Beecroft, 1

Travis Beecroft
HIST 780
Crabtree
December 21, 2014
Revolutionary Spies and Espionage: A Historiography
“I am not influenced by the expectation of promotion or pecuniary reward; I wish to be
useful, and every kind of service, necessary to the public good, becomes honorable by
being necessary. If the exigencies of my country demand a peculiar service, its claims to
perform that service are imperious.”1

“The spies were never safe; to them sometimes friends were as dangerous as foes.”2

The Revolutionary War was the defining moment in our nation’s history. Those

that fought to earn their freedom have long since been remembered in many ways, and

deservedly so. While many students of history have analyzed the social, political, and

economic reasons for fighting for independence, it is equally important those same

students understand the impact spies, intelligence gathering, and espionage had on the

outcome of the American Revolution. Numerous historians have discussed the topic,

mostly focusing on specific individuals who became famous as spies, most notably

Nathan Hale, Major John André and Benedict Arnold. A general representation of the

scholarship reveals that historians tend to focus on one of three things when discussion

spies and espionage during the Revolutionary War. First, they either focus specifically

on the individual spies, or they focus on the spies as a collective, or they focus on the

umbrella term of espionage during the Revolutionary period. Most of what has been

contributed in the last three or four decades is a restatement of what previous scholars

have written about the topic. Earlier historians were able to point out gaps in the

1
Corey Ford, A Peculiar Service: A Narrative of Espionage in and Around New York
During the American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965), vii. Quote
by Nathan Hale.
2 Morton Pennypacker, General Washington’s Spies on Long Island and in New York

(Brooklyn: Long Island Historical Society, 1939): 219.

 Beecroft, 2

historiography while modern historians can only agree or disagree with the

historiographical trends already well established. All the same, each component of the

historiography is important for what they have to contribute to the overall image of the

scholarship on the topic. Hoping to provide a well-rounded examination of the trends

relating to Revolutionary spies and espionage, I present you a historiographical essay on

the topic. Enjoy.

Relating to the essay at hand, the earliest literature about espionage during the

Revolutionary War focuses specifically on Captain Nathan Hale of the Continental Army.

History remembers Hale as a heroic patriot spy who volunteered to conduct an

intelligence-gathering mission for General Washington in British New York, an endeavor

that resulted in his capture and hanging 1776. In 1865, I. W. Stuart published a book

entitled Life of Captain Nathan Hale, the Martyr-Spy of the American Revolution, a

biography that praises Hale for “a life and conduct like his own, so pure, so heroic, so

disinterested, and so crowned by an act of martyrdom one of the most galling and valiant

on record.”3 Stuart references Hale’s camp book, which contains his diary, and

statements from Asher Wright, his camp attendant, and Stephen Hempstead, his friend

and intelligence-gathering companion during the biography’s entirety. When describing

Hale, Stuart writes that he had “a disposition exceedingly affectionate” and for those that

3
I.W. Stuart, Life of Captain Nathan Hale, The Martyr-Spy of the American Revolution
(New York: Hartford, 1856), i. In the preface, Stuart is critical of the lack of information
on Hale in the historiography of the American Revolution. Stuart specifically refers to a
number of authors, Marshall, Ramsay, Gordon, Butler, Botta, and Bancroft, each of
whom does not mention Hale in their histories of New York and the American
Revolutionary Period. Stuart points out that Hannah Adams “just mentions him,” and
while J.S. Babcock, whose writing of Hale “is beauteous for the spirit in which it is
written,” and Hon. A.T. Judson’s praise of Hale “embodies [a] touching comment on
Hale’s character,” their descriptions are “comparatively barren of facts,” and do not
“assume to give the details of his life” (ii).
 Beecroft, 3

knew him, “no person more than Hale was the idol of his acquaintances, and that no

young man of his day commenced life under more flattering auspices.”4 Stuart refutes

the notion that a fellow countryman and relative of Hale sold him out to British soldiers,

stating “this account, we now fully believe, has no foundation in truth,” but unfortunately

does not elaborate further.5 Accompanying this is Stuart’s account of Hale’s hanging,

prior to which he was denied a Bible and a clergyman upon request. Stuart states that

“there, without a friend—without the solace of even on kind word—without the glimmer

even of a hope of escape—[and] on the verge of an ignominious death,” hastily arranged

and without a trial.6 Because he was admired by his peers and respected by General

Washington, “the blow which severed him from his military companions […] was

extensively felt, and was universally lamented.”7 While much of what Stuart writes

comes from sources that personally knew Nathan Hale, its hard not to get past most of the

flowery language, and at times it is difficult to assess the credibility of the source. Taken

with a grain of salt, this biography can be a valuable starting point for the discussion of

Nathan Hale, and spies in general.

