Talk:Battle of Crooked Billet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pennsylvania Portal
Battle of Crooked Billet is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User: Alphageekpa (talk • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Areas for improvement in this article:

  • What, if anything, ever happened as a result of the investigations into the atrocities? Where any British/Loyalist officers court-martialed or reprimanded in some way?
  • Needs some better images. A map would be ideal. Also a good photograph of the Crooked Billet memorial in Hatboro.
  • Also needs some better coverage in defense of Lacey. Some claim he was unlucky, inexperienced, wrong place/wrong time...others say that he did the best with what he had, and that it was Washington and the Pennsylvania Council that tied his hands. I have to admit, in my reading of the letters, it seems as though he was pretty inexperienced, and had a lot of citizens up-in-arms over his actions (particularly his plan to "relocate" all inhabitants out of his "problem area.") Anyhow, probably worth discussion -- if not here, than on Lacey's wiki entry.
  • Need a better way to incorporate all this "further reading" stuff that keeps appears. Wish that person would get an account here...

Alphageekpa 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone notice how Abercrombey is spelled Abercrombie in most places? It's clearly the same individual, just inconsistent spelling of his name... Alphageekpa 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's someone editing the page that is just kind of entering copy almost randomly in the document. I'm going to start pasting it here, in case someone wants to go thru and incorporate. Most appears to be more relevant for Lacey's wiki page, however. Alphageekpa 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lacey did not retire after May 11. He was requested by Washington to stay as a consult to Potter. Potter soon left. Lacey was ordered to handle a militia mobilization along the Susquehanna against Indian attacks. Washington mentions in a letter in June 1778 that Lacey and a party of horse crossed the Delaware River to harrass the British on the way back to New York through the Jersies. Lacey is elected to the Supreme Executive Council in 1779. He is called out to militia service in 1780 and 1781 (there is an orderly book in the compilation of William Darlington (1849) and (1854)0. He moves to New Jersey in 1782.
I think edits have sufficiently covered this. I removed "retirement" statement (although I have sources that say he sat out the rest of the war in Buckingham). Not relevant to article at hand, anyhow...will leave for inclusion on Lacey's wiki page, if appropriate. Alphageekpa 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added [citation needed] to the statement about historians inaccurately equating his Lacey's dismissal with his performance during the Winter/Spring of 1778. I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. I think there is a ton of supporting evidence saying the EXACT OPPOSITE. ( I apologize, I was unfamiliar with procedure, I thought I was competing with a machine. I will let you continue to write your garbage. You should cite for all the school children out there your "TONS" of evidence which amounts to one letter by George Washington to Potter, in which you don't understand that you are implying Lacey into a correspondence that is strictly between Washington and Potter. Council requested Potter to stay the winter, Washington and Council wanted him back. Why wouldn't they? They were PA most senior Generals) Read Washington's letters. I think the comments by the Executive Council were just an "official statement" saying "we valued your services, you served your country"... not the REAL reason he was let go. ( You require cites from eveyone except yourself, you indict yourself with your own words beginning with "you think", the more important thing is "what it is" on its face, not your decoding of what "it should be..." this is your spin on re-writing history) And Washington all but BEGGED Potter to come back from his leave-of-absence, he was so upset over Lacey's handling of operations. ( You interpret it as begging. The plain language is not begging. I invite anyone to read it. It can also be read " I miss you" instead you interpret it to mean " I miss you because Lacey is inept) To try to "soften" this by saying Lacey was relieved just because Potter came back, without mentioning the fact it was a disciplinary action, is wrong. ( What is your basis for disciplinary action, they often take the forms of court martials. I invite anyone to read this letter, if it is a reprimand it is a very nice one. You ignore that the language