USA > Rhode Island > The "Old Stone Bank" history of Rhode Island, Vol. III > Part 22
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40
Evidently Esek spent little time ashore, for he was soon attracted by the golden opportunities in privateering, Rhode
126
PROVIDENCE INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS
Island's most profitable enterprise during the years previous to the War for Inde- pendence. Records exist wherein are described some of the prizes taken by Captain Hopkins, and it is evident that, during this exciting phase of his career, he was associated with the Browns, those master minds of commerce and maritime exploits. Just previous to the year 1757, the most significant period of his priva- teering experiences, Hopkins acquired and occupied the farm to the north of Providence where the old homestead stands today. If there are such things as ghosts or hovering spirits, then the quaint and comfortable little Colonial residence on Admiral Street must have a house full. There were six children in the family, and the place was a rendezvous for a great circle of friends and acquaintances who enjoyed the hospitality dispensed by the widely-traveled host. Some one has said that he "delighted in entertaining his friends; there were hunting trips in the wild woods, shooting at marks and other sports to occupy the time on such occasions, but with all these pleasures he found time to devote much attention to carrying on his farm, employing many negroes in this work." These ghosts, if any, must look smilingly upon the hosts of present-day patriots who roam through the cozy low-ceilinged rooms fascinated by the air of homelike peace and comfort created again by those who have expertly restored and refurnished the precious landmark.
Hopkins entered into the political strife and turmoil of the Colony and talked openly on subjects of a controversial nature. During the prolonged "give and take" political battle between Esek's brother Stephen and Samuel Ward, the two leading public figures at the time, he showed his brotherly love and affection by becoming a strong supporter of Stephen's ticket, helping him in a great measure to political success. It might well be observed here that Esek Hopkins, in all of his relations with his fellow men, was frank and always to the point; he made no effort to conceal his opinions on subjects which aroused his interest or appealed to his sympathies. He was extremely aggressive, one of the most
prominent traits in his character that later led him into controversies during his early political life, and later during his naval service. Edward Field says: "He was quick to penetrate trickery or deceit and quicker still to expose it, there was a strong individuality to his make-up which sometimes operated to his disad- vantage than to right the supposed grievance or to elevate himself in the estimation of his fellow men. With a character strong and positive, coupled with the dictatorial manner of the master mariners of the times, he naturally made enemies and became easily drawn into controversies."
Of course, the most interesting portion of Hopkins' life centers around the events leading up to the establishment of the first American navy and the appointment of Esek to be its first Commander-in- Chief. During the summer months of 1775 Rhode Islanders were kept con- stantly on edge because of the feared invasion of Narragansett Bay by the enemy's fleet. The British fleet lurked somewhere outside of Brenton's Reef, according to rumors, and definite steps were finally taken to protect the inland waters of the Colony. Captain Hopkins, considered the most able shipmaster in Rhode Island, was eagerly requested to assume command of the tiny but gallant fleet which had been assembled to protect the shores of the Colony. At this time Hopkins was nearly sixty years of age but he had willingly assumed responsi- bility for directing both the naval and military operations in this section. When the British fleet directed its attack upon Newport, Hopkins rushed to that point with reinforcements and proved to be of great assistance in repulsing the enemy.
Because of his local reputation for ability as a leader of men, an expert navigator, and a successful organizer, he was picked by Congress by unanimous vote to take command of the American Navy which was being built and assem- bled at Philadelphia. His selection was also probably due to the fact that his brother Stephen then headed a committee on naval affairs and was prominently identified with those who urged naval protection. Incidentally most of this
127
"THE OLD STONE BANK"
pressure which was brought to bear upon Congress urging quick and definite steps to be taken for American sea protection came from loyal Rhode Islanders. Im- mediately following his appointment as Commodore, Esek Hopkins resigned all of his local commands and journeyed to Philadelphia accompanied by a picked group of local volunteers who had ex- pressed their willingness to sail and fight on American vessels under the command of the most distinguished Rhode Island sailor. Shortly after his arrival in Phila- delphia, and when he had inspected the first squadron of United States fighting ships, Hopkins requested that Congress give him additional ships of war to in- crease the strength of his fleet, and Con- gress complied with this wish by allowing him eight additional armed merchantmen.
