Talk:John Lacey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
john lacey was not a general in the continental army. he was a general in the pennsylvania state militia. he was relieved of his command by george washington after he was ambushed near present day hatboro in may 1778. lacey had a poor record as a soldier. he had been threatened with court martial by anthony wayne, who Italic textwasItalic text a general in the continental army, for cowardice during the american invasion of canada in 1775. he was not held in great regard by his superiors and seems to have spent a lot of time editing his memoirs and letters during the war so they would portray him in a positive light. his consistent message was that his failures were always due to someone or something else.
lacey was not feared by the british who refered to him as 'general' lacey. he was regarded by them as a terrorist who killed farmers and burned their property if they traded with the british or shipped supplies into philadelphia during the time the british occupied the city. he held impromtu 'trials' of loyalist farmers, convicted them of treason and appealed to george washington to execute them. washington refused and tried to temper lacey's obvious hatred of his loyalist neighbors by writing a letter explaining why it would not be practical or expedient to remove every farmer between the delaware and schuylkill rivers from their land thereby creating a 'zone sanitaire' north of the city, as lacey had proposed.
on may 1, 1778, a british force consisting of regulars and loyalists ambushed lacey's command of 400 men, about 100 of whom were armed, near hatboro, pa. perhaps 40 to 100 americans were killed or taken prisoner with the loss of no british soldiers. lacey led the bulk of his force on a retreat of about 5 miles. the british took their prisoners and lacey's supplies back into philadelphia and the americans found several bayonetted and burned corpses after they returned to the site of the event. (notice i do not call it a battle). the queen's rangers, a loyalist unit was engaged that day and they had been involved in an action in new jersey earlier in the year where they set fire to a barn in which americans were hiding and either killed them as they tried to escape or waited outside while the americans burned to death. it is probable that something like that happened in hatboro since some wounded americans did attempt to hide in a barn or a pile of hay. the reports are varied and there is no definitive explanation of what happened that day but lacey immediately wrote a letter to the pennsylvania legislature decrying the barbarity of the british. he also sent a letter to washington blaming his officers for failing to keep an adequate watch.
washington, tired of hearing requests for supplies and men, unworkable ideas, and explanations for failure wrote back that when a guard is not maintained ambushes happen. shortly after washington thanked lacey for his valuable service and replaced him.
I don't know where in the world this person gets information.John Lacey was a Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Militia. An official in the Pennsylvania Militia is appointed by the State, not General Washington. The Militia and the Continental Army are two different entities. Lacey's appointment by the Supreme Executive Council is found in the Pennsylvania Archives, Volune VI, p. 168. Lacey was relieved of his command on May 11, 1778 after General James Potter returned from a leave of absence. It was not a punishment as the commentator above implies. See PA Archives Volume VI, p. 168. Lacey did not have a poor record as a soldier. His memoirs in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1901 and 1092),Volumes 25 and 26 provide in detail his experiences in his early life and his one year service in the Continental Army under Anthony Wayne. Lacey's resignation letter summarizes his reasons for resigning from the Continental Army. Lacey and Wayne did not get along. It was an argument over the command of the Bucks County Regiment Lacey raised himself more than anything else. Lacey served his one year term and returned home. See PA Archives Volume V pp.154-155. (Anthony Wayne was a Colonel in 1776, he was not a brigadier general in the Continental Army until February 1777). Lacey was not subject to a court martial for cowardice. There is no basis for this statement and you merely have to read Lacey's memoirs or his resignation letter in the Pennsylvania Archives to refute the statement. Thre was no court martial, there were no charges of cowardice. There is no basis for the statement that Lacey edited his memoirs to cast himself in a positive light. You would have had to have been alive in 1813 and sitting next to Lacey in order to make such a statement. Secondly, Lacey died before he could complete his memoirs, many of the facts and circumstances regarding his winter campaign are assembled by local historians from his original letters, not his memoirs. I heard Martha Washington burned many letters that Washington wrote which she thought may reflect negatively on Washington. What are we suppose to do now?
