was one of Maine
a hero of the Revolutionary War.
Knox was largely self-taught.
Born in Boston
he opened the London Book Store there at age 21.
A voracious reader on military subjects,
he met George Washington in 1775,
was soon commissioned as a colonel,
and given command
of the Continental Regiment of Artillery.
As the Revolutionary War began,
British forces occupied Boston
The Continental army surrounded the city,
besieging it for almost a year.
Stalemate.
Then came Henry Knox’s shining moment.
He was 25 years old.
Knox suggested bringing cannons to Boston
from recently-captured forts on Lake Champlain ,
300 miles away.
General Washington put Colonel Knox in charge
of an expedition to retrieve them.
It was winter.
Knox’s force brought 59 cannons (weighing sixty tons)
by ox-drawn sled
south along the west bank of the Hudson River
to Albany
There they crossed the ice-covered Hudson River ,
continued east through the Berkshires
and finally arrived in Boston
The team averaged five miles per day.
When they arrived in Cambridge
where the cannons were placed,
overlooking Boston
As a result, the British withdrew to Halifax
on Saint Patrick’s Day, 1776.
Knox served bravely and brilliantly throughout the war,
becoming chief of artillery
and rising to the rank of major general.
Later he served as Secretary of War.
He settled in Thomaston , Maine
(then still inMassachusetts
(then still in
Two separate American forts,
were named after him.
There are counties named for Knox in nine states.
Henry Knox – American hero.
Gary, when I googled Henry Knox (I'd never heard of him) I discovered both his parents were from N. Ireland (Londonderry) and he is described as of "Ulster-Scots descent" in the first item I encountered.
ReplyDeleteThe next one was about Knox County, Maine, which says it was settled by "Ulster-Scots". My but it's a small world! Here is the latter quote in full:
The town of Warren is located in Knox County in the State of Maine being nine miles west of the shire town of Rockland. The region was settled by Ulster Scots originally from Northern Ireland, of the Protestant religion. Many of these Scots had come to New England following a famine in Ireland and the resulting migration in 1719. Many were already living in Pemaquid which is where they drew lots for their respective farms, arriving in Warren in the summer of 1736. This area was part of what was first known as the Muscongus Patent and later the Waldo Patent and was called "the Upper Town of St Geroge's." The town of Warren was incorporated 7 November 1776. Warren was located in the county of Lincoln until the year 1860 when the county of Knox was named for Gen. Henry Knox and incorporated.
Thanks for your detective work, Philip! I had read that he was of Scots-Irish descent. His wife's parents were Loyalists living in Boston. After the Knoxes left Boston they never saw her family again. Knox's estate at Thomaston was near Warren and Rockland.
ReplyDeletePlease cite your source for your fact that Secretary of War, General Henry Knox, advocated unequivocally stripping the American Indians of their lands. In fact, Knox advocated, with the support of Washington and Jefferson, that the American Indian nations should be treated as if they are legitimate nations. The treaty with the southern Indians, particularly the Creeks, is extremely liberal for its time, and our own time. It was the state of Georgia, with its settlers streaming over into Indian lands, and the refusal of Congress to support an adequately large army to patrol the borders between the states and the Indian nations that led to the destruction of the Treaty of Greenville. He believed that to do otherwise would betray the republican ideals of the Revolution. When it came to war with the Indians, he believed in fighting for victory, but Knox preferred peace to war, if just for the monetary aspect of conflict.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Knox's acquiring land by corruption and graft, this is an viewpoint that for the past 20 years has been promulgated by Marxist historian, Alan Taylor, and his revisionist book that criticized all of the Revolutionary generation. After all, Knox allowed many squatters to remain on some of his land, and from my sources, gave fair settlement to them. Did he evict people from his land that was acquired legally, yes. But it was legal, and not based on corruption or graft.
Hi Bob, I'm not an historian, so it may be that my summary of Knox's views are too dismissive of his nuanced position.
ReplyDeleteQuoting from Wikipedia (certainly not an irrefutable source): "...Secretary of War Knox was responsible for managing the U.S.'s relations with the Native Americans resident in lands it claimed, following a 1789 act of U.S. Congress. For the previous three years he had had similar responsibilities under the Congress of the Confederation, although the previous position had little actual authority. Knox wrote that the U.S. had not honored the Native Americans' rights. Usual U.S. government policy involved signing treaties with Native American nations that were not intended to be kept, with the goal of seizing as much Indian land as possible. However, Knox's words were not motivated by humanitarian concern, rather out of the cost in men and money required to conquer Native American lands. Knox feared that a policy of constant provocation would lead to costly frontier wars that would hurt the nation. He was not opposed to engaging in wars in order to obtain Native American lands, and had a direct role in it as Secretary of War.