Lord Dunmore with a squadron of British ships was meeting with no resist- ance in his raids up and down the Atlan- tic coast and Hopkins was soon ordered to move his command from Philadelphia and put a stop to this annoyance. The first American naval fleet set sail on January 9, 1775, with a Rhode Islander in command and the scene must have been an inspiring one for those gathered on the shores and along the wharves to witness the ceremonies attending the hoisting of sails and the hauling of an- chors. What amounted to disaster beset the fleet almost at the very beginning. The river was filled with ice at the time and it was nearly a month before the proud armada squared its sails off the Delaware Capes and headed south in search of the enemy. When he was
located, the British ships were all safely harbored beneath a formidable array of frowning fort guns, therefore the careful commander dared not to push an attack and risk defeat at the hands of a combined land and sea force. Seasickness among many of the unseasoned sailors also had some influence upon Hopkins' decision to delay the attack, and so the fleet was ordered to proceed south to the Bahama Islands, where it had been rumored that the enemy had stored a valuable supply of arms, ammunition and supplies.
The story of this expedition, which was successful in many respects; the misunder- standings which resulted from the actions taken by Hopkins when the fleet returned to the Colonies; and the facts concerning the censure received by the fleet's com- mander during the weeks which followed make a long, interesting story which every Rhode Islander should read with an open mind. Historians have dealt rather harshly with Hopkins because of his decisions in times of combat emer- gency, but there are always two sides to every story. Jealousy was keenly evident at the time of the navy's birth; others secretly and some openly desired the post of honor held by the Rhode Islander. No one has ever questioned his patriotism and loyalty, and the passing of time, together with the intelligent research of fair-minded historical nar- rators, will probably emphasize the under- mining influences of his political enemies rather than exploit the shortcomings of the one who was given the post because of his unquestioned ability to lead fighting men on fighting ships.
RHODE ISLAND'S JUST CLAIM
AM MONG many other just claims to dis- tinction, Rhode Island has every right to boast of her leadership in the cause of independence. The first blood shed in the noble cause stained the decks of the stranded "Gaspee," the hated ship that local patriots attacked and burned when they learned of her plight, high and dry on the sand bars off Namquit Point
in Narragansett Bay. Records disclose that this Colony supplied a larger propor- tionate share of soldiers than any other Colony during the long and disheartening struggle; and Rhode Island was the first to renounce, in certain and straight- forward language, any and all allegiance to Great Britain. Since the latter claim has been disputed by a few historians, and
128
PROVIDENCE INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS
particularly by one section of the nation, it will be the purpose of this account to attempt to disprove such counter claims and clarify the original intents and pur- poses of the immortal session of the Rhode Island General Assembly that met in the Old State House in Providence on May 4, 1776, exactly two months before the more widely exploited meeting of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.
First, what of the contention that a Declaration of Independence was made elsewhere previous to May 4, 1776. Reams of paper, gallons of ink, and rivers of eloquence have been expended in the efforts to prove the authenticity of the so-called "Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence," alleged to have been promulgated at Charlotte, North Caro- lina, on May 20, 1775. Statesmen and historians have taken up the cudgels in defence of the honor of the "Tarheel" state; the anniversary of the date is a state holiday; prominent national figures have journeyed to North Carolina year after year to participate in the celebration exercises, but, from all the evidence that is at hand thus far, Rhode Island's claim still stands supreme.
