William Myers
I would like to correct several details concerning the battlefield as covered by The Packet’s article of Dec. 30 [“Historians have new view of Battle of Princeton, 1777”]. I do not believe in the accuracy of numerous conclusions of the commissioned report.
The principal issue with the report is the placing of the British line parallel to the modern Mercer Road. The position of the British line was certainly along a split-rail fence separating the property of the Clarke brothers, William and Thomas. Another fence stood south of this on a parallel line; it may still be delineated by a roughly straight row of trees on the battlefield. It is included in 18th century surveys and appears in 19th century photographs. Benson Lossing depicts this fence in his 1848 sketch of the battlefield. The more distant parallel fence, behind which the British formed, is obscured in Lossing’s sketch by the slope of a hill.
The intention of those who established the Battlefield Park was to preserve the site of Washington’s stand and the house where General Mercer died. The above description was the recognized layout of the battle lines, and was incorporated into the park’s plan. The amount of development that has occurred in the past 20 years, and which threatens to continue, was simply not anticipated.
One of the primary reasons histories of the battle are erroneous is the lack of reliable first-hand accounts; many of the accounts are either demonstrably false or filled with contradictions. The accounts themselves have been compromised by editing. One of the most cited records, Thomas Rodney’s Diary, is only a paraphrase of Rodney’s journal which omits many important details describing the battlefield. The Library of America is among those reprinting the paraphrase. The original journal is in the archives of the State of Delaware and differs significantly from the published version upon which historians have relied.
One of the facts mentioned in the report was the correction that Mercer’s Brigade was never sent to destroy the bridge over Stony Brook. I came to this conclusion based on first-hand accounts, and published this in an article on General Mercer for The Packet on the July 2, 2004. Two reasons which I cited were 1) all the reliable first-hand accounts state Mercer wheeled left, not right to attack the 17th Regiment, which would not have been the case if they were on their way to destroy the bridge; and 2) They were not equipped with the artillery necessary to defend the bridge. This is an issue for historians to discuss and has no relevance to the controversy over the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposed housing.
Another factor, which is at the heart of the dispute over Institute housing, is the precise significance of the land considered for development. The first historian of the battle to examine the land deeds in the New Jersey State Archives was Samuel Stelle Smith. I continued his work by examining every extant deed not only of the battlefield but of Princeton itself, beginning with the 17th century; I extended my research to deeds in the early 1800’s that included land in and around the battlefield. Real estate advertisements, sheriff’s sale surveys and other secondary sources were also consulted to trace what happened to the features in the decades after the battle.
These deeds include surveys which can be projected on modern maps. Smith was the first to do this for the battlefield. It is critical to correlate specific landmarks in these records with those described by first-hand participants in the battle. Misinterpretation is very easy and the precise line of the 17th against Washington is the most significant to determine.
One thing is obvious: the site of the first phase of the battle, Mercer against the 17th British Regimentm was obliterated by the construction in 1814 of the Princeton-Trenton Turnpike and further destroyed by subsequent building. The William Clarke house was torn down by John W. Fielder in 1876. The house he built to replace it has long since vanished. Fielder was a member of the New Jersey Historical Society and took an active interest in preserving the battlefield.
The obliteration of the William Clarke farm was completed by the construction of Veblen Circle and Stone House Drive. The field where the proposed housing is intended is located east of the position of William Clarke’s house. Some of the wounded who fled the rout of Mercer’s Brigade by the 17th were cut down in the field in which the proposed housing will be built.
It was also through this field that Col. Hand’s riflemen turned the British left flank, simultaneous with Washington’s stand. The accounts specify that the British 17th Regiment took a position behind a split-rail fence; this fence stood on the property line between the farms of William and Thomas Clarke. The Clarkes used a type of cedar fence which incorporated a pyramid of posts to support the rails. The line of the original fence was parallel to the current asphalt bicycle path at the battlefield’s northern tree line. This places the site of the institute’s proposed housing behind and to the left of the British line.
For many years a pyramid of cannonballs marked the spot where Gen. Hugh Mercer fell. It’s position was near the park bench where the bicycle path intersects Mercer Road, slightly down the slope leading to the Mercer Oak.
Another erroneous detail of the study is the position and extent of the British line, as mentioned above. The 17th Regiment consisted of 240 officers and men. To their flank was a mixed company of grenadiers. A company of the 55th fled, as did the Light Dragoons. The battle was fought in linear warfare, with inaccurate weapons that were only effective by a high rate of concentrated fire. The extent of their line could not have exceeded 100 yards, and was probably much less.
The final stand between Washington and the 17th occurred in a rather narrow area. Rodney states the line was formed so each soldier could fire simultaneously. This area is well encompassed by the current battlefield.
An important visual record of the battlefield are the paintings by James Peale, who fought in the battle with Mercer’s Brigade, and by his student, William Mercer, the son of Gen. Mercer. Peale’s paintings are in the collections of Princeton University and the Historical Society of Princeton; Mercer’s “primitive” copy is at the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia. Both depict the William Clarke house, barn and orchard behind a split-rail fence of the type photographed at the battlefield in the 19th century. The British are behind that fence. The orientation of the house was parallel to Thomas Clarke’s, which is a further indication this fence (and thus the British line) was along the east-west property line. The Institute housing would occupy a field behind where this fence stood.
The site of the William Clarke house is already occupied by houses on Veblen Circle. Professor Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker identified the house in the painting as William Clarke’s, citing as further evidence a sketch of the battlefield by Benson Lossing which shows both Clarke farmhouses. The house and barn are indistinguishable in Lossing’s sketch. The story of these paintings and their relation to the university’s “Washington at Princeton” by Charles Willson Peale is detailed in the Princeton University Library Chronicle (Vol. XIII, No 4, Summer 1952).
An acceptance of the traditional layout for the battle should not alter anyone’s opinion concerning the impropriety of construction adjacent to the current battlefield. It is erroneous to place any significant fighting on the grounds of the current institute. This report’s map appears to be a literal interpretation of James Wilkinson’s crude map of the battle.
William Clarke’s house stood near the current Veblen Circle and the orchard extended to the north of the current park. The western end of the field in which the institute’s housing is intended to be built was the site where several Americans were bayoneted as they fled during the rout of Mercer’s Brigade. From its east end, the British line received flanking fire from Col. Hand’s riflemen. That is its significance. In addition to this, the housing will diminish if not destroy the sanctity of the current park.
A contributor to The Packet, Highland Park resident William Myers is an avid and active student of history.