of his appointment letter, you also have apparently failed to review any information about the planning of the campaign in 1777 between Armstrong and Washington, as well as any events that happened after Lacey was relieved of duty. For someone inept they had him hanging around camp a lot longer than you have let others think. You said he retired. You never bothered to cite your source, but that's okay, just like you write someone is inept because you have 10 pages from Simcoe's journal, a few letter from Washington and another handful of letter from the PA Archives. you take a handful of information and unrelated facts and weave a story out of it. The fact of the matter is you re-write history because you fail to review the literally hundreds of pages left behind by William Darlington, the PA ARchives, the PA Colonial Records, the works of General Davis, the follow up work by Charles Harper Smith, plus other authors like Jackson and Bodle. I'm not re-writng history, your problem is you did not read enough about it. While your at it consider this, how well did the Continental Army fare on the west side of the Schuylkill with 10 times the troops with Smallwood guarding their backside down in Wilmington with 1,000 more? Lacey averaged around 350 to cover about 1080 square miles, while Chester and Delaware counties are about 946 square miles. What is that about 1 man for every 3 square miles, you try something like that. Read Armstrong's letters in December 1777, he was observing how hard it was and he had 2,000 men at his disposal. Here's a project for you, why don't you read Washington's letters and see if the Continental Army was any better at stopping the British forage raids and market people from selling goods? Then you can read about Stirling, Morgan, and Light Horse Harry and let's see the conclusion you draw then. You forget it is not just the fact that you have a letter for support, you can have three documented sources, but if your logic has no basis in reality what's the point. You guys talk about inexperience without defining it, or even consider whether its relevant. Discuss who was an experienced soldier during this war and start with Knox at Germantown and Lafayette at Barren Hill.) You're rewriting history here -- and I welcome you to provide supporting evidence otherwise. I think I presented a valid, historically recognized, point-of-view (WITH CITATIONS) regarding Lacey's dismissal, but this single editor (68.82.136.98/149.101.1.118/etc.) keeps overwriting it with something that just isn't true. To avoid getting into a revert war, I'm stepping back, but I welcome anyone else to give it a shot. My original concluding paragraph is below. Alphageekpa 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"During early 1778, Washington had become increasingly concerned with Lacey's inability to control the situation in Bucks and Montgomery counties. ( you need a cite) this hoped that Potter would soon return to service, "as his [Potter's] activity and vigilance have been much wanting in the course of the winter." [1] After Crooked Billet, Potter agreed. ( which letter has "Potter's agreement", you are implying his act of returning from service is his concurrence.) On May 11, he returned from his leave of absence, and Lacey was relieved of his command of the Pennsylvania militia. At the insistence of Washington, ( read the letter, it says Iam obliged...are you decoding again?) Lacey remained with the militia for a short time in order to familiarize Potter with the region. ( If you read further, you would know Potter did not stay very long) By June, the British had withdrawn from Philadelphia, and the militia's safeguarding of the region was no longer of concern to Washington."
Whoa. I just want to make it clear, for archiving purposes, that my original posting above (explaining my rationale) was mutilated by (68.82.136.98/149.101.1.118/etc.). Obviously, I didn't state my issues and attempt to respond to them myself. I still disagree, wholeheartedly, but will leave it up to other Wikipedia readers/editors to review and fix as necessary. This is too frustrating. Alphageekpa 09:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mention that the people who compile the Papers of George Washington disagreed with you wholeheartedly. See p.305, Volume 13, Lacey to Washington, January 21, 1778, in the footnote it says," Lacey was appointed a brigadier general in command of the Pennsylvania militia temporarily replacing Brig. Gen. James Potter. The emphasis is on the word temporary.

Armstrong wrote to Lacey on April 21, 1778:" Gen. Potter expects to be at Camp, about the beginning of May as I do about the latter end of the month.” ( April 21, 1778, Armstrong to Lacey, See Darlington pp. 323-324.)

