The History of the Lenni Lenape Before, During, and After the American Revolution

The History of the Lenni-Lenape Before, During, and After the American Revolution

(Image courtesy of Legends of America)

By Mr. David A. Di Costanzo, M. Ed Social Studies Department Chair Vineland High School

Introduction:

During the first year of this grant, seven Social Studies teachers from around the state conducted research for the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies (NJCSS). The teachers examined the histories of ordinary people in New Jersey and how the events leading up to and during the Revolutionary War impacted their lives. The grant, “Telling Our Story: Living in New Jersey Before and During the American Revolution”, is an ongoing effort by the NJCSS to prepare educators in New Jersey for the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution during the 2025-26 school year. The 250th anniversary celebrations will continue through 2031 and is part of the overall mission of the NJCSS to provide and make available meaningful lessons and activities to students, teachers, and the public.

During Year Two of the grant, the focus of the research has shifted to include the role and contributions of African Americans, Native Americans, and prisoners of war before, during, and after the American Revolution. An emphasis on the experiences of women and children during this time period will also be researched. The lives of the Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey before, during, and after the American Revolution is a fascinating and important part of American history. Professor of History and Native American Studies Colin G. Calloway from Dartmouth University said, “with few exceptions, the Indian story in the Revolution remains relegated to secondary importance and easy explanation: The Indians chose the wrong side and lost. To better understand the reality of the Revolution for American Indians, we need to shift our focus to Indian country and to the Indian community.” [1] Sadly, the story of the Lenni-Lenape during this time period has been “relegated to secondary importance” and not been told enough.

The role of Lenni-Lenape is crucial in our understanding of the American experience. What was lifelike for the Lenni-Lenape in New Jersey?  Unfortunately, the Lenni-Lenape, dealt with racist mindsets which were the primary impetus that led to a negative and mostly superficial historiography of their culture that took centuries to completely shift. Historical perceptions and the racial mindsets of Native Americans did eventually change but only after they were deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture.  

It’s also important to note that for Native Americans the Revolutionary War began way before Lexington and Concord.  Most historians agree that the American Indians had been fighting for their own independence since the Europeans made contact.  Accepting and embracing the fate of the Lenni-Lenape and discovering how people lived before and during the American Revolution in New Jersey is important work. It allows students and residents in various counties throughout New Jersey to discover a more objective truth about Native Americans before and during the American Revolution. This more objective truth is an honest attempt to provide greater transparency for everyone, whether they agree with it or not.

Historical Background:

The cultural history of Native Americans is interesting for a variety of reasons. The treatment of Native Americans is viewed by most historians as horrific. Native Americans were systematically excluded from having a true voice during European exploration and colonization as well as after the United States was founded. The explorers ravaged the indigenous people of this continent with violence, disease and deprivation.  Native Americans had non-Christian spiritual beliefs which went against the religious doctrine of the early explorers. This difference in cultures created a severe spiritual divide.  Later on, colonists traded with Native Americans but European settlers viewed them as nothing more than savages and barbarians. 

            By the nineteenth century, Native Americans had no choice but to assimilate in order to survive. Forced assimilation in order to survive is not the same thing as having a legitimate stake in the system.  Time has made most ethnicities, including American Indians, a larger part of the American landscape. All of these factors created a system of severe limitations for most Native Americans that still lingers today.  The situation in New Jersey regarding the treatment of the Lenni-Lenape was similar to the way Native Americans were dealt with throughout the colonies and the United States.

            The Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey are descendants of the Paleo-Indian whose history on this continent has been traced back to 13,000 years ago.  The Lenni-Lenape were also referred to as the Delaware Indians by the English and the Dutch.  Professor of History Maxine Lurie from Seton Hall University and Professor of Anthropology Richard Veit from Monmouth University said, “the first settlers to reach what is now New Jersey probably did so during or before the Paleo-Indian period.  Archaeological sites from this period are quite rare.” [2] Nevertheless, Paleo-Indian artifacts have been found across New Jersey as well as in New York and Pennsylvania. Excavations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confirmed the presence of Paleo-Indians throughout New Jersey.

            Various cultural periods would ensue for the next several thousand years leading to the final phase prior to European contact which is referred to as the Woodland Period.  This period began roughly a thousand years ago and continued until contact with Europeans during the early sixteenth century. [3] The earliest reports of contact with European explorers occurred in 1524 when Giovanni da Verrazano explored the Atlantic coast of North America. He described the natives in and around what today is New Jersey as “most loving”. [4]  Contact with whites was sporadic until the early 1600’s. The interactions with the Lenni-Lenape and the explorers increased and progressed during the early seventeenth century and beyond. 

            The Dutch and English had a sincere desire to trade with the American Indians from the Garden State.  It’s well documented that, “the Dutch West India Company, formed in Holland in 1621 to develop commerce, especially fur trading, constituted the present New Jersey Hudson River area into the province of New Nether (often “New Netherlands”) in 1623.” [5]  Furs, cooper, and other perishable commodities, such as alcohol, were all eagerly exchanged.  It became clear almost immediately that most Native Americans didn’t react well to the consumption of alcohol.  This inability to consume alcohol in moderation was something European traders would quickly learn to take advantage of without hesitation. The Dutch and English traded with the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey in spite of the animosity and racism that existed.  Most Dutch traders had very little respect for the American Indians.

This map is from John Snyder’s The Story of New Jersey Civil Boundaries 1202-1968 

This map shows various Indian trails that crisscrossed New Jersey. The Assunpink Trail goes from the lower left on the Delaware River and continues northward, crosses the Raritan River and heads for Staten Island.

            An unintended consequence or impact of European exploration was the massive spread of numerous diseases. Professor Lurie and Professor Veit, said that in and around New Jersey

“The impact of disease on Native American populations was disastrous. Population estimates for the Lenape vary significantly, with some scholars arguing for 12,000 natives at the time of European contact and others for much smaller numbers.  In the seventeenth century smallpox epidemics, malaria, measles, and influenza significantly reduced the Native American population” [6]

Like all of the other Native American tribes in North America, disease had a devastating effect on the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey that would linger on for decades.  It put the indigenous people of this continent at a serious disadvantage from the beginning of their contact with the Europeans.

            In spite of the effects of alcohol and disease on the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey, they maintained a serious control of trade during most of the seventeenth century. Professor of History Jean Soderlund from Lehigh University said that

“Because of mythology, the Lenape are often portrayed as a weak people lacking the numbers and fortitude to defend their homeland.  The prevailing narrative ignores the period of 1615-1681 when the Lenape dominated trade and determined if, when and where Europeans could travel and take up land.” [7] 

Except for the Pavonia Massacre in February of 1643, the Lenni-Lenape avoided major conflicts during this time period. This was in stark contrast to the Anglo-Powhatan War and Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia which were both larger in terms of the number of people that were killed. [8]  The Pavonia Massacre was the first known attack led by Dutch soldiers that saw over one hundred Native American men, women, and children slaughtered in the area of what is today Jersey City.  After the massacre, hostilities would remain for almost three years until a truce was agreed to in 1645.

A Depiction of the Pavonia Massacre in 1643 (Image courtesy of Timetoast)

Professor Soderlund said “the Lenapes’ firm grip on south and central New Jersey is clear in a map from 1670 created by a merchant named Augustine Herrman, who had settled in New Amsterdam in 1644 and then established his plantation, Bohemia Manor, on the Maryland Eastern Shore in 1661.” [9] The map below shows New Jersey illustrated on the lower right-side of the map.  Numerous Lenape populated the area shown on the map that constitutes most of present-day New Jersey. This map is definitive evidence of the control the Lenni-Lenape had over New Jersey during the late seventeenth century.  

A map by Augustine Hermann of Virginia and Maryland and New Jersey as it was planted and inhabited in 1670, W. Faithorne, sculpt.  (Map courtesy of the Library of Congress)

            The Lenni-Lenape had an interesting relationship with the Quakers, especially in West Jersey. The influence of the Quakers could be felt throughout New Jersey during the colonial period.  Professor of History Richard McCormick from Rutgers University said

“Lacking the peculiar fervor that had stamped them as religious radicals in the previous century, the Quakers manifested increasing concern with social problems and took leadership in many areas of humanitarian reform.  Impelled by that saintly friend, John Woolman, of Mount Holly that came out firmly against slave holding in 1758, displayed a deep concern for the plight of the Indians, developed a system of education, and even began to withdraw from political activities because of their opposition to the war and military preparations.” [10]

Unfortunately, the Quakers, as well as other religious groups were guilty of displacing the Lenni-Lenape particularly in West Jersey and in Pennsylvania.  Professor McCormick made it clear that the Quakers weren’t transparent with the Native Americans of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, including the Lenni-Lenape, in various land deals.

            During the eighteenth century, the relationship between the Lenni-Lenape and the colonists would continue to deteriorate. Land ownership became a major issue throughout New Jersey, as well as the rest of the colonies, as the English took over control and established their dominance throughout the continent.             Several Lenape chiefs attempted to secure land deals with the New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware colonies. These efforts culminated in the Walking Purchase of 1737. Chief Tishcohan (or He Who Never Blackens Himself) was one of the signers of the Walking Purchase of 1737, a treaty with the Penn family that later caused the Lenape to lose most of their land in the Delaware Valley.  It’s certain that “the infamous Walking Purchase defrauded them of considerable land in eastern Pennsylvania.  The Walking Purchase led to years of recriminations and bad feelings. [11] 

Delaware Chief Tishcohan

Tishcohan by Gustavus Hesselius. A 1735 portrait of the Delaware chief Tishcohan, commissioned by John Penn. William Penn’s son. (Portrait courtesy of the Millstone Valley Scenic Byway)

            Another victim of the Walking Purchase, Chief Teedyuscung would eventually leave New Jersey and make his way to Bensalem and align himself with the Moravians. Prior to the American Revolution Chief Teedyuscung would be killed by white vigilantes.  These killings made it clear that it was in the best interest of the Lenape to continue moving west. The legacies of both Chief Tishcohan and Chief Teedyuscung  include their efforts in trying to preserve the culture and legal rights of the Lenape.

