COLUMBIA

University Bulletin

DECEMBER, 1897

yvni

THE BATTLE OF HARLEM HEIGHTS

The ground on which Harvard and Princeton stand has
been made in a peculiar sense sacred by the stirring events
which occurred on it or in its immediate vicinity during the
War for American Independence. The centre of the Ameri-
can camp during the siege of Boston was in close proximity
to the site of the college at Cambridge. A part of the British
troops who were attacked by Washington on the morning of
January 3, 17775 were driven across the college grounds at
Princeton. The height on which Columbia has found her
permanent home was also the scene of a conflict which re-
flected no little credit on American valor. If Mercer fell at
Princeton, Knowlton and Leitch fell on Harlem Heights. If
American successes at Trenton and Princeton revived a cour-
age which had been almost destroyed by the loss of New
York and the retreat through the Jerseys, the spirited attack
on the British at Harlem Heights in a measure atoned for the
panic at Kip’s Bay and nerved the Americans to meet their
foe at White Plains. The establishment of the fact that this
battle occurred on almost the very spot where the new build-
ings of the University stand, and the public recognition of
this fact by the placing of a tablet on Engineering Hall, are
events which at this time have a peculiar interest for Colum-
bia and her friends.

,-v

I2

Columbia University Bulletin

[December

Previous to 1878 the opinion had prevailed among students
to whom the best contemporary accounts of the event were
accessible, that the scene of the Battle of Harlem Heights
was below the “ Hollow Way” at Manhattanville. But in
that year Erastus C. Benedict, Esq., read before the New
York Historical Society a paper in which he sought to locate
the encounter above 130th Street, and on what is now known
as Washington Heights. He contended that the name Har-
lem Heights was confined exclusively to the northernmost
plateau on Manhattan Island, and he so interpreted the au-
thorities as to make it appear that the battle was fought in
that region. This involved the necessity of locating the
British camp on Morningside Heights. Also, since the
American lines were known and admitted to have extended
as far south as the brow of the hill above 130th Street, it in-
volved the further necessity of locating the battlefield within
the American position. He in fact sought to show that the prin-
cipal conflict occurred on and near the site of Trinity Ceme-
tery, between 155th and 158th Streets. If that were true, then
a body of some four hundred British light infantrymen drove
Knowlton’s Rangers far within the lines where were posted
nine thousand American troops: 66 they fought at times
within four blocks of his (Washington’s) headquarters, made
the circuit of his strong position, and thus returned to Morn-
ingside Heights, carrying all their guns and wounded with
them, and losing but fourteen men killed.” While these
events were in progress, at least two divisions of the American
army were throwing up defences on the line of 147th Street,
and apparently took no notice either of the British van-
guard or of the reinforcements which were sent to support it.
Mrs. Martha J. Lamb adopted Mr. Benedict’s view of the
location of the battlefield, and by introducing it into her His-
tory of the City of New York gave it greater currency than
it might otherwise have obtained.

Professor Henry P. Johnston, of the College of the City of
New York, in his volume entitled The Battle of Harlem
Heights, which has recently been published for the Columbiai897]	The Battle of Harlem Heights	3

University Press by the Macmillan Company, has conclu-
sively shown, by a thorough and critical examination of all
accessible authorities, that Morningside Heights and not
Washington Heights were the scene of the conflict of Sep-
tember 16, 1776. He has thus, in general, confirmed the view
previously expressed by Henry B. Dawson and by the Hon.
John Jay; though he has been able, with the aid, in part, of
material collected by Mr. William Kelby, to fix the principal
scene of the battle west, instead of east, of the Boulevard.

The argument by which Professor Johnston has been able
to support his position runs substantially as follows. All
writers are agreed that on September x6th Washington’s
headquarters were at the Roger Morris house on the east side
of Washington Heights, near 161st Street, and that the
American troops were stationed between that point and the
top of the hill above 130th Street. But the location of the
British camp has been in dispute. Professor Johnston, how-
ever, has been able to show that General Howe’s headquar-
ters were at the Beekman Mansion, 51st Street and First
Avenue, and that the British troops, on the morning of the
16th, lay below 100th Street, with no pickets above 105th
Street. At an early hour Knowlton’s Rangers were ordered
by Washington to reconnoitre that position. They advanced
as far south as Jones’ house, at 106th Street, west of the Boule-
vard. The identification of this site furnishes an important
link in the evidence, for it was here that the fighting of the
day began. The Rangers fell back before the advance of a
body of British light infantry, skirmishing as they went, till
they reached the “Hollow Way.” There Washington at-
tempted to capture the British force, which had followed the
Americans so far, by attacking them in front in such a way
as to attract them down to the low ground, near 125th Street,
while he sent a detachment around their right flank for the
purpose of reaching their rear. To Knowlton and Leitch
was intrusted the execution of the latter part of the plan.
While the attention of the British was kept occupied by a
brisk fire in front, the flanking party made a detour to the4

Columbia University Bulletin

[December

east; but, instead of reaching the enemy’s rear, by a mis-
take they approached his flank, near 124th Street and the
Boulevard. There both Knowlton and Leitch fell. The
Americans continued the attack, however, with such vigor that
Washington sent reinforcements, and the British were forced to
retreat to a buckwheat field which was located west of the
Boulevard and just south of Barnard College. There, sup-
ported by reinforcements, the British made a stand. A sharp
conflict, lasting for two hours, ensued, in which the British
were again worsted and compelled to retire. The Americans
pursued them to the vicinity of Jones’ house, where, lest they
might be overwhelmed by an advance of the whole British
army, Washington ordered the fighting to cease and his
troops to return to their position on Washington Heights.