Let's look at your suggestion to read Washington letters and your " tons of evidence" Let's start Vol. 14, pg 327. Let's apply your logic to this. " This is Washington's , by your characterization, "begging" for Potter's return. Washington to Armstrong: " If the state of Genl Potters Affairs will admit of returning to the Army, I shall be exceedingly glad to see him, as his activity and Vigilance have been much wanting in the Course of the Winter. The Quota of Militia stipulated by the State has never been above half kept up and some I believe there not has been a single Man. General Lacey has not now above 70 (remember 1080 square miles of ground to cover). The Country upon the East side of the Schuylkill has been by these means exceedingly exposed, as it has not been in my power to cover it with the effective continental Troops..." What is your conclusion about Washington? Is he inept too? Next, look at footnote 6 it states" Brigadier Gen. James Potter of the Pennsylvania militia, who have been relieved by Brigadier General John Lacey Jr. , in January, resumed his duties in May. There is that word again, "relieved" as I recall from your interpretation of the May 11 the letter to Lacey "relieved" means "disciplinary action". A Continental Officer imposing disciplinary action over a PA State militia official no less. Therefore, Potter was subject to disciplinary action by being "relieved" of duty. That's the the logic you are using that does not make sense to me.

In regards to the questions above, the articles I have read use Abercrombie or Abercromby depending on the author. I have given up trying to figure out which is the correct usage. I use Abercrombie because that is the way it is spelled in Darlington's notes but I really do not know which is correct.

Ward did a lot of work on the Virginia generals, he has a really good book on the NJ Continentals and General Maxwell, but could find no mention of the inquiry into the Crooked Billet. I don't know about any British reprimands or court martials. There is a map in 1854 Graham Magazine by Davis "Life and Services of Brigadier General John Lacey". The other map is from the Charles Harper Smith article (1941) and it is the same one shown on the web link. There are others that were put in the local newspapers around Hatboro on the bicentennial. Another was made for a pamphlet commemorating the 150th Anniversary Celebration of the Battle (1928)

More reading suggestions: "Memoirs and Correspondence of Brigadier General John Lacey of the Pennsylvania Militia. William Darlington, MD, LLD, West Chester, Pennsylvania (1849). Copies are in the Dreer Collection in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA and the Collections of the New York Historical Society in New York, NY. The David Library, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania has a copy of an out of print book called General John Lacey, The Rebellious Quaker by Edwin Harrington, The Hillside Press, Carversville, Pennsylvania (1996). The David Library also has a compilation that is an attempt to reconstruct Lacey's winter campaign called "The Boy General John Lacey." A copy of this compilation is also in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California along with Lacey's original Orderly book.

Considering your level of interest in the subject matter, you might want to consider working on a Wikipedia pages for Pennsylvania Militia (none currently exists), and/or the individual unit pages (see List of Continental Forces in the American Revolutionary War and scroll down to Pennsylvania Militia Units. You also might want to create an account, it would make communication much easier. Alphageekpa 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some friends ask me to look at the site because they noted that half the Continental Army was fighting the battle and the Hessians too and a lot of missing information and a lot of downright false information. You want to now about the Pennsylvania Miltia, best two books besides the PA Archives are Sam Newland, PA Militia: Early Years 1669-1792, and The Pennsylvania Militia in 1777, Hannah Benner Roach.

[edit] Grandfather

The better known Frederick Watts was the grandson of the Col. (later General) Watts mentioned here (as mentioned in the Frederick Watts article). I'd thought about putting 2 seperate articles in for the older and the younger, but so far the "older" article would only be a stub. I'll put the link back in about a week, if nobody objects. Smallbones 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lacey's Force

Footnote 1 showing is based on the Royal Pennsylvania Gazette reporting of 500 men.This number is highly questionable because the causualy number is inflated in the same article as 80-100 dead. The local historian Charles Harper Smith attempted to determine the number in Lacey's force by using the actual militia roll from 1778 as recorded in the Pennsylvania Archives, the approximate number he arrived at was 333 men. The casulaty numbers are found in Lacey's report from 1778. The reporting of different number for Lacey's force was addressed in the footnote to the Charles Harper Smith article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.231.90 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)