Knox's writings to Congress and later to President Washington illustrate US policy towards Native Americans and land rights:
"The confederation of a large number of tribes of Indians, to oppose the settlement of the lands, North of the river Ohio" and "Indians have expressed the highest disgust, at the principle of conquest" because it results in the "limits of their hunting grounds and territory."
In order to obtain their land, he said the US could purchase it or if they were unwilling to sell it, they could take it by military conquest: "That to attempt to establish a right to the lands claimed by the Indians, by virtue of an implied conquest, will require the constant employment of a large body of troops, or the utter extirpation of the Indians."
The statement "the utter extirpation of the Indians" was common rhetoric, though it was a clear reference to genocide, or the act of killing an entire population; in this case, this was an option given in order to obtain their lands, as his letter on October 27, 1787 to Congress Journals of the Continental Congress make clear." (see Wikipedia article on Henry Knox)
With regard to his real estate holdings in Maine, again, I am not a historical researcher. But it seems unusual that a person with so many years of military and government service would have the financial resources to acquire so much land in so little time.
A quick look at Alan Taylor's bio doesn't seem to put him out of the mainstream, though you may have info to the contrary. Who are you, and what is the reason for your strong defense of Knox? (just asking)
Looks like Knox was a complex (and controversial) character, which in my eyes makes him all the more interesting. I am intrigued by the "Boss Hogg" image of him in later life in Maine. And by his relationship with his fellow Scotch-Irish settlers presumably on his lands in Maine? Not to mention the Native Americans there too? Seems like there is a real-life gritty story there to be teased out. I'm sure he was - like all mortals - neither fully hero or villain, but a complicated pattern of grays.
ReplyDeleteThat's almost certainly right, Philip. He was one of the top five bona fide heroes of the American Revolution -- worthy of a book that focuses on his life between 1770-1790. Quite a character study, I would imagine...
ReplyDeleteMy newly-learned googling skills are paying off! I discovered that in Knox County, Bangor Maine was named after an 'Irish Hymn tune' (i.e. Bangor County Down rather than Bangor Wales) and Belfast Maine, after Belfast, Ireland.
ReplyDeleteThe lists of early settlers on Knox's estates in Knox County read like an Ulster rent-roll!
The dynamic that continues to intrigue me is the parallel between the Ulster Presbyterian 'rebels' of 1798 and their literal cousins in America in 1776. Not only that, but the post-revolutionary relationship with their landlords. In Ulster, the landlords had been on the Government side, and were still the 'enemy', while in Knox's case the opposite was the case.
In my own blogging saga the contrast would have been between the British Governor of North Carolina, Arthur Dobbs, and the descendants of the Ulster-Scots he brought out with him - including Andrew Jackson!.
Happy googling, Philip... Yes, the comparisons and contrasts between 1776 and 1798 would be an interesting study. It seems that the American Revolution caused non-Loyalist first generation immigrants from Europe to immediately see themselves as "Americans" first and last.
ReplyDeleteHello, Gary.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone writes a biography about a historical personage, the author is usually enamored of the person. This, of course, can create problems with objectivity.
I am acutely aware of this myself since I play General/Secretary of War Henry Knox for the American Historical Theater (AHT) and Historic Philadelphia Inc.
As a part time actor, with a passion for American history, I could not ask for a better role. I first read the standard biography about Knox, by North Callahan, 20 years ago, but when I began to portray Knox for AHT three years ago, I began to do more research and to read every scintilla of information about Knox, his life, his family, etc.
I feel as though I have become the character, hopefully warts and all, (his decision to take out the Cliveden Mansion during the Battle of Germantown comes to mind.) I must admit that in all my readings, including the six primary books, two from the 19th century, suspect always for objectivity, and the four from the last 50 years, I have never encountered any information describing Knox as corrupt or illustrating that he would use the power of graft to achieve his ends. I am open to any legitimate source that would challenge that. After all, the study of history should be about truth
As Secretary of War, Knox’s salary was only $2450.00, and with that he had to pay his small staff also. Knox did not make a “fortune” with his government service, and in a letter to his brother, Will, Knox decried anyone who would make money off the public. Knox did begin to want to live in an aristocratic manner, perhaps because of the influence of his wife, Lucy, whose Tory father was the royal secretary of Massachusetts Bay colony.
