1 From a plan in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's Essais, i. p. 270. KEY: The English had passed the night at a.
position at 1, while their guns at 2 fired on the Americans. The Americans at
Lee's advance showed itself at 3, when the British debouched from their
retired into the wood, and joined Lee's main body, which debouched from the wood at 4, their
guns taking position at 6 and 7, while the British guns were at 5. The Americans (4, 8, and 10) retired and took position at 11; and while still further retreating, the British attacked
at 12, and the Americans made a stand at 13, and before all could retire still farther the British again attacked at 14. The Americans again formed at 15, when Washington, coming up
by way of the new Baptist meeting-house with the main body, formed at 16, Stirling and Greene in front, and Lafayette in the rear, while Lee's men at 15 passed to Washington's
rear, a British reconnoitring force appearing meanwhile at 17, and Plessis-Mauduit's battery, supported by 500 men, taking position at 18. The British at 14 and 17, being repulsed,
united at 19, whence they were further repulsed and took position at 20. They formed again at 21 after Washington's attack. They passed the night at 22.

This map was apparently engraved from an original, followed in two plans, differently drawn, but in effect the same, which are among the maps in the Sparks collection at Cor.
nell University, and which were copied from Lafayette's own plan at Lagrange. It is called Carte de l'affaire de Montmouth, où le général Washington commandait l'armée
Américaine et le général Clinton commandait l'armée Anglaise, le 28 Juin, 1778. The "legende" shows references from 1 to 22, with extra ones a and b, the latter (6) being at
the junction of the two dotted lines in the rear of 16, and is explained as the "movement of the second line, commanded by General Lafayette, which, as soon as the column at 17
was perceived, was detached to occupy the wood west of the meeting-house, which the column 17 was approaching; but when this column 17 was repulsed the line was restored."

There is also among the Sparks maps (Lafayette copies) a pen-and-ink sketch-plan, - differing somewhat, giving more detail, made on the American side, and this more nearly
gives an eclectic plan with more detail than any other.
resembles the plan given by Sparks in his Washington (v. p. 430,-repeated in Duer's Stirling, ii. 196; and in Guizot's Washington. Cf. Irving's Washington, quarto ed.). The
plan in Lossing's Field-Book (ii. 356) is based on the one here engraved, and he also gives a view of the Freehold meeting-house (p. 359) and of the field (p. 362). Carrington (ch. 56)

A view of the monument commemorating the battle is in the U. S. Art Directory (1884).

ish what they fought for, a further unimpeded
march toward New York. Washington's let-
ters are of the first importance. We have also
accounts by Hamilton; 5 by Lafayette," as given

library of Congress, called Plan générale des opéra-
The lines (..) represent roads.
KEY: "79,

1 Sketched from a part of a MS. Hessian map in the tions de l'armée Britannique contre les Rebelles, etc. Marche du général de Knyphausen de son camp devant Englishtown le 24 Juin. 80, Marche du général Cornwallis. 83, Retraite des enemis."

There is a copy of the map of the region of the march by Clinton's engineer in the library of the N. Y. Hist. Soc. (Mag. of Amer. Hist., Sept., 1878, p. 759).

2 Sparks, v. 320; Sparks MSS., lii. vol. iii.; Muhlenberg's Muhlenberg, chap. 5.

3 Wayne's letter, May 21st, in Penna. Mag. Hist., April, 1887, p. 115; journal by Andrew Bell, Clinton's secretary, of the march through New Jersey, in N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc., vi., and journal of Joseph Clark in Ibid., vii. 93; Eelking, ch. 10; Mag. Am. Hist., Jan., 1879, p. 58. A British orderly-book, Philad., AprilJune, 1778, is in the Amer. Antiq. Society. The American vessels scuttled above the city were raised (Wallace's Bradford, 292).

4 Sparks, v. 422, 431; Dawson, i. 412; Lee Papers, N. Y., 1872, p. 441. Cf. Recollections by Custis, ch. 5.

5 Lee Papers, p. 467; Pa. Mag. Hist., ii. 139; Hamilton's Works, ed. Lodge, vii. 550; Hamilton's Repub. U. S., i. 468, 478.