The second paragraph is a skewed version of Lacey's campaign in the Winter of 1778. I don't know what he or she is referring to impromptu trials. The trial of Joseph Worrell, for example was a Continental proceeding, not a trial conducted by Lacey's militia. I really take issue with the whole paragraph as it attempts to characterize the whole campaign from bits of information. And I think there is some reference made to the skirmishes of Simcoe's troops at Hancock House and or Quinton's Bridge but I think the description is mixing it up with a version extracted from the movie "The Patriot." There are just too many issues being brought up at once. Washington issued orders around March 1778 where he authorized Lacey to fire on what Washington referred to as "mercenary wretches". Washington also ordered Lacey to bring his men to a public hanging of a Tory named Worrell at Bartolomew's tavern. Certainly there was a lot of animosity between the people who wanted independence and the local Quaker farmers who wanted to stay out of the war, but ran into a problem with the Whigs when they continued to sell goods to the British. You can find several examples of the animosity in Joseph Lee Boyles "Writings from the Valley Forge Encampment." The Quaker farmers would have certainly been afraid and resented Lacey. The British were probably not afraid of him, they were aware of his appointment as a brigadier general because it appeared in the local papers. It was not a question of being afraid of him anyway, it was the fact that Lacey's force were annoying the British because as Major Baurmeister reported, Washington had begun to make the roads unsafe and the local farmers were afraid to bring their produce into the city. Lacey's force was a part of that effort to stop the flow of goods into the city. There is an indication that the British were attempting to take into custody local militia officials. See Kirkbride to Lacey. Memoirs & Correspondence of John Lacey, Compiled by William Darlington West Chester, Pennsylvania (1849) pp. 240-242. Lacey did propose a depopulation scheme in late March 1778. The State had not provided the number of men promised to patrol the area, Washington was unable to provide more support with Continental troops, Washington had made repeated requests to stop the flow of goods, and the related orders took on a more ominous tone, where the market people would be fired on and their corpses left on the road as an example to other. Lacey's force was sometimes only 50 to 70 men to patrol the entire area between the Schuylkill and the Delaware. One could argue that depopulation proposal addressed Washington's orders in light of the fact that Council was never going to be able to provide enough manpower. The depopulation scheme was never carried out, it was rejected by Washington.
Lacey's report on the Battle of Crooked Billet is found in PA Archives Volume VI , pp.470-471. He reports 30 killed and wounded. He later reports to Armstrong on May 7th, that 26 were killed with 8 or 10 wounded. See The Register of PA, Sam Hazard Editor, Phila. PA WF Geddes (1829) Volume 3 pp. (typo 143) pp.343-344.
There next paragraphs are a mischaracterization of the battle's aftermath. Lacey was instructed to conduct an inquiry into what happened, in addition to General Maxwell was ordered by Washington to conduct an inquiry. Court martials were convened, and statements from local inhabitants taken. There is an attempt to characterize Crooked Billet as an "event" rather than a "battle". The Papers of George Clinton around December 1778 refer to Crooked Billet as a massacre much like today the Battle of Paoli (September 20-21 1777) is referred to as a massacre. Is there a suggestion that Paoli should not be referred to a battle ? Crooked Billet resulted in 26 killed, 8 or 10 wounded (out of total 300), Paoli resulted in 53 killed, 100 wounded (out of a total 2,200). I see no need in reducing Crooked Billet to a characterization as just an "event".
Lacey was relieved of duty when General Potter returned from a leave of absence. He was requested by Washington to stay in Camp to serve as a consult to Potter. Lacey was then ordered to Bald Eagle Creek along the Susquehanna to guard against Indian attacks. Pennsylvania's supreme Executive Council approved of the conduct of Lacey and his men. See Register of Pennsylvania, Sam Hazard, Editor. Phila, PA WF Geddes (1829) Vol. 3 pp 356-357. Lacey was back in camp in June 1778 helping Colonel Frederick Watts who was then on command of the militia. Lacey's military service did not begin January 9, 1778, not did it end May 11, 1778. The problem with the study of Lacey's campaign is that it is not well studied, and the information available is not widely read. What is available is in local historical societies and not found on the shelves of public libraries. Lacey is often a footnote in many texts and therefore most authors and commentators will draw conclusions based on a couple of letters rather than reviewing the hundreds of letters that exist. Lacey is often incorrectly imputed into every conversation Washington has with Wharton, Armstrong, Potter or anybody else for that matter. He becomes the reason why nothing is operating correctly north of the Schuylkill, forget the fact that nothing is running correctly west, south, or east of the Schuylkill with about ten times the troops.