Chief Teedyuscung

A depiction of Teedyuscung (Image courtesy of the Wissahickon Valley Park)

            The role of religion became even more prominent during this time period.  Missionaries from various Christian faiths made attempts at converting numerous Native American tribes including the Lenni-Lenape. Associate Professor of History Linford D. Fisher from Brown University said “the rich, overlapping worlds of Native spirituality and Christian practice, one in which the rituals, symbols, and beliefs of European Christianity were adopted by Indians over time, either voluntarily or in response to the overtures of English missionaries.” [12]

One missionary, David Brainerd, played an important role in attempting the religious conversion of the Lenni-Lenape. Professor Lurie and Professor Veit said that “Presbyterian missionaries also were active among the Delaware.  In 1745, David Brainerd, a young Presbyterian minister who belonged to the New Light faction of the church, which emphasized personal salvation and evangelical zeal, began mission work among the Lenape.” [13]  David Brainerd died in 1747 and was succeeded by his brother John who held similar beliefs regarding personal salvation and missionary work.  John Brainerd would be instrumental in the conferences the New Jersey Colonial government held in 1756 and 1758 in which the colony attempted to address the Native Americans consumption of alcohol and made clear the process for selling Indian lands. [14] 

            Throughout the French and Indian War, countless Native American tribes fought on the side of the British and the French. Numerous tribes, including the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey, signed the Treaty of Easton of 1758. Part of the treaty included a provision that the Lenni-Lenape avoid alliances with the French during the war. They also had to forfeit their eastern lands. In return, the British promised to stop expeditions into Indian territory west of the Alleghenies. As a result, many Lenape left New Jersey.  It was around this time that New Jersey created its first Indian reservation, which was called “Brotherton,” and was located in the present-day Indian Mills section of Shamong in Burlington County.   Reverend John Brainerd assisted in the settlement of the reservation. [15] A result of the Treaty of Easton was the establishment of a permanent home for the Lenape that initially saw some success but was ultimately unsuccessful.       

            The Native Americans throughout the colonies had a very distinct role during the American Revolution.  Professor Wilcomb E. Washburn, the former Director for the Smithsonian’s American Studies Program said, “it was a shadowy role, but an important one. It was shadowy not only because the Indian operated physically from the interior forests of North America and made his presence felt suddenly and violently on the seaboard settlements, but because the Indian was present also in the subconscious mind of the colonists as a central ingredient in the conflict with the Mother Country.” [16]  The British and the Colonists made numerous attempts to form alliances with various tribes throughout the colonies.  There was some success in getting the Indians to align with one side or the other. 

            The Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey had already begun to leave by the start of the American Revolution. The Lenape were a divided people with only a small number remaining in the Garden State, while most moved north or west. [17] The Lenni-Lenape that remained in New Jersey during the American Revolution played a significant role. Professor Lurie said,

“During the Revolution, the western Delaware at first tried to stay neutral, but then split as some joined with the British, while others sided with the Patriots.  Thus, this also became a civil war for them.  The United States signed a treaty in 1778 with the chiefs who sided with the Patriots, but White Eyes, the strongest supporter, was murdered, promised supplies were not delivered, and villages of friendly natives were attacked.  In the end, the results were disastrous for the Delaware, whichever side they took, as well as for members of other Indian nations.” [18] 

Following the Revolution, the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey suffered through more broken promises first by the British, who basically abandoned them, and then by the United States government.  By the early nineteenth century, most of the Lenni-Lenape either integrated into the local communities in New Jersey or left the state.  Many went to Canada or the Kansas Territory while others joined other Native American tribes such as the Cherokee.  Others ventured west to “Indian territory” which is today Oklahoma.

            During the nineteenth century, Native Americans, including the Lenni-Lenape, were instrumental in shaping abolitionism, both as participants in antislavery activities and as objects of concern.  In fact, abolitionist support for Native Americans before the Civil War did exist.  Unfortunately, it’s made clear that not all politicians from New Jersey supported both Native American rights and the abolition of slavery. Associate Professor of History Natalie Joy from Northern Illinois University said,

“Especially disappointing was New Jersey senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, among the most vociferous congressional opponents of removal and yet an avowed supporter of the American Colonization Society. Though they praised his “unwearied zeal in the cause of the injured and insulted Cherokees, abolitionists highlighted Frelinghuysen’s continued disengagement with the antislavery cause.” [19]

It appears that Congressman Frelinghuysen was against Indian removal but refused to support the abolition of slavery. This is not surprisingly particularly since New Jersey was the last northern state to abolish slavery following the Civil War. After rejecting the 13th Amendment, New Jersey did finally ratify it on January 23, 1866. 

            By the conclusion of the Civil War, many Lenni-Lenape were living in Kansas. Professor of History C.A. Weslager from Widener University said, “in the winter of 1866, the Department of Indian Affairs brought to Washington the chiefs and councils representing the Indian tribes living in Kansas for the purpose of persuading them to sell their reservations and move to new homes in what was then called Indian Territory, or even further west.” [20]  Treaties were made with various Native American tribes including the Lenni-Lenape.  The Lenni-Lenape sold or gave up their land holdings in Kansas and settled in Oklahoma.

Jennie Bobb, and her daughter, Nellie Longhat, both Delaware (Lenape), Oklahoma, 1915. (Photo courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington)

            The remaining Lenni-Lenape that stayed in Oklahoma were the final collective remnants of a once proud, dominant, and successful people.  Many had already assimilated into American culture by the end of the nineteenth century.  Continued pressure from the United States government would force even more Lenni-Lenape to integrate into white communities.  Sadly, this indigenous group, like the vast majority of other Native American tribes, were systematically deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture. Professor Weslager said, “by 1946, Congress established the Indian Claims Commission to act as a court and provide a regular means of adjudicating claims involving injuries to Indian tribal groups.” [21]  Historians have surmised that this commission was essentially an admission of guilt by the United States Government. The Indian Claims Commission would go on to adjudicate hundreds of claims and award millions of dollars to various Native Americans.  Reparations would be awarded to the Lenni-Lenape and start to be distributed during the late 1960s. 

Conclusion:

            The lives of the Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey before, during, and after the American Revolution is a fascinating and important part of American history. They were a thriving and successful culture until European contact. The Lenni-Lenape were able to remain successful in New Jersey for over a century after European colonization. The Lenni-Lenape had largely left by the beginning of the American Revolution.  However, those who remained did play a role.  During the American Revolution, there was some success in getting the Indians to align with one side or the other.  Regardless, as the United States continued to develop and grow the Native Americans of this continent were deprived of their natural and lawful rights. Native Americans were systematically excluded from having a true voice during European exploration and colonization as well as after the United States was founded.

            By the nineteenth century, Native Americans had no choice but to assimilate in order to survive. Forced assimilation in order to survive is not the same thing as having a legitimate stake in the system.  Time has made most ethnicities, including American Indians, a larger part of the American composition. The role of Lenni-Lenape is crucial in our understanding of the American experience. Regrettably, the Lenni-Lenape, dealt with racist mindsets which were the primary impetus that led to a negative and mostly superficial historiography of their culture that took centuries to completely shift. Historical perceptions and the racial mindsets of Native Americans did eventually change but only after they were deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture.

Works Cited

Calloway, Colin G. “‘We Have Always Been the Frontier’: The American Revolution in Shawnee Country.” American Indian Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1992): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185604.

Fisher, Linford D. “Native Americans, Conversion, and Christian Practice in Colonial New England, 1640-1730.” The Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 1 (2009): 102.

Joy, Natalie. “The Indian’s Cause: Abolitionists and Native American Rights.” Journal of the Civil War Era 8, no. 2 (2018).

Lurie, Maxine N., and Richard F. Veit. New Jersey: A History of the Garden State. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers   University Press, 2018.

Lurie, Maxine N. Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey Caught in the Crossfire. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2022

McCormick Richard P. New Jersey from Colony to State 1609 to 1789. The New Jersey Historical Series, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1964.

Snyder, John Parr. The Story of New Jersey’s Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, Geological Survey, 1969.

Soderlund, Jean R. Lenape Country: Delaware Valley Society Before William Penn. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. Indians and the American Revolution. Accessed December 14, 2022. https://www.americanrevolution.org/ind1.php. 

 Weslager, C. A. The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University Press, 1972.

[1] Calloway, Colin G. “‘We Have Always Been the Frontier’: The American Revolution in Shawnee Country.” American Indian Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1992): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185604.

[2] Lurie, Maxine N., and Richard F. Veit. New Jersey: A History of the Garden State. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers   University Press, 2018, 11.

[3] Lurie & Veit, 16.

[4] Lurie & Veit, 18.

[5] Snyder, John Parr. The Story of New Jersey’s Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, Geological Survey, 1969.

[6] Lurie & Veit, 20.

[7] Soderlund, Jean R. Lenape Country: Delaware Valley Society Before William Penn. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015, 5.

[8] Soderlund, 5.

[9] Soderlund, 2.

[10] McCormick Richard P. New Jersey from Colony to State 1609 to 1789. The New Jersey Historical Series, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1964, 95.

[11] Lurie & Veit, 25.

[12] Fisher, Linford D. “Native Americans, Conversion, and Christian Practice in Colonial New England, 1640-1730.” The Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 1 (2009): 102.

[13] Lurie & Veit, 24.

[14] Lurie & Veit, 24.

[15] Lurie & Veit, 25.

[16] Washburn, Wilcomb E. Indians and the American Revolution. Accessed December 14, 2022. https://www.americanrevolution.org/ind1.php. 

[17] Lurie, Maxine N. Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey Caught in the Crossfire. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2022, 107.

[18] Lurie, 8.

[19] Joy, Natalie. “The Indian’s Cause: Abolitionists and Native American Rights.” Journal of the Civil War Era 8, no. 2 (2018): 222.

[20] Weslager, C. A. The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University Press, 1972, 421.

[21] Weslager, 457.

The Hanoi Train Station: Perspectives and Empathy in Social Studies Education

The Hanoi Train Station: Perspectives and Empathy in Social Studies Education

Jonathan Lee Lancaster

The picture above is “Hanoi station,” which is one of the main train stations in Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam. The train station has keenly unique features; it is centered with a modern, cement block-style design, which is flanked by stunningly ornate yellow wings.

Having conducted research in Vietnam for a few months earlier in the year, I had walked by the Hanoi train station dozens of times without taking much notice; the train station was simply just another building that I passed on my way to my favorite cafe. It wasn’t until I was sitting on the back of a motorbike with a Vietnamese friend while passing the train station that I inquired further about the building. My friend told me that the building was originally built by the French in the early 1900s during France’s colonization of the country; it was then bombed during the war with the United States in the early 1970s; then, it was reconstructed with the help of the Soviet Union later in the 1970s. All of these foreign influences throughout the course of Vietnamese history have given the Hanoi train station its unique look, with its French-style wings and cold, Soviet-looking center. I was baffled at this revelation. For months, I had naively walked by this building without an ounce of knowledge of its origin, supremely oblivious to the historical factors that created it, and – despite being a social studies teacher – ignorant to ask about it earlier.

The Hanoi train station became a symbol to me. It symbolized all of the history that I, as an American, had the privilege to be unaware of. I did not have to live the realities of the Vietnam War’s destruction of Vietnam or its legacies, even if my father’s generation were the ones who perpetrated it. I could simply walk by that history and move on with my day, while the Vietnamese people truly lived in the reality of the wake of the war. Though this was simply a building that embodied the legacies of the war, it symbolized the ongoing Agent Orange effects from the Vietnam War – which continue to produce birth defects – and the thousands of unexploded ordinances (UXOs) that continue to kill people yearly in Southeast Asia. These were the realities that I lived outside, never having to confront.