Criticism of Hale’s lack of representation in the annals of American

Revolutionary history has continued by historians since Stuart’s publication. For

instance, in 1915 William Henry Shelton published an article entitled “What Was The

Mission of Nathan Hale?” that criticizes previous scholarship while posing an alternative

4
Stuart, Life of Captain Nathan Hale, 41-42.
5
Ibid, 113. While he refutes that notion, Stuart does agree with Asher Wright’s account
of Hale’s captors finding incriminating evidence against him in the sole of his shoe,
stating that “his captors stripped and searched him, [and] the plans and memoranda found
in his pumps proved his strong accusers” to be correct (113).
6
Ibid, 132. Hale’s famous last words were: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose
for my country!” (142).
7
Ibid, 145-146.
 Beecroft, 4

theory about Hale’s mission into New York. Shelton traces back to the public’s first

knowledge of Hale’s death in 1799, twenty-three years after his execution, crediting

Hannah Adams, who in turn credits General Hull for the story via footnote in A Summary

History of New England and General Sketch of the American War. For twenty-five years

after this, “no historian of the Revolution ever repeated it or even noticed it,” making it

difficult to track a historiographical trend, as Shelton points out.8 It was not until 1824

that Hale was mentioned by Jedediah Morse in Annals of the American Revolution, much

in the same manner that Adams had done. By the time of Stuart’s publication in 1856,

fables had found their way into Hale's story as it made its way back into the limelight,

and Shelton believes Stuart’s work was the culmination of this. Shelton agrees with the

American Liberty Association’s Historical Guide, which stated that Stuart’s work was “a

wholly uncritical treatment of the many tales that have gathered about the name of

Nathan Hale. It has been entirely superseded.”9 To place himself within the

historiography, Shelton poses an a new theory about Hale’s mission into New York,

postulating that he and others were there to start various fires in the city, thereby

preventing the British from using it to their benefit. Shelton points out “many villains

were apprehended with matches,” and that “two of these incendiaries [were rescued]

from the enraged populace” and “reserved […] for the hand of deliberative justice.”10

Referencing omissions from a letter in the St. James Chronicle and Hugh Gaine’s

8
William Henry Shelton, “What Was The Mission of Nathan Hale?” The Journal of
American History 9.2 (1915): 280, accessed November 13, 2014. ILIAD.
http://www.illiad.sfsu.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=351370.
Shelton specifically points to Mercy Warren’s Rise, Progress, and Termination of the
American Revolution, 1805, Charles Botta’s American Revolution, 1820, Paul Allen’s
History of the Revolution, 1822, and a history of the revolution James Thatcher, 1823.
9
Shelton, “What Was The Mission of Nathan Hale?” 282.
10
Ibid, 287.
 Beecroft, 5

Mercury which state one of these men was a captain in the Continental Army, Shelton

“believe[s] that this was Nathan Hale, for it does away with the silly claims of a perfectly

useless mission into the enemy’s lines.”11 If this was the case it would go against

established theory, but it does not sound unreasonable.

Continuing the historiographical trend focusing on individual spies, Morton

Pennypacker in The Two Spies: Nathan Hale and Robert Townsend includes information

about Hale and Townsend, in addition to discussion spies and a few secrets of the secret

service.12 Referencing Hannah Adams’ previous work, Pennypacker details Hale’s

mission into New York, his capture, and his subsequent execution. Of the capture and

execution, Pennypacker states that they “formed a determination in the General’s mind to

establish a Secret Service Bureau that would be more carefully planned and consequently

11
Ibid, 287. St. James Chronicle quote: “Many of the villains were apprehended with
matches in their hands to set fire to the houses. A fellow was seized just about to set fire
to the college, who acknowledged he was employed for the purpose. A New England
captain was seized with matches in his pocket, who acknowledged the same.” Mercury
quote: “A New England man, who had a captain’s commission under the Continental
Congress, and in their service was seized, having these dreadful implements of ruin.”
12
For the sake of brevity, additional information on specific spies can be found here. For
information on Major John André, a British spy hanged by the Continental Army in 1780,
see Robert McConnell Hatch, Major André: A Gallant in Spy’s Clothing (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986), Judithe D. Speidel, “The Artistic Spy: A Note on the
Talents of Major André,” New York History 68.4 (1987): 394-406, and Robert E. Cray,
Jr., “Major John André and the Three Captors: Class Dynamics and Revolutionary
Memory Wars in the Early Republic, 1780-1831,” Journal of the Early Republic 17.3
(1997): 371-397. For more on Benedict Arnold, an American general-turned-spy for the
British, see Carl Van Doren, Secret History of the American Revolution (New York: The
Viking Press, 1941), Charles Royster, “‘The Nature of Treason’: Revolutionary Virtue
and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd
Series, 36.2 (1979): 163-193, and Willard Sterne Randall, Benedict Arnold: Patriot and
Traitor (New York: Morrow, 1990). For information on James Rivington, member of the
Culper Ring, see Catherine Snell Crary, “The Tory and the Spy: The Double Life of
James Rivington,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series 16.1 (1959): 61-72.
 Beecroft, 6

less liable to disappointing results.”13 The man placed in charge of this spy system in