6 Sparks MSS., xxxii., printed in Sparks's Washington, v. 552, and his letter in Marshall's Washington, i. 255.

to Sparks; and statements by several other wit- fended from the charge of participation by nesses.1

The trial of Lee, and the papers produced by it, furnish abundant contemporary evidence. The trial was published at Philadelphia, 1778, as Proceedings of Court-Martial held at Brunswick in New Jersey, July 4, 1778.2

On the British side, Clinton's despatch is in Lee Papers (1872), p. 461; Dawson, i. 415. A British journal kept during the march is in the N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., i. 15; an orderly-book picked up on the field is in a transcript in the Penna. Hist. Society.8

The British retreat is commended in Baron von Ochs's Betrachtungen über die neuere Kriegskunst (Cassel, 1817). Cf. Lowell's Hessians, p. 209.

Respecting the Conway Cabal, the best gathering of the documentary evidence is in an appendix to Sparks's Washington. Sparks's conclusion is that the plot never developed into "a clear and fixed purpose," and that no one section of the country more than another specially promoted it. Mahon (vi. 243) thinks that Sparks glides over too gently the participation of the New Englanders, who have been de

Austin in his Life of Elbridge Gerry (ch. 16). Gordon implicates Samuel Adams, and J. C. Hamilton is severe on the Adamses (Repub. U. S., i. ch. 13, 14). Mrs. Warren found no cause to connect Sam. Adams with the plot, and Wells (Sam. Adams, ii. ch. 46) naturally dismisses the charge. It is not to be denied that among the New England members of Congress there were strong partisans of Gates, and the action of Congress for good in military matters was impaired by an unsettled estimate of the wisdom of keeping Washington at the head of the army, though it did not always manifest itself in assertion (Greene's Greene, i. 287, 403, 411). Nothing could be worse than John Adams's proposition to have Congress annually elect the generals (Works, i. 263); and he was not chary of his disgust with what was called Washington's Fabian policy. Sullivan, in one of his oily, fussy letters to Washington (Corresp. of the Rev., ii. 366) finds expression of a purpose to revive the plot in William Tudor's massacre oration in Boston in March, 1779. The expres sions of Charles Lee, that "a certain great man is most damnably deficient" (Moore's Treason

1 By Col. John Laurens (Lee Papers, pp. 430, 449); by W. Irvine (Penna. Mag. Hist., ii. 139); by Colonel Richard Butler, July 23, 1778, to General Lincoln, in Sparks MSS., lxvi., and other light in the Lincoln papers as copied in Ibid., xii.; by Generals Wayne and Scott (Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev., ii. 150; Lee Papers, 438); by Wayne to his wife (Ibid., 448); by Knox (Sparks MSS., xxv.; Drake's Knox, 56); by Persifer Frazer (Sparks MSS., xxi.); the account in the N. Jersey Gazette, June 24, 1778 (Lee Papers); the narrative from the N. Y. Journal (Moore's Diary, ii. 66); the journal of Dearborn (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., Nov., 1886, p. 115); diary of John Clark (N. Jersey Hist. Soc., vii.). Cf. James McHenry in the Mag. of Amer. Hist., iii. 355.

2 Other editions: Cooperstown, 1823; N. Y., private ed., 1864; Sabin, x. nos. 39,711, etc. It is reprinted in the Lee Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3 vols., 1873), as is also (iii. 255) Lee's vindication, printed in the Penna. Packet, Dec. 3, 1778. Cf. also Langworthy's Lee, p. 23; Sparks's Lee; Davis's Burr; Reed's Reed, i. 369; and the correspondence of Washington and Lee after the battle, in Sparks, v. 552, etc.

The Sparks MSS. contain various papers, including the statement of John Clark, who bore Washington's orders to Lee (dated Sept. 3, 1778), and a statement of John Brooks, who had personal knowledge of Washington's treatment of Lee in the field.

Sargent (André, 188) is inclined to acquit Lee of blame for his retreat at Monmouth.

Colonel Laurens called Lee out for using language disrespectful to Washington, when Lee was slightly wounded (account by the seconds in Hamilton, Lodge's ed., vii. 562).

--

The more general accounts, early and late, are in Marshall (iii. ch. 8, who was present); Heath's Memoirs (p. 186); Hull's Rev. Services (ch. 14); Reed's Reed (i. ch. 17); Williams's Olney (p. 243); Armstrong's Wayne; Washington, by Sparks (i. 298), and Irving (iii. ch. 34, 35); Drake's Knox; Kapp's Steuben (p. 159); Quincy's Shaw (ch. 4); Hamilton's Hamilton (i. 194), and his Repub. U. S. (i. 471); Bancroft (ix. ch. 4'; Gay (iii. 603).