A few months later, after finishing my research and returning home to New Jersey, I met with some social studies colleagues who were planning their classes for the upcoming year. The overarching topic of discussion was making our social studies classes engaging and interesting for students. While our conversation ebbed and flowed between how to teach colonial American history, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and more, the topic of the Vietnam War emerged.

One colleague was passionately lobbying others to implement an engaging game that he had developed for students last year, in which students were to attempt to create the best strategy for Americans in Vietnam. Students would be put into groups and earn points depending on the evidence and argument for their strategy. The conversation continued, with sprinkled remarks from the other teachers about how they had overheard students talking about the game the previous year, and how students were so engaged. While the discussion continued, my mind started to stray back to one thing in particular: the Hanoi train station.

While American students have the luxury to make a game – no matter the intent or effectiveness – out of the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese people do not. While American students can, in their groups, pitch their argument for the best war strategy for 4 points and then proceed to hurry off to biology class, completely forgetting about the Vietnam War until the 41-minute block the next day, the Vietnamese people do not. While American students can “walk by” the realities of the war and move on with their days, as I had done, the Vietnamese people must live the reality of a post-war torn nation.

This is not a story of Vietnamese pain, nor an attempt to highlight the struggle for recovery of Vietnam after the war. This is about how we, as educators, frame and conceptualize history for our students. It seems that, especially with the passage of time, our empathetic sense weakens; educators are more prone to create seemingly harmless simulations and games in the name of “engagement” out of truly devastating historical events. When we, as educators, have students conduct a “World War II Twitter Project” where student groups embody different nations that fought in the war that must post “comments” to each other, or when students must engage in a simulation in which they are meant to see what it feels like to be {insert some group from history here}, or when we create games for students out of history, we are communicating that the history isn’t reality – it is entertainment. We are, in fact, hurting students’ abilities to empathize with others, as it promotes a dissociative outlook on history where the people described in their textbooks (which hopefully we have moved away from already) or readings are nothing more than mere ink blots on a page. It blends the line between reality and fiction, leading students to believe that it is appropriate to be ignorant of historical processes and products.

Though this is focused mostly on international events, the same applies with domestic history. The sad reality is that if you search for news articles regarding social studies teachers in New Jersey attempting simulations, a number of incredibly grotesque articles will appear of teachers having students do a “simulation” of a slave auction or having students lay on the ground to “simulate” being whipped after picking cotton.

For example, in March of 2017, a Maplewood, NJ teacher held a mock slave auction. Moreover, in the same year, a teacher in South Orange, NJ had students create slave auction posters. More recently, a Toms River teacher had students “pick cotton” and simulate being whipped through sounds of cracking whips. Though these selection of stories are from my home state of New Jersey, this phenomenon is occurring nationwide.

These examples are products of our distorted view of “engagement” in social studies education. It is simply not possible for students to “feel” what it was like to be in any historical event in which a peoples suffer, and it is problematic to attempt to do so. Our attempts to “engage” students seemingly to trick them into learning history while doing so hurts our students’ formulation of their worldview.

While making sure students have “fun” is an important element of a successful classroom, we must ensure that “fun” does not come at the expense of empathy. Unfortunately, the topics that are in humanities’ curricula are seldomly “fun.” It is not easy teaching about wars, plagues, racism, and more; however, social studies provides educators with the ability to leverage those underbellies of our societies and histories to promote cultural competencies, perspective-taking, and contextualization.

While I am not claiming that every simulation or game in social studies is inherently bad, I am saying we have to be very, very careful about what we are doing when we incorporate them. Is the point of the simulation or game merely engagement? If so, it could be extremely problematic. If the point of the simulation or game is towards genuine understanding and empathy, then it may be a sound pedagogical choice.

Nonetheless, bear in mind that history is real, tangible, and has consequences – even if those consequences aren’t felt by you, your students, or in your nation. Just because an event happened long ago or in some other area of the world does not mean we should feel tempted to take it less seriously. Truly reflect on if that game or simulation is presenting history as it should be: a tool to build empathy, analyze the past, and understand our contemporary realities.

So, I urge you to think of the Hanoi train station. What history are you possibly “walking by”? What history are you tempted to represent through a game, simulation, or creative project and what is it truly communicating to students? To what extent can we have “fun” in social studies classrooms while also staying true to fostering the cultural competencies and perspective-taking elements we are striving for? And how can we teach social studies in a manner that promotes global empathy?

Apprehensive About Teaching

Apprehensive About Teaching

Adeola Tella-Williams

The attack on Critical Race Theory is creating controversy in education. For the first time in my professional career, I am apprehensive about teaching any subject having to do with race, religion, Blackness, Whiteness and all things cultural. Why? The simple answer lies in the attempted coup of education by some parents over their misunderstanding about Critical Race Theory and conflating it with Culturally Relevant Teaching. IT IS being used as a political ping-pong, mainly by the Republicans to erase parts of American history that mainly deals with the cruelties of slavery and mistreatment of people of color. While apprehensive, I remain true to history and will always teach as I have been doing for the past 20 plus years.

I have been an educator for 21 years. I began my teaching career in East New York, Brooklyn, as a middle school Social Studies teacher at one of the lowest performing schools in New York City. Regardless of the school’s low performance status, my students were some of the smartest and kindest I have ever taught. They were aware of the shortcomings of their reality. They knew the truth and were not afraid to voice their opinions, good, bad or indifferent. It was fun and challenging teaching them, but they took their agency, no one had to give it to them. After a year in Brooklyn, I left in 2000 to teach conversational English in Tokyo, Japan for a half year and returned to East New York for another year. The past two decades, I have been in the Uniondale School District. I took a sabbatical in 2016 to teach in the United Arab Emirates, where I taught Humanities to Arab, continental African, Canadian, South American, and Indian middle school scholars at American International School, Abu Dhabi. This year, I am teaching African and Latinx History to upperclassmen and Global History to 9th graders in Uniondale High School.

In my years as an educator, I have assisted and led many activities and events outside of the classroom; most notably, a student forum on police brutality in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting back in 2014. I also created a girls Rite of Passage program in 2004 at one of the two middle schools in Uniondale. When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, I assisted the Uniondale High School in planning a “controversial” inauguration assembly in recognition of the first African American elected President of the United States. The program was considered “controversial” because a number of white teachers objected and boycotted the event.

I have also worked with Dr. Alan Singer, professor at Hofstra University, for many years. I asked him to lead a discussion on the complexities surrounding the Iraq war back in 2003 to my middle schoolers and he was the keynote speaker for a forum held between two racially segregated communities, Oceanside and Uniondale. We discussed police brutality and other racially charged issues on Long Island in 2015. The discussion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the absence of weapons of mass destructive also produced heated faculty blowback.

I have immersed myself in “controversial,” or as I would prefer to call them, “contemporary issues” my entire career. I am finding that in this day and age, the topics I chose to cover back then would be considered blasphemy today. For example, Bridges was created to foster empathy, and collaboration amongst White, Black and Hispanic students who live in neighboring communities, attend different schools, and have little contact with each other. It is the goal of the program to engage students in the evaluation of contemporary issues related to race, economics, and politics that will lead to well-rounded, active, and engaged citizens. In Bridges, difficult conversations are encouraged and the asking of challenging questions is nurtured. Divergent points of views are not shunned with the understanding that students can agree to disagree with civility. In this program we have discussed the January 6th insurrection, the legacy of segregation on Black and Brown communities, cross-cultural experiences of Black and White students, and other contemporary issues that would make those who dislike Critical Race Theory very uncomfortable.

Back in 2014, when I decided to do the forum about police brutality in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting with my Participation and Government scholars, I did not think of the backlash or its “controversial” nature. I thought about the hopelessness I saw in my students that September. They looked at me as just another teacher. It was as if they gave up on learning and embraced the Read, Answer Questions, Pass a Test and Repeat pedagogical style. But, little did they know, I was not that teacher, I have never been that teacher. Recognizing this hopelessness in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting prompted me to change the way I would teach this course. As it was my first time teaching the course, I wanted to make it real for the students. After all, it’s a “Participation” in Government class. I took that term “participation” literally and decided they would be active, as opposed to passively learning in this course. Therefore, learning through doing became one of the goals. Their hopelessness from my perspective was due to the way the year began, with the shooting coupled with normal senioritis and a genuine boredom for all things related to school. Therefore, empowering their voices became my mission, and so I challenged them to put on a forum on police brutality. After all, our early ancestors, who created great civilizations in Africa, Greece, Rome and the Americas, held forums to gauge the feelings of their subjects on controversial issues. Furthermore, forums give voice to the voiceless and empower citizens to take further action. To me this is how a democratic society prospers; it actively engages young people early on.

Gone are the days of sitting in the class and taking notes on how great democracy is when in reality my students were not having, or seeing, that same example in their day-to-day lives. In their world, fairness was a fairytale. To them education was boring and they were tired and ready to graduate and join the rest of humanity in the rat race called life. However, I refused to let them leave in this manner. I was, and am, still very idealistic and optimistic about education and what it can do for young people charged with taking over, ready or not. Nonetheless, I charged them with putting on a school-wide forum on police brutality. They were very reluctant at first, as they were not used to being placed in leadership positions. But I assured them that the worst that can happen is the principal says no and then they don’t have the forum, but they had to ask first. They asked and to their surprise, not mine, the principal agreed. My principal at the time, was very supportive of student engagement. Having a strong principal makes a world of difference for a teacher like me. She was not afraid to support any program or event that gave students a voice. Again, as their teacher, my concern was not the backlash. My goals were to help them love learning, give them agency and have them practice their voice.

In preparation for the forum, they researched about the Civil Rights Movement and the history of police brutality in America. I felt they needed to see the trend, be informed, and be armed with solid information when they spoke in front of their peers. I wanted them to be confident when they took to the stage. I wanted them to lead. Many scholars are not given the tools to be leaders in real world scenarios. It was important to me to have these non-AP scholars lead an academic forum in front of their peers who only saw them in non-academic settings. These were scholars that always got in trouble; they were not jocks or honor students, just “regular,” sometimes forgotten people. I wanted them to be heard and seen, as they have something to say and lots to give.

All of the above were also my goals in starting the Rite of Passage program. These were also my goals when I decided to be the first advisor of the Bridges High School program. I believe giving scholars the opportunity to lead and participate in real world scenarios makes education palatable – it makes it real. As with science and math, many scholars ask, “When will I need this in real life?” Some teachers are able to show the why and some aren’t. These days however, STEAM and STEM have become the norm. As a history teacher, Historical and Civic Literacy is just as important as STEAM and STEM to me. Making space for these contemporary issues gives students agency and time to hone their Social Studies skills of argumentation, observation, listening, speaking, analyzing, synthesizing and application.