New York was Robert Townsend, otherwise known to George Washington as Samuel

Culper, Jr.14 Without identifying it specifically, Pennypacker introduces the men involved

in what became known as the “Culper Spy Ring,” Townsend, Abraham Woodhull, Caleb

Brewster, and Major Benjamin Tallmadge.15 Pennypacker states that “so important was

their work that without them little from New York City could have reached the

General.”16 He also includes correspondence letters between Woodhull (Culper, Sr.),

Townsend (Culper, Jr.), Major Tallmadge, and General Washington, his words acting

more as a transition between one letter and the next than anything of original substance.

An extended edition of this book comes in the form of his 1939 book entitled General

Washington’s Spies on Long Island and in New York, which includes the four chapters

from The Two Spies, and adds chapters focusing on Major John André, Benedict Arnold,

codes and camouflage, and the consequence of becoming a traitor. The codes

Pennypacker refers to were first used by Abraham Woodhull in a letter on April 10th,

1779 when he uses figures 10 for New York, 30 and 40 for Post Riders, and 20 for

Setauket.17 This system was changed shortly afterwards by Major Tallmadge and

“consisted of closely written columns of figures and words, arranged on a double sheet of

13
Morton Pennypacker, The Two Spies: Nathan Hale and Robert Townsend (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930): 13.
14
Nathalie Pearl, “Long Island’s Secret Agents of General Washington During the
Revolutionary War,” The Nassau County Historical Journal 8.1 (1945): 7.
15
Woodhull, Tallmadge, and Brewster were childhood friends. For more on the Culper
Spy Ring, see Lynn Groh, The Culper Spy Ring (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1969).
16
Pennypacker, The Two Spies, 14-15.
17
Pennypacker, General Washington’s Spies, 209.
 Beecroft, 7

foolscap paper.”18 Numbers were then assigned to the words most frequently used and to

proper names so should the messages be intercepted they would not be easily read.19

These codes allowed the Culper Ring to communicate with Washington, and both works

by Pennypacker bring to light the correspondence between them, valuable in and of itself.

Edmund R. Thompson and Alexander Rose discuss spies in a general context

during the American Revolution as well. In Secret New England: Spies of the American

Revolution, Thompson complies a number of essays, including his own, that shed light on

the spies of New England during the Revolutionary period. Here, there are essays on

Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, and Benedict Arnold, along with a detailing of General Gage’s

and General Washington’s spies. Lieutenant General Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief

of British forces in North America from 1763-1774, and “could give Washington a run

for his money as a spymaster, but the British general was totally inept at

counterintelligence and deception.”20 Thompson describes the missions intelligence-

gatherers took on behalf of Gage, and while he had good intelligence, “it did not lead to

success at Lexington and Concord, nor did it then make up for his weakness against the

growing numbers of Americans who now hastened to besiege Boston.”21 The role of

Washington’s spymaster, Major Benjamin Tallmadge, is discussed at length as well by

David B. O’Connor in the essay “George Washington’s Spymaster” which details

Tallmadge’s espionage operation known as the Culper Net, or the Culper Spy Ring.

18
Ibid, 209.
19
For instance, General Washington was 711, Samuel Culper, Sr. was 722, Samuel
Culper, Jr. was 723, Caleb Brewster was 725, and James Rivington was 726, pgs. 209-
210.
20
Edmund R. Thompson, Secret New England: Spies of the American Revolution (Maine:
The David Atlee Phillips New England Chapter Association of Former Intelligence
Offices, 1992): 15.
21
Thompson, Secret Spies, 31.
 Beecroft, 8

O’Connor states that “Tallmadge’s experiences […] covered a wide gamut of the

intelligence business: reconnaissance, espionage operations, cryptography,

counterintelligence, and security,” and those under his command proved to be of vital

importance in Washington’s strategic planning process.22 Thompson also includes an

index of patriot landmarks used by spies during the Revolution, including Nathan Hale’s

Homestead in Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin’s Birthplace in Massachusetts, and the

American Independence Museum in New Hampshire. These locations are included “to

give the reader an appreciation for the magnitude of intelligence operations during the

Revolution and hopefully to elicit ‘intelligence information’ from readers to help find

these lost sites.”23 Collectively, the essays in Secret New England “are as instructive as

they are stirring, and what they teach is that a battle won secretly may spare the blood of

patriots and foes alike. There is honor enough in such a victory for any man.”24 As such,

it’s a valuable asset to the historiography.