For the determination of the site of the battlefield Professor
Johnston relies chiefly upon the letters of General George
Clinton, of General Howe, and of Stephen Kemble, the
deputy adjutant-general of the British forces. The volume
of Von Elking on the German auxiliaries has also furnished
him with valuable material. All available information, his-
torical and topographical, has been used, and that with evident
fairness and good judgment.

On the afternoon of Saturday, October 16, 1897, the Sons of
the Revolution, in token of what must now be the generally
accepted belief, that the Battle of Harlem was fought on Morn-
ingside Heights, delivered to the custody of Columbia Uni-
versity a bronze tablet commemorative of that event. The
artist who designed and executed the work is Mr. James
Edward Kelly, of New York City. The scene of which he has
given a spirited representation is the attack of the flanking
party, led by Knowlton and Leitch, upon the British right
near 124th Street and the Boulevard. Leitch has just fallen,
and Knowlton is cheering on his men toward the spot where
a few minutes later he, too, receives the fatal bullet. The
west side of Engineering Hall was properly selected as the
place for the location of the tablet, for that is the point of the
Columbia grounds which is nearest to the wheat field where*897]	77^ Battle of Harlem Heights	5

occurred the chief conflict of the day, and to which the British
were driven back very soon after Knowlton fell.

The exercises connected with the unveiling of the tablet
v were attended by the Sons of the Revolution, who were es-
corted by a regiment of United States soldiers and by the Old
Guard of New York; by the President and Trustees of
Columbia University; by his Honor, Mayor Strong; and by
many guests, among whom were a number of descendants of
Colonel Knowlton and others who fought with him in the
battle. After prayer by Rev. Dr. Brockholst Morgan, Pro-
fessor Johnston, on behalf of the Tablet Committee, of
which he was chairman, presented the memorial to the So-
ciety. In his brief address he told how the place for the
tablet had been selected, and spoke of the patriotic memories
awakened by the place and the occasion. The tablet was
then unveiled by Mr. Frank Bailey, a great-grandson of Col-
onel Thomas Knowlton. It was accepted from the committee
and delivered to the custody of Columbia University by Mr.
Frederick S. Tallmadge, President of the Sons of the Revolu-
tion. On behalf of Columbia it was accepted by President
Low.

In the course of his address Mr. Low said: “It is with
great happiness that, in behalf of the Trustees of Columbia
University, I accept this tablet. It will perennially have a
significance for passers-by, reminding them that it was here
that our countrymen fought a brilliant and successful engage-
ment in the War for Independence. But to us of Columbia it
will not only be a reminder that the ground is hallowed by
the blood of brave men, but it will also remind us of the part
that the sons of our Alma Mater played in the struggle for
liberty. The scholarly life of Columbia contributed to the
success of that struggle, and our University, which went into
the fight as King’s College, came out as Columbia. I assure
you that you could not commit your tablet to more loving or
reverent hands than ours. We shall never look at it without
deriving inspiration to serve well our day and generation.”

Addresses appropriate to the occasion were also made by6	Columbia University Bulletin [Decembe*

Mayor Strong, Mr. Charlton T. Lewis, and by Professcr
William M. Sloane, of Columbia.

Herbert L. Osgood

HISTORY OF ROWING AT COLUMBIA

The Columbia College Boat Club was formed in 1873 *
Its first president was Alexander B. Simonds, ’73, and its first
captain, Casimir deR. Moore, ’7*3. The first crew to repre-
sent the College in the inter-collegiate regatta consisted of a
six-oar, and was made up as follows :

Class. Age. Height. Weight.

Captain and Bow . . .	C. deR. Moore	’73	21	5-7	145
No. 2			O. D. Smith	’75	20	5.8	15°
No. 3	.	A. B. Simonds	’73	19	5-9^	138
No. 4		E. S. Rapallo	’74	20	5-9	156
No. 5		R. C. Cornell	’74	20		165
Stroke		B. F. Rees	’74	20	5.8	145

The time of training was about three months. The trainer
was the professional oarsman, Hank Ward, and the boat was
built by Fearon, of Yonkers.

The race was rowed at Springfield, Mass., on July 17,
1873, the course being three miles straightaway. The crew
met with a serious misfortune through a collision with Am-
herst, just three days before the race, in which Mr. Rapallo
was wounded in the side. Unfortunately, there was no sub-
stitute that year, and the crew was forced to remain idle dur-
ing the last three days. Mr. Rapallo rowed most pluckily
in the race, notwithstanding the fact that he came direct from
his bed to the boat. In spite of this, and although the men
were all in poor condition, they finished fourth among eleven
other crews.

This was the year of the celebrated controversy over the
diagonal line at the finish. The flags were first given to
Harvard under the impression that she was first to cross the
line, but the referee decided that Yale was first, Wesleyan
second, Harvard third, and Williams last; he declined to