When I started the Rite of Passage program some ten years ago in my district, it was to help girls of color, especially darker hue girls, accept themselves in a world that constantly ignores them. Another goal was to help girls get along better, to learn how to respect each other despite their difference in hair texture, complexion or whatever else distract girls from being their best. While I did not see this program as controversial, today it seems as though it is. With the Crown Act being passed in California and other states, African textured hair seems to be a problem in the workplace and in schools. Girls of color are 5.5 times more likely to be suspended from school, starting in pre-school. Programs like the Rite of Passage aim to reveal the controversial issues that plague Black girls. Many of the girls I had in the program have since graduated college and are well into their careers. I have received Facebook posts and text messages from them referencing our time together and how impactful those times had on them then and now.

Simply put, I am an educator who does not shy away from contemporary topics or historical controversies in and out of the classroom. My goal has always been to make sure scholars love learning and intrinsically love the art of learning about themselves, within the context of mirrors, windows, and glass sliding doors. I also aim to instill the love of learning in order to help them make their communities a place they are proud of and value. My upbringing in a Jamaican-Nigerian household has strongly shaped my approach as an educator. I also received these messages from my upbringing in my African American community after moving to the United States in 1987 from Nigeria.

Curriculum focused on Culturally Relevant Teaching is under attack and it is being interwoven in the debate about Critical Race Theory. While some elements of culture are in Critical Race Theory, the philosophy was not intended for K-12 education. When parents fail to understand the importance of creating safe spaces for scholars to speak about controversial issues or contemporary issues, it marginalizes young people of color. For instance, White teachers make up 79% of the teaching staff across America, and Black and Hispanic teachers make up less than 5% of the teaching staff in predominantly white schools. Where is the diversity of thought when scholars graduate from high school? How are students of color being taught, let alone having their issues addressed in forums or in the classroom? When does a white child meet or interact with a Black or Brown teacher? These are questions that need to be raised in education. But how can we discuss these and other topics when Critical Race Theory is being conflated with Culturally Relevant Teaching and anything having to do with race or culture is seen as divisive rather than an integral part of progress? School is the place to teach and grapple with controversial topics in a responsible way, of course. The attacks on Critical Race Theory and Culturally Relevant Teaching are making it harder to teach controversial topics in history as well as put on programs about contemporary issues as I have done in the past, creating a tense environment to discuss these topics freely and responsibly. I am afraid educators like me will continue to be apprehensive about teaching subjects having to do with race or spear head programs that raise contemporary issues. I am afraid that the attack on CRT will take over education and take us back to a time when teachers wrote notes on the board, students copied, memorized information, did not or could not ask questions, took a test, barely passed and moved on to the next grade anyway. This type of “teaching” has not been productive, especially in Black and Brown school districts. As a result of this style of pedagogy, if you can call it that, our Black and Brown scholars have been mislabeled, wrongly disciplined and have been marginalized from the curriculum. Really, they are just bored and uninterested in an education that fails to recognize them. As educators we have a responsibility to speak up and not allow the attack on Critical Race Theory to lead us back to the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s when schools did not address the academic needs of Black and Brown students, but instead disproportionately placed them in SPED classes and suspended them in droves, creating the school-to-prison pipeline that so many in education reference today. All students really need is a true education.

The Nazi in the Classroom

The Nazi in the Classroom

Gary Ostrower

(Reprinted with permission from History News Network)

Three days after World War II began, as Nazi troops stormed into Poland, Ohio-born Edward Vieth Sittler (1916-1975), a 23-year-old study-abroad student in Germany, applied for German citizenship. Not only did he become a German citizen; he renounced his American citizenship, became a member of the Nazi Party, and then broadcasted Hitler’s propaganda to American troops in Europe. 

What kind of propaganda? Among other things, he had denounced FDR as a traitor, called for his impeachment, denounced Jews as war profiteers, and predicted that the US would suffer defeat and partition unless it surrendered. Sittler had company. A number of other Americans also served Hitler, including the notorious Axis Sally. After VE-Day, they were arrested by the American military. The Department of Justice charged all but one with treason; the one was Edward Sittler.

Why not Sittler? Because he was no longer a U.S. citizen and only citizens can commit treason.

Sittler soon returned to the United States. Odd that he would be invited back, but the Department of Justice wanted him to testify against the others. He did, sort of. He testified for both the prosecution and the defense. He also used the technicalities of American immigration law to remain in the U.S., perhaps aided by his anti-communism during the 1950s. During that decade, he taught at a number of small colleges including Shurtleff College in Illinois, Thiel in Pennsylvania, Alfred University in western NY, and in 1959, C.W. Post College on Long Island (part of Long Island University today). 

In December 1959 an enterprising reporter for the Long Island Daily Press discovered that he had a Nazi past, the story went national. Protests from veterans’ groups and Jewish organizations flooded into the CW Post president’s office. The college allowed him to “resign.” But Sittler wasn’t about to fade away. He initiated efforts to regain his American citizenship. The Immigration and Naturalization Service investigated him. It recommended against granting him citizenship. Was this proper? Immigration law states that citizenship shall be conferred if an applicant has shown “good moral character” and attachment “to the principles of the Constitution” and has been “well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States” for five years preceding his or her application. Sittler argued that he met this requirement, and nothing suggests otherwise. But when Sittler went to Federal Court to reverse the verdict of the Immigration Service, the highly respected Judge Lloyd McMahon of the US District Court in New York rejected his petition. The judge wrote in a blistering opinion that Sittler’s testimony to the Immigration Service was riddled with “distortions, half-truths, incomplete answers, misleading responses, evasion, [and] concealment” so that “the court can give it no credence whatever.” 

In fact, Sittler claimed that he had simultaneously been loyal to both U.S. constitutional principles and to Nazi Germany. What the judge understood, but Sittler did not, is that he could indeed be loyal to the Constitution or to Nazi ideology, but not to both at the same time. Sittler then appealed to the second highest court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals. Same result. He didn’t help himself by asserting that that he had believed stories about Nazi persecution of Jews were just communist propaganda.

One other corner of this story bears mention. Sittler had told C.W. Post’s Dean L. Gordon Hoxie before he was hired about his Nazi past. Then why hire him in the first place? The college president, “The Admiral” Richard L. Conolly, later explained that everyone has the right to “repent [and] mend his ways.” Only after publicity about Sittler threatened to embarrass the college — and President Conolly – did CW Post demand his resignation. 

And then we have the matter of academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) strongly criticized CW Post because Sittler had not been granted a hearing before the college cut ties with him. The fact that Sittler had agreed in advance to resign if his Nazi background became a problem was considered irrelevant. To the AAUP, the college had violated his “due process” rights. The AAUP viewed this as abridging the principle of academic freedom.

Was Sittler still a Nazi at heart after he returned to the US in 1946? The answer remains murky. Apparently, nothing he did at any of the colleges where he taught revealed Nazi sympathies. Even Jewish students found him unobjectionable. Did he lie when he applied for naturalization? Sure, for he undoubtedly knew that telling “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” would doom his application. Today, his case is forgotten. It shouldn’t be. It raises questions that are still relevant about the law of treason, of citizenship, and about the meaning and limits of academic freedom.[1]