The South's claim to the disputed honor all hinges on the word "if." If a docu- ment reputed to have contained certain resolutions of a body of patriotic citizens of North Carolina had been authentic, and if such a document ever did exist, then Rhode Island should forget its contention and relinquish the honor to another. The document in the South was said to have been signed by Abraham Alexander and by John McKnitt Alexander, and it is claimed by many, especially citizens of North Carolina, that it contained several resolutions that expressed the following general sentiments; first, that whosoever aided or countenanced an invasion of American rights by Great Britain was an enemy to this country, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man; second, that the citizens of Mecklenburg County resolved to dissolve the political bands which connected them to the mother country, and that they absolved them- selves from the British crown; third, that they declared themselves a free and independent people; fourth, that they no
longer acknowledged laws and control of legal officers; fifth, that every effort was to be made to spread the love of country and fire of freedom throughout America until a more general and recognized government be established in this prov- ince.
As stated previously, if such a decla- ration had been made, the historic action in Rhode Island should be given a position of secondary importance. Such language as was contained in the foregoing outline of resolutions would indicate that the people of one section of North Carolina positively demanded complete and abso- lute independence. But, what proof is there that such a document ever existed, or that action of that character was ever taken? In July, 1905, there appeared a facsimile copy of the disputed document as it appeared in what purported to be a long-lost copy of the Cape Fear Mercury, a Colonial newspaper in which the said document is said to have been originally printed. This paper, however, was soon proved to be a forgery, and the original paper said to have been sent at the time by Colonial Governor Martin to the Earl of Dartmouth in England is still missing. Governor Martin, much incensed over the rebellious actions of his constituents, did send a document back to the mother country, but, more likely, it was one that contained a copy of the equally-famous "Mecklenburg Resolves," said to have been adopted at a meeting of the patriots on May 31, 1775. These "Resolves" contained no mention of independence, nor did they hint at open rebellion - they were of a far different character from the words and phrases of the ques- tionable "declaration."
Furthermore, William Henry Hoyt, who wrote an enlightening history of the controversy, showed that the alleged declaration of May 20 had no better foundation than the imperfect memory of aged participants in the meeting, and in an account written from memory years after by the secretary of the particular assembly. The similarity of this declara- tion to that of the one put forth by the Continental Congress brings up another question. At one time it was insinuated that Thomas Jefferson filched some of the
129
"THE OLD STONE BANK"
finest phrases in his immortal document from the Mecklenburg paper, while others have found positive proof of the fraudu- lent character of the latter from this very similarity. John Adams sent a copy of the declaration that was published in the Raleigh Register on April 30, 1819, to Thomas Jefferson with the remark that he thought it genuine. Jefferson answered promptly and sharply. He repudiated the Carolina claim and rapped Adams roundly for appearing to believe in its authenticity. Jefferson sarcastically placed the story in the same category with that of a volcano said to have broken out in North Carolina some time previously, and he added, "It appeals to an original book, which is burnt; to Mr. John Mc- Knitt Alexander, who is dead; to a joint letter from Caswell, Hooper and Hughes (they were Representatives from North Carolina to the Continental Congress) all dead; to a copy sent to the dead Cas- well, and another sent to Dr. Williamson (historian) now probably dead, whose memory did not recollect in the history he has written of North Carolina this gigantic step of its County of Mecklenburg." And Jefferson further alluded sarcastically to the statement that a copy of the declara- tion in question had been sent to Con- gress, a fact of which that body never heard; and that even when the immortal declaration was signed at Independence Hall thirteen months later, nothing was then said of a similar document preceding it in North Carolina.
What does all of this mean? North Carolina claims that one of its counties was the first to declare independence from the rule of Great Britain, but that this contention has not yet been substantiated by documentary evidence - many for- geries and other misrepresentations in the case have been uncovered from time to time during the century-old controversy - the Governor of North Carolina at the time denied the truth of any such action on the part of his constituents - Thomas Jefferson also denied the truth of the claim and ridiculed the attempt to give North Carolina the credit for such a momentous step in the history of this nation - finally, Continental Congress was never aware of the fact that a bold,
startling declaration had been previously made somewhere in North Carolina.
