers in the proper places
e) set up informative markers at significant sites similar to NPS
markers
This could be done irrespective of what other states along the route
undertake.
· Create a website on the route and link it with sites maintained
by interested groups
· Create, and publish, a list of those sites, homes, and places
open to the public
· Create a video for broadcast on the Connecticut PBS network
· Cooperate with local and state-wide groups such as the DAR,
SAR, Souvenir Français, Society of the Cincinnati, in their
educational activities
3) Archaeological activities/excavation
Three sites suggest themselves to archaelogical fieldwork:
· In Lebanon
on the virtually pristine site of the barracks built for the hussars
quartered there for the winter of 1780/81.
· In Lebanon
on the site of the “French Ovens.”
· I do not
recommend that, with the possible exception of the camp site in the
vicinity of the Salmon River State Forest
near Old Comstock Covered Bridge in Westchester, any resources should
be assigned for of camp sites.
At this stage of research we simply do not know where Lauzun’s
legion camped with any degree of certainty,
and the amount of evidence left behind by a group of 300 or less men
camping at a site for maybe one night
waiting to be discovered some 200 years later would be miniscule.
A potential site for excavation might be in Lebanon on the site
of the French Hospital mentioned by Mathieu Dumas in a letter to David
Trumbull dated November 11, 1780, if it can be located.[10] Dumas
wrote that the hospital was located in the home of a Mr. Bushnell.
In 1780 there were two Bushnells in Lebanon. One Ebenezer Bushnell
(or Bushmal on 1770-72 ecclesiastical map of Lebanon) lived on what
is today West Town Street on the boundary of Governor Trumbull's home
farm adjacent to the barracks lot. The other, spelled Bushnal on the
map, lived west of the meeting house on State Route 207 towards Colchester,
about 3/4 of a mile from the church and just above the site where
the historical marker indicating the grave of a French soldier is
located. Both houses would have been convenient places for a hospital.