Some say Lacey was 59 when he died (1755-1814), while others say 62 (1752-1814). In his Memoirs Lacey provides his own birthday as February 4, 1755. See Memoirs of Brigadier General John Lacey PA Mag of History & Biography (1901) vol. 25 pp.1-2.He died on February 17, 1814 (see Davis, General John Lacey -Our Quaker General. Bucks County Historical Society Papers (1909)Vol. 3, p.4. Lacey's grave marker in the old St. Andrew's Cemetery in Mount Holly, New Jersey shows the February 4, 1755 birth date. The December 1752 birthdate comes from the records of the Wrightstown Meeting House, Wrightstown, PA.
I see a awful lot of time spent trying to badmouth and label Lacey everything in the book. Now it's "terrorist". I believe Simcoe referred to the militia as "robbers"
So now I guess the British called Washington the robber in chief or the terrorist in chief. Before you think of another label try this one: "Patriot". Lacey was a man who risked his life and his property; chose duty to country over religion and family; and turned down an offer for a Major or Colonel commission in a Loyalist Regiment even though he felt he was ill-treated in the Continental Army. Colonel Joseph Kirkbride wrote to Lacey on February 12, 1778: " I am told the Enemy swear revenge against our new General-- that he is a damn'd mischevious Fellow- and they are determined to have him." Lacey replied " I am told almost every day, that the Enemy swear they will have me, before a week. If these accounts be true, I know thay have sworn several false oaths; and, if Providence permit, they shall swear many more." (Darlington pp. 240-242, 271-273)
Lacey's Memoir's , [PA Mag. of History & Biography,V 26 (1902) 107] makes a reference to his participation in a series of skirmishes that occurred around Dec 3 to 7, 1777 at the time of the Whitemarsh encampment, the largest skirmish referred to as the Battle of Edge Hill. He discusses taking command of a regiment of 300 to 400 men even though it was not his tour. He marches them from Newtown (Bucks County) PA to Whitemarsh and joins General Potter's Brigade at the beginning of November 1777. He then mentions that not long after their arrival the British Army marched out to Chestnut Hill. He then mentions a series of encounters with the advanced parties began. He refers to the capture of General Irvine of the PA Miltia in a skirmish. Lacey writes, " my regiment was in several of those combats- in attacking and driving in the Enemies Picquets, who being reinforced, we were driven in turn, thus alternately advancing and retreating schrimminsing was kep up several Days". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.231.90 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is accurate to say Lacey's militia company was incorporated into the Continental Line. The Pennsylvania militia and the 4th Pennsylvania Battalion of the Continentnal Line were two separate entities. The roll of Lacey's Buckingham and Wrightstown Township militia company is found in PA Archives 2nd Vol. 14 pages 159-160, dated August 21,1775. The roll of Lacey's 4th PA Battalion company is found PA Archives 5thSeries, Vol 2, pages 148 and 149, dated January 1776. The militia company and the Continental Line Company are not one in the same. Second, in 1776, Lacey was under the command of Colonel Anthony Wayne. Wayne is not commissioned a brigadier general until 1777. Third, reference 4, Lacey's memoir refers to the action at or near where a post "about 3 Miles from the Gulf Mills", (Memoirs p107) but does not precisely say "Matson Ford". General Potter reports the skirmish while encamped at "Charles Thomson's place" on December 15, 1777 ( See PA archives 1st Series, Vol 6 pages 97-98) Matson Ford appears to be a definition or preferred label given the skirmish by later historians to perhaps provide a more accurately location of the skirmish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.231.90 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