Twists and Turns in the Sittler Saga as Reported in the New York Times

Questions to Consider

  1. Why was Sittler originally permitted to return to the United States?
  2. Why wasn’t Sittler prosecuted for treason?
  3. Should Sittler have been allowed to teach in the United States?
  4. Should Sittler’s United States citizenship have been restored?
  5. Did U.S. officials act responsibly in their treatment of Sittler?
Treason Case Jury to Hear 3 Germans, Will Testify in Capital as U.S. Moves to Reindict Chandler, Best for Nazi Broadcasts New York Times, October 19, 1946    Three Germans will arrive in about a week to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in the cases of Robert Best and Douglas Chandler, American citizens who are charged with broadcasting Nazi propaganda directed against this country from a Berlin radio station. The Justice Department also stated today that new indictments would be sought against the two men, who with six other persons were indicted three years ago for treason in their broadcasts. Under present plans, the Department expects to bring Best and Chandler to trial sometime in November. They will be flown to this country from an Army prison camp at Obresul, Germany. The Germans are Karl Linnard Schotte, an actor and employee of the German broadcasting system in the American Occupation Zone; Edward Vieth Sittler, a singer born in this country, but who has renounced his citizenship, and Margaret Eggers of Hamburg, now an employee of the British Military Government. They will presumably testify to having seen or known that the broadcasts were made by the prisoners. In treason cases, the Government must present two witnesses to an overt act.
Chandler Accused by ‘Best Friend,’ He Testifies that he Watched U.S. Writer Broadcast Propaganda for Nazis New York Times, June 14, 1947          That he had seen Douglas Chandler, American writer on trial here in Federal Court here on charges of treason, speaking into the microphone of the German Broadcasting Corporation was testified today by Edward Veith Sittler, American-born German naturalized Nazi. By his and Chandler’s own statements, Sittler was Chandler’s best friend in Berlin. This did not keep Sittler, born in Baltimore and initiated as a member of Hitler’s party in 1940, from testifying against Chandler on fifteen counts which the Government contends were “overt.” Two persons must provide direct testimony against any person charged with treason if he is to be sentenced to the ultimate penalty – death – or for imprisonment for treason. This was repeatedly emphasized to the jury by the presiding judge as phonograph records bearing what was testified to be Chandler’s voice condemning “the Jews” and warning of the “menace of communism” were played in court. Sittler testified today that his wife, Margaret, was with him on most of the occasions when he observed Chandler’s activities directly. It was thought, therefore, that she would be the second eyewitness. The Sittlers have four children who were brought to this country with him for the trial.
Hopes to Fight Deportation New York Times, February 16, 1950 Edward V. Sittler, former college professor, and admitted wartime Nazi, said today he would fight deportation to Germany if he could raise the money. Told that the Government had ordered him deported, the former professor at Michigan College of Mining and Technology said he would appeal “if at all possible.”
Sittler Appeals Deportation New York Times, December 22, 1950 Edward V. Sittler, former Michigan college teacher who worked for the Nazis in World War II, today appealed from a Nov. 29 deportation order. Mr. Sittler, a native American, went to Germany in 1939, became a German citizen and worked for the Nazi radio. He was brought to tis country by the Justice Department in 1946 to testify in treason trials. He got teaching jobs at Northwestern University and the Michigan College he of Mining and technology.
School to Review Hiring of Ex-Nazi, Post College staff Meets Today on Case of Teacher Who Broadcast in War By Roy R Silver, New York Times, December 15, 1959 Officials of C.W. Post College will meet with the faculty here tomorrow to review the college’s appointment of a former Nazi-party member. Admiral Richard L. Coolly, retired, president of Long Island University, Post College’s parent school, said today that the meeting would cover particulars on the appointment of Dr. Edward V. Sittler as Associate Professor of English and Modern Languages. Dr. Sittler, a 43-year-old native of Delaware, Ohio, has been attacked as having renounced his American citizenship in 1939 propaganda during World War II. The attacks, made in anonymous letters to the college, also said Dr. Sittler has been dismissed from two teaching positions because of his past activities. Dr. Sittler said he had been a news commentator and not a political analyst. He said he had “tried to be as factual as I could.” “I don’t think I ever broadcast deliberately and false information,” Dr. Sittler said. Dean R. Gordon Hoxie of Post College and Admiral Conolly said that Dr. Sittler’s background had been thoroughly investigated before he had been named to the faculty in September. Dr. Sittler said that he had gone to Germany to study in 1937. Two years later he renounced his American citizenship and became a citizen of Germany, where he became a civilian employee of the radio office. He was returned to this country in 1946 as a German national to testify in the treason trial of two Americans who had broadcast for the Nazis. No charge was made against Dr. Sittler. Dr. Sittler was dismissed from Northwestern University, from which he had received his Ph.D., and the Michigan Institute of Mining and Technology. Since then, he said, he has worked at odd jobs and taught at four small colleges. His last employment before Post was at Alfred College, Alfred, N.Y.
Post Faculty Backs Hiring of an Ex-Nazi New York Times, December 16, 1959 The faculty of C. W. Post College in Brookville, L. I. endorsed yesterday the college’s hiring of Dr. Edward V. Sittler, a former Nazi party member. Meanwhile Senator Jacob K. Javits, Assemblyman Alfred Lerner of Jamaica, Queens, and six veterans’ organizations demanded a Federal investigation of the appointment. Admiral Richard L. Connolly, retired, the president of Long Island University, Post College’s parent school, said in a statement that “there was no evidence of sedition or sub version against the United States involved.” Senator Javits has requested details from the Immigration and Naturalization Service on Dr. Sittler’s entry into this country as an immigrant from Cuba in 1954. Meanwhile, the Civil Liberties Union said a teacher should be judged on his competence, not on his political associations.
Former Nazi Voluntarily Quits as a Professor at College on L. I., Dr. Sittler Resigns to Avoid Embarrassing C. W. Post, L. I. U. Chief Says New York Times, December 17, 1959 Dr. Edward V. Sittler, a former Nazi party member, resigned from the faculty of C. W. Post College here today. In announcing the resignation, which had not been requested, Admiral Richard L. Conolly, retired, the president of Long Island University, said: “In order to relieve the college and the university of embarrassment incidental to the recent publicity concerning his case, Dr. Sittler has tendered his resignation as a member of the faculty of the college. “This action came at a time when I was engaged in restudying his suitability as a faculty member. I have accepted his resignation. “I want to make it perfectly clear that in defending Dr. Sittler the university in no sense had any sympathy for his former Nazi viewpoint, but was concerned only for his rights as an individual and member of an academic faculty.” Dr. Sittler had been hired in September by C. W. Post College, a branch of Long Island University, for a one-year term as associate professor of English and modern languages.
Ohioan Explains Work for Nazis, Ex-Professor, in Citizenship Bid, Says He Was Misled on Trip to Germany New York Times, March 30, 1960 An Ohio-born broadcaster for Nazi Germany who is seeking to recover his American citizenship offered his explanation yesterday for renouncing it in Berlin in the spring of 1940. Dr. Edward V. Sittler, the appellant, resigned from the faculty of C. W. Post College of Long Island University last December when his past came under attack. He testified at a hearing on his petition at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 20 West Broadway. He said he applied for German citizenship in the fall of 1939 because he thought Germany was “up against a crucial test” with enemies in Europe and “needed a helping hand.” He said that on receiving his certificate of German nationality he notified the American Embassy in Berlin that he was giving up American citizenship. He said he had scarcely imagined that Germany might later be at war with the United States. Dr. Sittler said he was drafted briefly into the German army, but was deferred against his wishes and returned to his former duties. He was a translator and later an announcer and commentator for the “U.S.A. Zone” of the Reichsrundfunkgesellschaft, the German state broadcasting corporation in Berlin. He emphasized the immaturity and the superficiality of his political understanding when he went to Germany at the age of 21 in 1937 to study German with a view to teaching comparative literature. He acknowledged joining the Nazi party in 1942 or 1943. His present view, he said, is that “the only genuine security lies in a constitution and a legal system.”
Nazis’ Radio Aide Cites his Naivete, Disbelieved Wartime Report of Death Camps, Sittler Tells Inquiry Here New York Times, March 31, 1960                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Dr. Edward V. Sittler, who became a German citizen and broadcast over the Nazi radio in World War II, said yesterday that during the war he had heard only one report of extermination camps. “I thought it was incredible,” he told a preliminary hearing at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 20 West Broadway, on his petition to regain the citizenship he renounced in 1940. He said the report came in 1943 from Gerhardt Wagner, his immediate superior in the Berlin broadcasts beamed to the United States. He said Wagner had heard on a trip to northern Poland and Lithuania that German Jews ostensibly sent there for resettlement were actually being put to death. Dr. Sittler later testified that he had suggested that Wagner be investigated “to see if he was a Communist agent.” He told also of his wartime friendship with and assistance to Douglas Chandler, an American-born broadcaster for the Germans who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the United States. Mitchel Levitas, reporter for The New York Post, testified under subpoena to the accuracy of quotations in an account he and Ted Poston of the same paper published Dec. 15 following an interview with Dr. Sittler. These included statements by Dr. Sittler that Hitler had the good of his country at heart, that Hitler and National Socialism were a tragic and disgraceful chapter in many respects, and that the influence of the Jewish community on President Roosevelt was one of the prime reasons the United States had become involved in World War II. Dr. Sittler, under questioning by his attorney, William Stringfellow, acknowledged “errors” in his past, then said, “I look on America as my home and want to re-establish my citizenship with it.”
Sittler Loses Citizenship Plea; His Activities as Nazi are Cited, Examiner Rules He Does Not Deserve to Regain His Rights as American New York Times, September 2, 1960 Dr. Edward V. Sittler’s plea for the restoration of his United States citizenship should be denied, an examiner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recommended yesterday. Dr. Sittler, a 44-year old native of Delaware, Ohio, lost his citizenship in 1940 when he became a German citizen. During World War II he was a radio broadcaster for the Nazis. The examiner, William J. Kenville, said the applicant’s wartime conduct, including membership in the Nazi party, “must be regarded as indicative of an utter and complete lack of faith in the democratic way of life under which he had been reared in the United States, and of completely embracing the diametrically opposed totalitarian form of government then existing in Nazi Germany.” Mr. Kenville also reported that Dr. Sittler’s testimony was “not at all convincing that he has changed his mind or altered his philosophy since 1945.”  

Citizenship Plea Lost by Ex-Nazi, Ban on Renaturalization of Sittler is Upheld By Edward Ranzal, New York Times, April 13, 1963. The United States Court of Appeals refused yesterday to restore citizenship to an American who became a Nazi propaganda broadcaster in Germany during World War II. The judges were divided 2 to 1. The 47-year old American, Edward Vieth Sittler, became a German citizen in 1940, but returned here after the war and sought to regain his American citizenship. Since his return he has been a professor or instructor in various colleges and universities in this country. In each instance he lost his position when it was learned that he had been a Nazi. Sittler, who has five children – two born here and three in Germany — is residing with his family in West Germany, according to Roy S. Babitt, assistant United States Attorney.

[1] Note from Gary B. Ostrower: I was a student at Alfred University when Sittler taught here in 1958-59. My roommate, a Jewish student from Yonkers, was a student in a German class that Sittler taught. I know even today a number of people—former colleagues and neighbors—who knew and continue to think highly of Sittler. I think it is fair to say that we all were stunned when news broke in 1959 about Sittler’s Nazi past.

My Story: Guillam Demarest, Bergen County, NJ, 1781

My Story: Guillam (Gilliam) Demarest

Bergen County, NJ 1781

August, 1781 (Two months before the Battle of Yorktown)

Father came to visit today. I think this was his fourth visit to the Sugar House Prison in New York City on Crown (now Liberty Street) in four days, but my memory might be failing me — hunger tends to expand time. It feels like decades since my stomach was full. These measly rations (when we get them) would be barely enough to satisfy a small baby, let alone a nineteen-year old man. Of course, my father, David, reminds me that my hunger is my choice. I need but only swear fealty (loyalty) to the Crown, abandon my principles of liberty, and turn against the twenty-three other Patriot members of my family to no longer be hungry.

Father accused me of betraying our country, but how can I betray a country I never felt I belonged to? Our ancestors are French, not British, and we don’t even speak English at home – we speak Jersey Dutch. He is the traitor, not I.  Even my mother, Jane, doesn’t support his decision to join the British.

Father told me to join him and his refugee group. He demanded I join him. But if I join him now, what about Philip and John, my cousins? We were captured together by my father and his men, who were raiding homes in the area for food and supplies, at New Bridge in August but separated upon arrival at the prison (Lurie: Taking Sides, Page 101).

I wonder what will happen to Mother when this is all over. If the British win, will she be persecuted because she and her sons supported the American cause? Will they point to the fact that I willingly enlisted five different times (in 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, and 1781) for the American militia?  If we win, will she be persecuted because her husband fought on the side of the British? I do not know if I will make it out of this Sugar House prison to see her again. I think I might have a fever. Two men next to me had a fever five days ago. Now, they are dead.

Oh, how I wish I could ask them what they would do….

What should Guillam do in this situation?

  1. Accept his father’s offer to take An Oath of Allegiance to the Crown?
  2. Refuse his father and remain in the Sugar House prison until the Patriots arrange for his release through a prisoner exchange?
  3. Attempt to escape from the Sugar House prison before he dies?
  4. Do something else? Explain.

Guillam ultimately chose to refuse his father’s offer and remained in the Sugar House prison for nine months. Following his release, he rejoined the American militia, where he ended up receiving a serious hand injury. In 1782, Guillam married Bridget Brower with whom he had six children. His father, David, who according to a family acquaintance, “deserted his country’s cause,” moved to Nova Scotia after the war. His mother Jane, ended up having her property confiscated because of her husband’s decision to join the British army. She remained in New Jersey with Guillam.

My Story: George Morgan White Eyes, Princeton, NJ, 1778-1790

My Story: George Morgan White Eyes

Princeton, Mercer County

1778-1790

Koquethagechton, also known as White Eyes, was a Lenape chief living in Ohio Country. He married Rachel Doddridge, a white woman who had been taken captive by the Lenape at age 5 and had become fully assimilated to Lenape life. As an adult, Doddridge chose to remain an adopted Lenape.