Henry Armitt Brown delivered the oration in the Centennial ceremonies (Memoir with erations, edited by J. M. Hoppin, Philad., 1880).

Critical examinations of the battle have been made by Gen. J. W. De Peyster in the Mag. Amer. Hist., July and Sept., 1878; March and June, 1879; cf. 1879, p. 355 (by J. McHenry); by Dawson (ch. 37, praised by Kapp); and by Carrington (ch. 54-56).

Cf. for various details, C. King in N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., iv. 125; Amer. Hist. Rec., June, 1874; Barker and Howe's Hist. Coll. N.J.; Linn's Buffalo Valley, 159; the Moll Pitcher story in Mag. Amer. Hist., Sept.. 1883, p. 260, and Penna. Mag. Hist., iii. 109. For a visit to the field a few days after the battle, U. S. Mag., Philad 1779, by H. H. Brackenridge, reprinted in Monmouth Inquirer, June, 1879. For landmarks, Lossing's FieldBook, ii. 356, and Harper's Mag., vii. 449, lvii. 29.

3 Cf. further Simcoe's Journal; Stedman (ii. ch. 22); Murray (ii. 448); Mahon (vi. ch. 58): 4 Vol. v. 483-518; cf. also Ibid., i. 266; v. 97, 390; and his Gouverneur Morris, i. ch. 10.

1 Hamilton's Works, i. 100; J. C. Hamilton's Repub. U. S., i. 339; Irving's Washington, iii. ch. 25. 2 Vol. i. 311; v. 530 (App.); vi. 106, 114, 149. There are extracts from the Lafayette papers in Sparks MSS., no. xxxii. Cf. Marshall, iii. 568; Irving, iii. 334; Jay's Jay, i. 83; Stone's Brant, ch. 14.

There is a good account of the conspiracy in Greene's Greene (ii. p. 1; also see i. 22, 34, 483). The account in the Memoirs of Wilkinson (i. ch. 9) is called grossly inaccurate in Duer's Stirling (ch. 7). Cf. Lossing's Schuyler (ii. 390); Kapp's De Kalb; Hamilton's Hamilton (i. 128-163); Reed's Reed (i. 342); Wirt's Patrick Henry (p. 208); Stone's Howland (ch. 5); Marshall's Washington (iii. ch. 6); Irving's Washington (iii. ch. 25, 28, 29, 30); Bancroft (ix. ch. 27); Lossing's Field-Book (ii. 336); the account of Col. Robert Troup, written for Sparks in 1827 (Sparks MSS., xlix. vol. i. no. 3); Dunlap's New York, ii. 131, and a note in Sargent's Stansbury and Odell, p. 176.

3 Vol. x. 378.

4 It was at this time, Feb., 1779, that a story reached Christopher Marshall, in Lancaster, Pa., that Arnold had gone over to the British. Hist. Mag., ii. 243.

5 After the medallion, engraved by Adam, of a picture by Du Simitière, painted in Philadelphia from life.

The original is in Marbois' Complot d'Arnold et de Sir Henry Clinton (Paris, 1816), where it is inscribed "Le Général Arnold, déserté de l'armée des Etats Unis, le 25 Septbre, 1780." The copy of Marbois in the Brinley sale (no. 3,961) had also the sepia drawing from which the engraver worked. The Du Simitière head had already appeared in the European Magazine (1783), vol. iii. 83, and in his Thirteen Heads, etc. A familiar profile likeness, looking to the right, was engraved by H. B. Hall for the illustrated edition of Irving's Washington, and is also to be found in H. W. Smith's Andreana. Another profile, similar, but facing to the left, is in Arnold's Arnold, and was etched by H. B. Hall in 1879. Cf. Harris and Allyn's Battle of Groton Heights.

Lossing has given us views of Arnold's birthplace in Norwich (Harper's Mag., xxiii. 722; Field-Book, i 36), and of his house in New Haven (Harper, xvii. 13; Field-Book, i. 421), and of his Willow (Harper, xxiv. 735).

1 From the Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Eilfter Theil, Nürnberg, 1778.

2 Report to Germain.

8 Life and Treason of Arnold.

4 Life of André.