But the Continental Congress did know about the declaration made on May 4, 1776, here in Rhode Island. When the formal statute had been drawn and approved with but six dissenting votes, and when signatures had been affixed, the two Rhode Island Congressional dele- gates, Stephen Hopkins and William Ellery, were instructed, by virtue of the action taken, to take a position on the side of those Colonies demanding complete and absolute freedom. Of course, some contend that the word "independence" did not appear anywhere in the sentiments of the Rhode Island legislature. The word may not have been used but the intention was there. The action taken repealed an existing act entitled, “An Act, for the more effectual securing to his Majesty the allegiance of his subjects in this, his Colony and dominion of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," and it also altered the forms of Commissions, of all writs, and processes in the Courts, and of the oaths prescribed by law. Nothing could have been more decisive, no procedure could have better demon- strated that this Colony, for one, had relinquished all ties with the mother country. George the Third, King of England, was severely taken to task in the body of the Rhode Island document, his power was to be opposed - Rhode Island wanted independence and she demanded it in plain, understandable language.
Even if North Carolina's fantastic claim is once and for all disproved, there is still the problem of correcting the state- ments and impressions of writers and historians who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the importance of the legisla- tive action taken in Providence on May 4, 1776. For example, the late Sidney S. Rider in an issue of his celebrated "Book Notes," published in 1908, called the Rhode Island Declaration of Independ- ence a "farce." He said that "no such act was ever done ... the General As- sembly repealed a law of its own enact- ment. The allegiance of the people re- mained exactly as it had existed before." Such statements are ridiculous ; the obser-
130
PROVIDENCE INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS
vation is illogical. No one can rightfully question the fact that Rhode Island was overwhelmingly patriotic and wholeheart- edly behind any movement that would
bring about independence - as a matter of fact, Rhode Island was the first Colony to declare its independence from Great Britain.
GENERAL NATHANAEL GREENE
THE noted historian Sparks, writing of General Nathanael Greene, called the Rhode Islander the "most extraordinary man in the Army of the Revolution." Some may consider such a statement an attempt to undermine the reputation of General Washington. Such was neither the intention nor the case. Washington was without a peer, but Nathanael Greene was a unique individual in the true sense of the term. Perhaps the characterization "the right hand man of Washington" would fit him most appropriately, but of course he was infinitely more than that.
Born in 1742 into one of the strictest of Quaker families, he soon acquired tenden- cies of thought entirely hostile to Quaker principles. He had always been a vora- cious reader, absorbing from books the education that had been denied to him by his too practical father, a Warwick blacksmith. Nathanael was no book- worm, but he had a passion for study and borrowed every book he could get hold of, soon acquiring a library of his own. Many books he read and re-read, but those with the greatest appeal to him were those dealing with the campaigns of past great generals and other military leaders. Such a display of taste brought upon his head the condemnation of all Quakers. But Nathanael was to do more than that to antagonize the members of his sect. He was to be one of the original organizers of the famous band of Kentish Guards and soon to embark upon a career that would separate him and Quakerism by an unbridgeable gulf.
He married in 1774, his bride being Catherine Littlefield, and went to live in Coventry, near his father's mill, of which he was then overseer. Training with the Kentish Guards became an enjoyable pastime for the young husband, particu-
larly when his charming wife was a specta- tor at the drills.
A year or so of this, and then a chance to put training and long reading and re- search into practice. The news came to Rhode Island of Lexington and Concord, of the fact that the British were back in Boston and the American forces under Washington were preparing for a stubborn fight. Washington sent out a direct call for aid, a call that the Kentish Guards hailed with delight. They assembled their packs and fine equipment and marched off to Pawtucket and Massachusetts in fine feather. But at the boundary of Rhode Island and Massachusetts they were held up by orders from the Tory governor of their own colony, disbanded, and sent back home. But four men refused to turn back, among them Nathanael Greene. With his companions he pushed on to Boston and there laid his abilities and services at Washington's command.