When the American Revolution began, Koquethagechton initially tried to remain neutral, but before long it became evident that he would have to take sides. In 1777, Koquethagechton addressed the Continental Congress, and the following year negotiated a peace treaty with American representatives.

Which of the following provisions should Koquethagechton have sought in a peace treaty?

Select one option and explain your answer in 3 to 5 sentences.

  • A new state shall be created for the Lenape, incorporating the nation into the United States with representation in Congress.
  • The United States must build a fort in Lenape territory to help protect the Lenape from attacks by other Native American nations or from the British.
  • The United States shall provide the Lenape with clothing, utensils, and weapons as needed.

Amazingly, the Treaty of Fort Pitt, signed September 17, 1778, included all of these provisions. The promise of a 14th state along with Congressional representation is something that was never promised to any other Native American group, but relied upon the further approval of Congress. Unfortunately, the treaty never received the support of Congress and was ultimately rendered meaningless.

Later that year, while accompanying American soldiers in Ohio Country, Koquethagechton died at the age of 48. Initially the cause of death was reported as smallpox, but eventually it was revealed he had been murdered by the American militia. Nearly ten years later (circa 1788), Rachel Doddridge was murdered in the course of a robbery by white men disguised as Native Americans. Both of their stories are compelling and worthy of more examination, but our focus here turns to their son, George Morgan White Eyes, partly named for Koquethagechton’s American friend, who would become the boy’s guardian.

White Eyes was seven years old when his father died. The Continental Congress assumed financial responsibility for the upbringing of the chief’s son. White Eyes was likely the first recipient of government-based student financial aid from the U.S. government. After completing grammar school, he was enrolled at the College of New Jersey in Princeton in 1785.

In December 1787, he and three other students were summoned before a disciplinary committee for insolence towards a tutor. Apparently, it wasn’t the only time he’d gotten in trouble at school. His guardian decided to remove him from Princeton and sent him to New York City to temporarily be under the care of a merchant tailor while awaiting instructions from Congress on what to do with young White Eyes. His guardian explained in a letter to Congress that White Eyes’ misbehavior may have had to do with his learning the news of his mother’s recent death and the long-concealed truth about his father’s murder. Morgan suggested that instead of sending him back to Princeton – or back to his nation – that White Eyes be sent to a different institution of higher learning, like Yale.

Which of the following choices do you think 18-year-old George Morgan White Eyes would make?

Select one option and explain your answer in 3 to 5 sentences.

  • Go back to Ohio Country to live among his own people.
  • Let his future be decided by George Morgan and the decision of Congress.
  • Strike out on his own in the New York to find a job and be independent.
  • Appeal directly to someone in power, explaining his desire to either be given a job or further education.

On June 2, 1789, George Morgan White Eyes wrote to President George Washington:

“[N]ot the severest Want shall make me return to my native Country—Tis thought from the Behaviour of my Colleagues while at Princeton that I will follow their Example—but never—I shall say but little but I trust my heart is fixed, & the time may come that this now feeble Arm, may be stretched out in the Service of America; & render the United or Individual States essential Service.

My humble request is & has this some Months past, that if the Burthen (sic) is too great on the United States that some kind of Employment may be pointed in order that I thereby may obtain a Living a[long] the Line that Congress probably first intended—That is agreeably to the Education they have been pleased to bestow upon me—I care not what [it] is I am willing to do what I am able, & you should think necessary to my future Welfare—[E]ntreating your Excellency’s kind Patronage on this Occasion I have the Honor to remain With the most perfect Respect, Sir, Your most Obedient & most devoted Servant”

Congress did not act quickly, and as the weeks went by, ‘the severest want” apparently changed White Eyes’ mind. He wrote President Washington again:

“The treatment I met with at Princeton & the Character I bear (which I know I am innocent of) here, are great Grievances to me, especially as I have undergone a great many Difficulties, I shall stear (sic) my Course towards my native [country] let the Consequence be what it will.

For it is better for me to live in Contentment & Quietude, than a life Contempt & Ignominy.1 I have not had any thing this while past & I am almost naked, thro’ some guile or other, for what I know. I believe they are tired of doing any thing for me & I am tired waiting for their duty which is incumbent on them by a resolve of Congress.

I am now to look out for myself since I cannot behave myself, better than I have done; for all that I do is in vain, yet all these things are not discourages of my staying here any longer, but I am [anxious] to return & see my Mother & Friends, as it ought to become every person who has a regard for their Nation. I beg you would assist me in my return as I have no other person to apply to; but if not I must do as well as I can.” Source

In March of 1790, George Morgan White Eyes returned to his nation in Ohio Country.

Sadly, his story has an ignominious ending. Eight years later (1798) in West Point, Ohio, an intoxicated White Eyes ran at 17-year-old William Carpenter Jr. with a tomahawk. Fearing for his life, Carpenter shot White Eyes, killing him instantly. Initially the boy and his father were charged with murder and aiding and abetting, but the case never came to trial.

To GEORGE MORGAN Mount Vernon, August 25, 1788.

Sir: The letter which you did me the favor of writing to me the 31st. of last month, with a Postscript to it on the 5th. of this, came duly to hand; as did a small parcel of wheat, forwarded some time before, by the Post Master General from New York. For your polite attention to me in these instances I pray you to accept my best acknowledgments and Thanks. With much concern I have heard of the ravages of the Hessian fly on the wheaten Crops in the States East of the Delaware and of the progress of this distructive (sic) insect Southerly; but I congratulate with you sincerely on your successful endeavors in the management of your measures &c. to counteract them. If the yellow bearded wheat from a continuation of experiments is found no matter from what cause, to be obnoxious to and able to withstand this all devouring insect [it] must indeed be valuable; but I have paid too little attention to the growth of this particular kind hitherto, to inform you in what degree of cultivation it is in this State, I may venture, at a hazard, however, to add that it is rare: because it is unusual to see fields of bearded wheat of any kind growing with us, particularly in the Western parts of the State, which falls more immediately under my observation. I will distribute the Seed which you have sent me; make enquiry into this matter and communicate the result, begging in the meantime, if any further observations on this insect, and the means of guarding against him should be made by you that you will have the goodness to communicate them to. 67 Source

Our Story: Prisoner Exchange, September 1776, Middlesex County, NJ

Our Story: Prisoner Exchange

Middlesex County, NJ September 1776

In the summer of 1776, the American Patriots were struggling to hold British attacks off with their meager forces. The capital city of New Jersey is Perth Amboy, a short distance from New York Harbor where the opening battle of the American revolution took place.

After the Battle of Brooklyn Heights on Long Island on August 27-29, 1776 over 20,000 American soldiers in General Washington’s army were captured and sent to prison ships and prisons in New York. (Lurie, 72). The conditions in these prisons were deadly due to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and lack of food. According to Alexander Coffin Jr., 

“But to cap the climax of infamy we were fed (if fed it might be called) with provisions not fit for any human being to make use of—putrid beef and pork, and worm-eaten bread.” (Thompson, 241)

 The prison ship, the Jersey

Would you like to be…  
An officer in General Washington’s army stationed near Perth Amboy?An enlisted soldier from Middlesex County captured by the British and held captive on the Jersey, prison ship stationed in the Atlantic near Perth Amboy?

You face challenges and officers and enlisted men alike struggle to survive for the next few months, but during the disastrous Battle of Long Island, many in your battalion are taken prisoner by the British. On September 11, two weeks after the Battle of Long Island, and five days before the Battle of Harlem Heights, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Edward Rutledge secretly met with British Admiral Richard Howe to discuss the release of the prisoners held by the British. The British have captured thousands of Americans and there are perhaps hundreds of British citizens (Loyalists) and several British officers held in detention in different colonies, including some in prisons in Perth Amboy and Burlington, New Jersey. 

If you are an officer, you were able to escape, but now you have to decide if and how to negotiate for the release of others held in captivity. The winter months are coming and the prisons in New York have no heat and the prison ships on the open seas are subject to extreme weather conditions. The fate of all prisoners is at risk.If you are an enlisted man, you were captured and taken to the prison ship Jersey, where you are forced to endure terrible conditions that you may not survive. You can either wait for your release to be negotiated and hope for the war to end soon or disavow your loyalty to the Continental Army and join the British.
Quote to consider:   Adams’ description of his meeting with General Howe on September 9, 1776 “Lord Howe had sent over an Officer as a Hostage for our Security. I said to Dr. Franklin, it would be childish in Us to depend upon such a Pledge and insisted on taking him over with Us, and keeping our Surety on the same side of the Water with Us. …We walked up to the House between Lines of Guards of Grenadiers, looking as fierce as ten furies, and making all the Grimaces and Gestures and motions of their Musquets with Bayonets fixed, which I suppose military Ettiquette requires but which We neither understood nor regarded.”   Frazza,Quote to consider:   Captain Thomas Dring on his imprisonment on the Jersey prison ship “Thousands there suffered and died, whose names have never been known to their countrymen. They died where no eye could witness their fortitude, no tounge could describe their sufferings, or praise their devotion to their country. For years, the very name of ‘the Old Jersey,’ seemed to strike a terror to the hearts of those whose necessities required to venture upon the ocean; the mortality which prevailed on board her was well known throughout the country; and to be confined within her dungeons, was considered equal to a sentence of death, from which but little hope of escape remained.” Thompson, 240
Your Choices: Your Choices:
Why should the British consider soldiers captured in battle as prisoners of war since England does not recognize the independence of their American colonies?   How will you convince the British to provide for humanitarian conditions for the prisoners they have without any means to enforce a code of conduct?   If you have a British officer in an American jail would you be willing to negotiate the release of one officer for a number of enlisted soldiers in the Continental Army?   How will you prevent the British from going house to house and arresting innocent Americans in the territories they hold, potential to trade for British officers and soldiers held in American prisons?   Should you provide a guarantee to the British that American soldiers will not return to the battlefield if released?   If you were traveling with Franklin, Adams, and Rutledge when they were leaving Perth Amboy to meet with the British on Staten Island to discuss the release of prisoners, what would you do to ensure your own safety?In the face of death from starvation or unsanitary conditions in a British prison ship, would you be willing to sign the Oath of Abjuration and Loyalty to the British government or would you remain loyal to your comrades?   When faced with the brutal reality of prison and the potential of death by disease, what would you do to try to save your friend’s life?   The prisoners also include women and children. Women and children were also captured in the battles of New York and northern New Jersey.  Would you be willing to sacrifice some of your already limited food to help a woman feed her starving child?   Would you be willing to risk hanging for treason or additional punishment by sending a message to the Americans begging for release?   Should the Continental Congress request the help of a foreign government to negotiate with England on the release of American prisoners or negotiate for improved humanitarian conditions? Which country would you recommend and why? What is the incentive for this government to support the Americans?   If you were to negotiate a prisoner exchange, what should the Continental Congress offer for the release of enlisted American soldiers? 