With most of the other Founders, the way to wealth was the acquisition of land and the development of the land in all possible ways. One more association among the Founders that Knox shared is that most went into debt because they overextended themselves in their desire to build wealth.
Much of Knox’s land in Maine came via marriage, since his wife’s Tory family was subject to seizure. Knox also purchased more land to add to that total.
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not always a good source, and even your Wikipedia source does not state that he wanted to kill all of the Indians. That statement, in my opinion, illustrates Knox’s position that these were the only options of dealing with the Indians. Knox is certainly not advocating that position. As I mentioned previously, he truly believed, and I have that I in writing, that it upheld republican ideals to treat the Indian nations as true nations.
Sorry for being a bit long winded. I wanted you to know who I am and what my connection with Knox is.
For your enjoyment, I hope, please see the link to my character of Henry Knox at the American Historical Theater:
http://ahtheatre.org/america/home/henry-knox
Hello, Gary.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone writes a biography about a historical personage, the author is usually enamored of the person. This, of course, can create problems with objectivity.
I am acutely aware of this myself since I play General/Secretary of War Henry Knox for the American Historical Theater (AHT) and Historic Philadelphia Inc.
As a part time actor, with a passion for American history, I could not ask for a better role. I first read the standard biography about Knox, by North Callahan, 20 years ago, but when I began to portray Knox for AHT three years ago, I began to do more research and to read every scintilla of information about Knox, his life, his family, etc.
I feel as though I have become the character, hopefully warts and all, (his decision to take out the Cliveden Mansion during the Battle of Germantown comes to mind.) I must admit that in all my readings, including the six primary books, two from the 19th century, suspect always for objectivity, and the four from the last 50 years, I have never encountered any information describing Knox as corrupt or illustrating that he would use the power of graft to achieve his ends. I am open to any legitimate source that would challenge that. After all, the study of history should be about truth
continued next blog
As Secretary of War, Knox’s salary was only $2450.00, and with that he had to pay his small staff also. Knox did not make a “fortune” with his government service, and in a letter to his brother, Will, Knox decried anyone who would make money off the public. Knox did begin to want to live in an aristocratic manner, perhaps because of the influence of his wife, Lucy, whose Tory father was the royal secretary of Massachusetts Bay colony. With most of the other Founders, the way to wealth was the acquisition of land and the development of the land in all possible ways. One more association among the Founders that Knox shared is that most went into debt because they overextended themselves in their desire to build wealth.
ReplyDeleteMuch of Knox’s land in Maine came via marriage, since his wife’s Tory family was subject to seizure. Knox also purchased more land to add to that total.
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not always a good source, and even your Wikipedia source does not state that he wanted to kill all of the Indians. That statement, in my opinion, illustrates Knox’s position that these were the ways of dealing with the Indians. Knox is certainly not advocating that position. As I mentioned previously, he truly believed, and I have that I in writing, that it upheld republican ideals to treat the Indian nations as true nations.
Sorry for being a bit long winded. I wanted you to know who I am and what my background with Knox is.
For your enjoyment, I hope, please see the link to my character of Henry Knox at the American Historical Theater:
http://ahtheatre.org/america/home/henry-knox
For the record, I retract my statement that Alan Taylor is a Marxist historian. I had made that statement in a post dated, August 27, 2010.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insights, Bob! I'm glad that you found this blog and commented as you have. I defer to your years of study of the life of Henry Knox. He was a genuine hero. I was aware of his marriage to Lucy Flucker, and of her parents being Loyalists, but was unaware of their land-holdings in Maine. I will check out the website, and I'd like to see your performance sometime. :)
ReplyDeleteHi again, Bob.
ReplyDeleteI've looked at your website and learned that your last name is Heffner. Are you any relation to my friend Richard Heffner, who lives here near Frederick, Maryland?
Notice that I've edited the blog to reflect our conversation...
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words. I am aware of many Heffners in Maryland, and I am sure that we are all related somehow from the Pennsylvania Dutch Germans who settled in Pennsylvania in the early 1700s. My Heffners come originally from Berks County in Pa. However, I am not familiar with Richard Heffner.