Whether this token of patriotism and loyalty to the call of his commander-in- chief began Nathanael Greene's close friendship with Washington is of no great matter as a question. Such a friendship did develop, and rapidly. There was some evidence of jealousy on the part of other officers of Washington's staff, but Greene's ability as a general was too great for such criticism to exist for long. He had all the ingenuity of a typical Yankee combined with a sagacity far in advance of his years. The very training that he had had at his father's forge and mill gave him a founda- tion of practical experience that was in- valuable, especially when he was Commis- sary-General faced with the enormous difficulties of providing men with food, shelter, arms, and clothing during the awful winter of 1777-1778 at Valley Forge. He proved a giant of strength un- der stress, indefatigable, meeting every
131
"THE OLD STONE BANK"
crisis with cool judgment. Mrs. Greene was with her husband during the whole of this severe winter, giving up the luxuries of a home for a little hut scarcely larger than the type used by the regulars, going the rounds in bitter and fair weather to carry little delicacies to men who lay sick. The wives of all the officers who stayed the winter at Valley Forge met in Mrs. Washington's rooms to sew and patch the clothes of the soldiers whenever there was anything to patch with.
After this winter the Greenes were able to return to Coventry for a while, but Nathanael was always on the go, attend- ing to official business and riding back and forth between his home and Providence. When winter came round again, the army took up its encampment on the banks of the Hudson, and it was here that the Greenes set up new quarters. Here, as formerly, they continued to be on the same terms of intimacy with the Wash- ingtons, joining with them in what few social evenings they could arrange during the stress of the war.
Two years later came the treason of Benedict Arnold, and shortly afterward General Greene was put in command of West Point. He sent immediately for his wife and children to join him there, but through some delays she was unable to reach him before he had to go away on a new commission, that of taking charge of the Army of the South.
In vain did he try to get a little longer extension of time before setting out to ful- fill his new command, but Washington, de- spite his great friendship for the Greenes, was unable to grant his aide the necessary time to wait for the arrival of his wife. Consequently Nathanael was only able to write Catherine an affectionate letter of farewell. It was two years before the two were reunited.
In the South began the most brilliant part of General Greene's military career. At the time of his arrival there General Cornwallis was in possession of both South Carolina and Georgia, and most of the people in these states were Tories. The situation, aggravated by the pitiful condi- tion of the American Army in the South, provided General Greene with an even more difficult problem than that which he
had had to face at Valley Forge. But he went to work with his customary preci- sion and judgment, reorganized the troops, established a new and strict discipline, and managed to get supplies through when there had been almost none before. Most important of all he revamped the general morale, until his men were think- ing only in terms of victory.
In the southern campaign against Corn- wallis, General Greene's old knowledge of military strategy, developed through his constant study of world famous cam- paigns, proved of inestimable value. He divided his army into several divisions in order to attack the enemy at widely scat- tered points. This forced Cornwallis to split up his army in the same manner. The latter suffered greatly from this move because, although he had more men than his American opponent, he had a paucity of officers. Of officers General Greene had plenty, brilliant men who were able to get the utmost results out of the few men at their command. In several battles they were able to give the British a severe drubbing. Then Greene retired into Vir- ginia to await new supplies and reinforce- ments.
Here the American general bided his time before striking again at Cornwallis. He finally engaged the latter in one of the severest battles of the whole war, that of Guilford Courthouse. Both sides lost hun- dreds of men, and the Americans were forced to retreat. And retreat in this in- stance was not as bad as it seems. The British had also lost so heavily that they were in a difficult quandary, being unable to pursue yet not daring to remain where they were in their weakened condition. The actual result of the engagement was to break the hold of Cornwallis on the two southern states of South Carolina and Georgia. He gave up all control over them, and General Greene, his mission accomplished, returned to join General Washington. As a reward for his success in the campaign the colonies he had freed from British control gave him valuable tracts of land.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.