Oath of Allegiance (Lurie, p.81)

Interior of Jersey (Darley and Bookhaut)

Sources

The History of Long Island; from its Discovery and Settlement, to the Present Time. With Many Important and Interesting Matters; Including Notices of Numerous Individuals and Families; Also a Particular Account of the Different Churches and Ministers, by Benjamin Franklin Thompson, 1843. Linked here

Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey: Caught in the Crossfire, by Maxine N. Lurie, 2022.

“Revolutionary War Sites in Perth Amboy, New Jersey,” by Al Frazza, 2022. Linked here

Interior of the old Jersey prison ship, in the Revolutionary War, Edward Bookhout, engraver, and

Felix Octavius Carr Darley, artist, 1855. Linked here

My Story: Joshua Huddy, April, 1782, Monmouth County, NJ

Decision Activity

Captain Joshua Huddy, Monmouth County April 12, 1782

The wooden Block House in Toms River was a target of the Loyalists since it was erected in 1777 at the intersection of Main and Water Streets. It was a fortress defended by Patriots to protect the salt produced in this area and to protect the Patriot privateers in Barnegat Bay.  Salt was necessary to preserve fish and meat and produced in Toms River for about $15 a barrel but controlled by the British. It sold in Morristown, New Jersey for $35 a barrel. Because of inadequate military forces and the lack of an economy during the war, corruption was widespread in New Jersey. This was a dangerous stretch of coastline in North America, and Captain Huddy had previously defended it against several British attacks, in April and August of 1778.

As a result, on September 1, 1780, the home of Captain Joshua Huddy in Colts Neck was attacked by 72 men. They were all Loyalist rebels or Refugees, under the command of Lieutenant Joseph Parker and William Hewlett. The Refugee Club was organized by John McKinley, former President of Delaware, after his release from prison in Flatbush, New York.  In a fight that lasted for two hours, Captain Huddy was captured and his home was burned and plundered. He escaped by jumping from a boat as he was being taken prisoner.

Captain Huddy was a privateer who was commissioned by the Continental Congress as a privateer to attack British ships along the Jersey coast and in Barnegat Bay. He was captain of the Black Snake, a whaleboat and conducted raids after his escape.

After the British surrender at Yorktown, Captain Joshua Huddy was assigned to protect the Block House in Toms River on January 1, 1782 with a small arsenal of ammunition and the support of several local Patriots living in the Toms River area.  The Loyalist refugees gathered at Sandy Hook under the command of Lieutenant Blanchard. Their journey to Toms River was delayed by storms but they arrived at midnight on March 23, 1782.  The Loyalists marched to the Block House where Captain Huddy and about 15 Americans engaged in fighting until they had no more ammunition. Captain Huddy was captured and taken to prison in New York.

Joshua Huddy was accused of executing Stephen Edwards a Loyalist from Middletown, NJ, who was found guilty of treason as a British spy. The British wanted revenge against Huddy and former the royal governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, ordered Captain Richard Lippincott to hang him.

“That the governor judging it proper that retaliation should take place sent for me upon the occasion and gave me orders (which I supposed were authorized by the Board) for the execution of Huddy.”

There were negotiations for Captain Huddy’s release. Captain Charles Asgill, age 19, was held in an American prison in the Chathams with other British officers. He was selected to be executed in exchange for the release of Captain Huddy and 13 other British officers held in American prisons.   Captain Asgill received the sympathy of the American people and his mother, Lady Theresa Asgill, asked the Count de Vergennes, foreign minister to King Louis XVI, to obtain her son’s release. This was granted.

As a result, Captain Huddy remained in prison with undocumented charges against him regarding the murder of Philip White, a refugee who was captured by Patriot forces in the area of Colts Neck. During his transport to jail, he jumped from his horse and was shot and wounded. After he was captured again, he was violently abused and died on March 30, 1782.  During this time, Captain Huddy was a prisoner from March 26, 1782 until his execution on April 12 of the same year. He was not near the area of Colts Neck or able to witness the atrocity that came to Philip White.

The British then accused Captain Huddy of boasting of the hanging of Stephen Edwards while in prison, an event that occurred five years earlier in September 1777. Stephen Edwards was arrested and found guilty of treason during his trial and sentenced to death.  Captain Huddy claimed his words were twisted by Captain William Cunningham because of his statement, under oath, that “I greased the Rope that it might slide more easily.” I did not hang Stephen Edwards. There is a difference between approving of an execution by a rope that would intentionally be an act of mercy in a death by hanging. Captain Huddy claimed he did not physically take part in the execution.

On April 8, 1782 Huddy was transferred from the Sugar House prison in New York to the prison ship, Brittanie, which was stationed off the Sandy Hook coast.  On April 12, 1782, Captain Huddy was taken ashore at Gravelly Point, near Sandy Hook, from the British prison ship. He was carried to the beach and they pinned to his chest the following:

“We, the Refugees, having long with grief beheld the cruel murders of our brethren, and find nothing but such measures daily carried into execution, therefore determined not to suffer without taking vengeance for the numerous cruelties; and this being, having made us of Captain Huddy as the first object to present to your view; and we further determine to hang man for man wile (sic) there is a Refugee existing. Up goes Huddy, for Philip White.”

He stated in his Will: “In the name of God, Amen.  I, Joshua Huddy of Middletown in the County of Monmouth, being of sound mind and memory, but expecting shortly to depart this life, I declare this my last will and testament.

First, I commit my soul unto the hands of Almighty God hoping he may receive it in mercy; and next, I commit my body to the earth, do also appoint my trusty friend Samuel Forman to be my lawful executor and after all my debts be paid, I desire that he divide the rest of my substance whether by book debts, note, or any effects whatever, my children, Elizabeth and Martha Huddy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed my name this 12th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two.”

He was hanged at 10:00 in the morning and left on the tree until friends removed his body to Freehold after 4:00 p.m.

“This murder was attended with so much deliberate injustice and wanton cruelty, that the circumstances ought to be preserved and made publick, not only to call upon the vengeance of his countrymen to expiate the names of the sufferer, but as a shocking instance of the blackness of that guilt which human nature is capable…

Over 400 respectable citizens met in Monmouth on April 14, 1782 approving an appeal to General Washington:

“To his Excellency, George Washington, Esq., Commander-in-chief pf the combined armies of America and France, acting in North America, etc., etc.

“the inhabitants of the County of Monmouth, being assembled on account of the horrid and almost unparallel murder of Captain Joshua Huddy by the Refugees from New York, and, as we presume, by approbation, if not by the express command of the British Commander-in-chief, Sir Henry Clinton; hold it as out indispensable duty, as well to the United States in general as ourselves in particular, to show to your Excellency that the aforesaid Captain Joshua Huddy, late commanding the post at Toms River, was after a brave and gallant defense, made a prisoner of war, together with fifteen of his men, by a party of refugees from New York, on Sunday, the 24th of March last past. That five of the said Huddy’s men were most inhumanely murdered after the surrender; that the next day, at night, to wit, on Monday, the 25th of March aforesaid, the said Captain Huddy and the other prisoners who had been spared from the bayonet, arrived at New York, and were lodged in the main guard during that night; that on Tuesday morning, the 26th of the same month, the said Huddy was removed from the main guard to the Sugar-House.” 

On April 19th at West Point a Council of War met an informed General Washington that Captain Richard Lippincott needed to be released to them. On April 21 General Washington notified British commander Sir Henry Clinton. The British refused to turn Captain Lippincott over to the Americans. Instead, they ordered a court martial of Captain Lippincott and an investigation of the execution of Captain Huddy.  In May, Sir Henry Clinton was replaced by Sir Guy Carleton, who condemned the execution of Joshua Huddy.

Captain Joshua Huddy was buried on April 15, 1782 with the honors of war. The funeral sermon was preached by Reverend John Woodhull, pastor of the Tennent Church. There is Huddy Park on Bay Ave. in Highlands, NJ in remembrance of Joshua Huddy.  Even after the Battle of Yorktown, over 5,000 Americans remained in British prisons and on prison ships under inhumane and horrible conditions of abuse.

Decisions:

If you were General Washington…

  1. Would you have tolerated war crimes by Loyalists and Refugees following the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown?
  2. Would you have been stronger in your demand for the release of Captain Joshua Huddy after he was taken prisoner?
  3. Would you have allowed the British to incarcerate more than 5,000 Americans in their prisons under cruel and deadly conditions? How would you handle this?
  4. Did you commit a crime by not demanding justice for the immoral actions against Captain Joshua Huddy, his wife and two daughters?

If you were Captain Richard Lippincott….

  1. Are you at peace in carrying out the orders to execute Captain Joshua Huddy for his acts against British soldiers and Loyalists?
  2. Is your execution justified If evidence is produced that Captain Joshua Huddy operated a black market in salt and supported illegal actions of the privateers in Barnegat Bay?
  3. Who do you say is responsible for the murder of the Captain Joshua Huddy? Why?

https://www.accessible-archives.com/2017/02/execution-stephen-edwards-spy/

Joshua Huddy: The Scourge of New Jersey Loyalists

On February 14, 1837, The United States Congress granted the heirs of Captain Huddy (his daughters Elizabeth and Martha), the benefits of existing pension laws. The same as if he had been an officer of the regular Continental service; also giving them six hundred acres of the public lands and the sum of twelve hundred dollars, it being the amount due to him for seven years’ service as captain of artillery.

Discussion: Do you agree with this resolution?

I am an American: The Wong Kim Ark Story

I am an American: The Wong Kim Ark Story

by Martha Brockenbrough with Grace Lin (Little, Brown, 2021)

Review by Valerie Ooka Pang

This review was originally published in the International Examiner and is
republished with permission.
https://iexaminer.org/honoring-remembering-and-sharing-the-life-of-kim-arkand-his-fight-for-justice/

Has anyone questioned your citizenship? Has anyone ever said to you, “You don’t belong here. Go back to where you came from!”? Meaning you are not an American and should go back to where you came from. This happened to me often in Eastern Washington where I grew up, yet if I was to go back to where I came from, that would have been Seattle, Washington, where I was born. Why didn’t other youngsters think of me as an American? I could also be an immigrant who became an American like Wing Luke, who was the first person of color elected to the Seattle City Council.

Race is a powerful element of American society. People judge others based on their skin color, physical characteristics, stature and cultural practices. I am Japanese American and many of the young people I grew up with did not think of Japanese Americans as Americans. I was seen as a foreigner and so did not belong in the United States, though I lived in the state of Washington all of my
life. I wish there had been a book like I am an American: The Wong Kim Ark Story so their teachers could read it to their students. The book is about how Wong Kim Ark went to court and fought for his right as an American citizen.

In 1873, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California to parents from China.
Chinese immigrants suffered much prejudice living in California. His parents left San Francisco in 1890 to go back to China while he stayed with relatives in California. Wong Kim Ark visited his parents in 1894 on a temporary trip. When he returned to San Francisco, he was not allowed to enter the United States because officials said he was not a citizen. He was put in prison because of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law that did not allow Chinese workers into the United States. Lawyers sued to get him out of prison in district court.

At that time Wong Kim Ark was about 21 years old. He argued that since he was born in San Francisco, he was a citizen. Members of the Chinese community pooled their finances and hired several lawyers to represent Wong Kim Ark. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, since Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States, he was a citizen even though his parents were from China.

The Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Ark is important because often race is used as an obstacle in establishing citizenship for other Asian Americans and people of color. The Supreme Court ruled that birth in the United States establishes citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark case supports his statement of “I am an American.” Even after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kim Ark, he had to carry a certificate of identity “to prove he was an American.” Racism was still strong in the United States.

This is an excellent story to read to children to show that the United States is a diverse country, and its citizens are members of many different ethnic and racial groups. Every student and teacher should know who Wong Kim Ark is and how he
helped to establish citizenship rights for people of color in the United States. Most learners and educators do not know about the contributions that many Asian American and Pacific Islander people have made to our civil rights.

Consider purchasing this book for your children or educators. There should be more AAPI role models presented in school. This book is an exceptional resource. There is additional information about the case at the end of the text. The timeline of historical events is especially informative. It includes dates about Wong Kim Ark’s life and different immigration legislation. As Wong Kim Ark said, “I am an American.”

Finding Our Place in Revolutionary History

Finding Our Place in Revolutionary History
Karen Parker

All human beings want to feel like they belong to something bigger. This is
especially true when students reach adolescence, their whole psyche revolves around being liked, accepted, and belonging to a group. The importance of that “place” that they hold is the driving force held together by peers, social media, cliques, fashion, and home. Relating part of their place to history and pique that sense of belonging to that history, not feeling left out of it as a spectator, not feeling odd or different from the people and feeling like they are connected with the locations, can be the key to the level of engagement. Luckily, in New Jersey, it is not difficult to find Revolutionary era connections in our backyards and neighborhoods.

There is a disconnect with children during their education of history. Students often feel disconnected because of the difficulties in relating to elapsed time, distant places, and unfamiliar habits and customs. As educators, it is our challenge to create as many opportunities for connections as possible, to have the students relate to some “thin and brittle” threads of familiarities, and often we can wrestle grudging interest in the topics presented.

History, unlike active experimentation in science and the excitement of fiction in
language arts, is unsurprisingly often deposited toward the end of the favorite subject list, to muddle around in student’s heads where they view the facts as dull lists of events and dates of forced importance with scattered entertaining facts – more so if they relate to a holiday that includes time off from school.

To connect with people from generations past, it is important to find that common ground with today. Where I grew up in Morris County, I lived a short drive from an active and preserved area of Revolutionary history, spending many hours of my childhood roaming the woods and fields of Revolutionary significance, taking short field trips to Jockey Hollow, Fort Nonsense, and the Ford Mansion. Where I teach in Hunterdon County, the most notable area is Washington’s Crossing State Park, with which many of my students are completely unfamiliar, and the war to them
seems very distant. It is important to find nearby locations and people that are
connected to the Revolution era.

In my research for the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies, I was looking
for information on people from Hunterdon County who were actively involved in the
Revolutionary War. There were many references to soldiers, the Commissary General for Washington’s army and the local militia, but I came across one primary
source that I thought might catch the interest of my students.

Through researching into the life of this average local person, James Parker, reading about his daily missives on the management of the property, connections to the effects that the war had on the common people became evident. Parker’s
connections began as a proprietor whose primary residence was in one of the colonial capitals, Perth Amboy. He was a major landowner in Hunterdon County, owning land in what is now Kingwood, Union, Bethlehem, and Tewksbury Townships and built a large stone house in Union Township called Shipley. It is interesting to note that many people in this local area were not following the political patriots, but many had loyalist leanings or were ambivalent.

Mr. Parker was one of those who did not support the patriotic feelings and was
sentenced and jailed by the New Jersey Council of Safety during the summer of 1777, in Morristown, for refusing to take an oath renouncing loyalty to Britain. He was paroled and exchanged for a Patriot held in New York in 1778. At this time, he spent
more and more of his time in Hunterdon County, overseeing his lands. Some think
that he was avoiding the political climate of the large shore town of Perth Amboy,
though he documents in his farm journal his travels back and forth to his original home for proprietor meetings.

Some other examples of Parker’s political leanings come from an entry in his journal that appeared sympathetic to a local loyalist family, the Voughts who lived in Clinton, known then as Hunt’s Mill, about three miles away from Parker’s home in Pittstown.. On December 18, 1778, Doc Smith took his contribution to a relief fund for women, wives of people gone into the British line and had all of their effects sold. This is the same date that the Voughts had all of their belongings auctioned off. These families were considered traitors by the New Jersey Legislature, which allowed all of their property and possessions to be confiscated. At this time, a large amount of the British army and many of their sympathizers occupied areas of New York and Staten
Island) (Gigantino 2015)

The farm journal expresses many tasks that most would take for granted at the
time, documented in amazing detail, though commonplace and ordinary back then.
These entries in this primary source give glimpses of insight on the challenges of
conducting business during the Revolutionary War. He notes that on July 1, 1778, he was in the meadow with great firing heard at a distance, “Regulars and Continental troops engaged in general or skirmishes since Sunday last.” He notes that it was a “severe engagement” and we can assume that he was hearing the Battle of Monmouth and he must have been at Perth Amboy to be in the proximity to hear the
fighting, even though he does not mention it. There are no references of any major
engagement during this time period anywhere near his lands in Hunterdon County.

Financial struggle, even for wealthy proprietors, was a part of daily life. The
farm journal mentions the use of many different denominations of hard currency:
Continental Dollars, Johannes and Moidore, which were Portuguese gold coins, English Guineas, New York Currency, English Pounds and Spanish dollars. In January of 1779, Parker discusses an issue with the prevalence of counterfeiting, by mentioning that he was buying land from Abraham Bonnell. He could not confirm if the money he was paying with was counterfeit. Bonnell said he didn’t believe any was, due to being very careful to examine the bills and that the mark of a printer was not necessarily a proof of authenticity. At one point he mentions, “Paid for bushel of wheat in hard money.”

This may have been noted because of the general lack of coinage and the use of
continental paper money. He noted on March 5, 1780 that taxes were collected but there was a scarcity of money, and on March 13 taxes were collected on his Bethlehem property, and he complains about having no money until he could collect on his debts. On March 23, taxes were collected on Tewksbury property, and he mentions that he is owed more money than he can pay; he can’t pay the taxes until his debtors pay. For the same year, he was taxed on 200 acres, was able to pay three-quarters of the bill but had no continental money, so he borrowed it.

Everyone knows that Continental and British troops moved all around New Jersey. It is common knowledge that they were located near the famous areas of conflict such as Monmouth, Trenton, Princeton, and Washington’s Crossing at the Delaware River. Troops on both sides of the war marched through Hunterdon County and
stopped to rest their soldiers and horses.

On December 4, 1778, Parker mentions being told by Moore Furman, a local miller and merchant who was well connected as a Deputy Quartermaster General for New Jersey, that Gen. Burgoyne’s army was marching to Virginia and would be quartered in the neighborhood as they marched along. On December 5, troops of the 1st Division came down with three companies of men, eight officers. He notes little business was conducted due to attending the troops. On December 6th, the 1st Division “marcht” off and the 2nd division came in. Charles Stewart (local and
the Commissary General of Washington’s army) spared a gallon of spirits. On
December 7th the 2nd division left, no others came, on December 8th, the 3rd
division troops came with six companies and five officers of the 62nd regiment, on
December 9th, the 3rd division left. Parker noted that the Brunswick troops arrived with three officers and 78 men on the 10th and that little work was accomplished when troops were there. December 11th was active with part of a company of ‘foreign troops” that were there with a major, two horses, a baggage wagon with four more horses; this group left on December 13th.

Imagine the disruption of regular life and business when these troops had been
quartered on the property. May 15, 1779 brought troops from the Continental army through the Pittstown area. James Parker notes that the Regiment of the New Jersey Brigade, commanded by Colonel Ogden, marched to Pittstown on the way to Easton with 300-350 men. The Continental troops pastured horses in local fields. Parker notes that he put into pasture twelve Continental horses, then took on
seven more Continental horses, ending the day with a total of twenty. On August 25th, he received from Nehemiah Dunham, who built the stone mill in nearby Clinton, five barrels of flour for Continental service. On August 25th, he put into pasture 12 Continental horses. On August 26th he took seven more Continental horses, September 4th put up nine more Continental horses and on September 18th, all Continental horses left.

In today’s military, food and supplies are provided by the government, but back in
Revolutionary times, troops were expected to be supplied by local people, sometimes
with promissory notes, sometimes by donation with no recompense. Sometimes a
tax was paid to help sponsor troops. In Parker’s journal he mentions that on July
12,1779, he paid Adam Hope a tax toward raising a state regiment, as assessed by
Colonel Beavers and Charles Coke, of 45 dollars. On August 25th, he received from
Nehemiah Dunham of Clinton five barrels of flour for Continental service. He noted a meeting in Pittstown on January 18, 1780, “Spent day in Pittstown where residents met to deliver cattle and grain collected for the army.”

Students need to imagine for themselves that not all of the population of New Jersey followed the Patriot cause, most sources agree that in the colonies they made up only about thirty to forty percent of the population. They believe that around twenty
percent were acknowledged Loyalists, while the remaining population were neutral.
There were many risks on both ends of the political spectrum, with neighbors who
harassed or reported neighbors, or turned their coats when it was to their benefit.

They need to experience the feelings of taking sides, or remaining neutral in situations. It is important to realize that everyone in New Jersey was involved in the Revolutionary War because it influenced their ordinary lives in ways that did not directly involve battles, shooting, famous officers and other incidents memorialized with statues and National Parks. The areas right around the corner, a barn down the street, an old house, mill or tavern, a name of a road in New Jersey, may have been owned or named after ordinary people whose stories were intimately intertwined with the Revolutionary War.

The decisions of James Parker and others were difficult for them and they have
relevance for us today whenever we receive criticism for our decisions.


References
Gigantino, J.J. (2015). The American
Revolution in New Jersey: Where the
Battlefront Meets the Home Front. Rutgers
University Press.


Stevens, S.B. (2015). All Roads Lead to
Pittstown. Hunterdon County Historical
Commission