Alexander Rose brings the Culper Ring and patriot espionage to the casual reader

with his book Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, essentially an

updated version of Pennypacker’s General Washington’s Spies that reads like fiction.

Rose details the account of Nathan Hale, the founding of the Culper Ring prior to

Townsend’s arrival, the duty of His Majesty’s Secret Service, and the battle between

American and British intelligence organizations. Rose explains that the Culper Ring was

founded after Lieutenant Caleb Brewster and General Charles Scott (eventually Major

Tallmadge) began recruiting agents to transport messages about British troop movements

22
Ibid, 60.
23
Ibid, 137.
24
Ibid, xiii.
 Beecroft, 9

to General Washington, and that the first agent would be Abraham Woodhull.25

Washington’s counterparts in intelligence-gathering Sir Henry Clinton and his agent

Benedict Arnold, American general-turned-spy, and Rose states that “until Arnold’s

recruitment, British intelligence operations had lagged behind Washington’s.”26 Rose

attributes this to Washington’s “need to acquire reports from myriad, often contradictory

sources behind the lines, to cross-reference their information to distinguish between fact

and fiction, and to analyze and evaluate their timelines and utility before acting.”27 He

also states “Washington understood that authentic intelligence gathering consists, not of

flashy derring-do glamorous escapades, but of piecing together an intricate, yet most

tedious, jigsaw where every ‘fact’ could be interpreted in several ways.”28 Perhaps this

can explain the difference in ability between Washington and both Clinton and General

Howe. For all that Rose does to make history easier to digest, his critics speak loudly

about his downfalls. For instance, one critic believes “more time could have been spent

evaluating the impact that the information these spies uncovered had on the course of

particular campaigns and of the entire war.”29 Another argues that Rose’s “trumpeted

discoveries are somewhat diluted, dissolving, in part, because of omissions, inaccuracies,

overemphasis, and misjudgments.”30 Even so, the amount of detail that Rose

accumulates for this book is impressive, and because much of the historiography prior to

25
Alexander Rose, Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring (New
York: Bantam Books, 2006): 71-72.
26
Rose, Washington’s Spies, 196.
27
Ibid, 196.
28
Ibid, 197.
29
Joseph S. Tiedemann, review of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy
Ring, by Alexander Rose, The Journal of Southern History 73.3 (2007): 685.
30
Kenneth T. Cascone, review of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy
Ring, by Alexander Rose, New York History 91.2 (2010): 162.
 Beecroft, 10

this book’s publication is accounted for in the text, notes and bibliography, it can be used

as a starting point for anyone interested in early American espionage.

For a comprehensive look at espionage and intelligence gathering during the

Revolutionary War, one must consider John Bakeless’ Turncoats, Traitors and Heroes.

This book is a complete and thorough study “of the espionage, counter-espionage, and

other military intelligence services in the Continental and British armies,” and is valuable

for its focus on both sides of the conflict.31 Bakeless contends that “throughout the war,

intelligence agents on both sides were greatly interested in the number of small boats the

enemy possessed, especially those that hostile columns carried with them on the

wheels.”32 For instance, when Americans constructed boats outside of Boston or New

York “the British command immediately expected attack.”33 Bakeless also states that in

the early years of the Revolution, “both sides gained a good deal of information from

ordinary travelers, since each army allowed people on private business to go back and

forth with dangerous freedom,” and that “with people going back and forth so freely,

many British military secrets leaked out.”34 To catch spies, Bakeless explains that New

York state civilian authorities organized a regular group of counterintelligence men under

the direction of John Jay. “The most successful of all these counterintelligence agents,”

according to Bakeless, “was the shoemaker, Enoch Crosby,” who prior to leaving the

agency had successfully infiltrated and exposed numerous Tory companies.35 Bakeless

does track the improvements in American intelligence gathering, and believes that “the

31
John Bakeless, Turncoats, Traitors and Heroes (New York: De Capo Press, 1998): 4.
32
Bakeless, Turncoats, Traitors and Heroes, 83.
33
Ibid, 83.
34
Ibid, 123-124.
35
Ibid, 136.
 Beecroft, 11

first clear demonstration” of those improvements came with the capture of Trenton in

1776.36 In tracking the improvements made by British intelligence, Bakeless argues that

under General Howe, “British intelligence had swiftly expanded from the modest

beginnings made by Gage,” and that “it was to become vastly more extensive when Sir

Henry Clinton took over the supreme command, with Major John André, able,

industrious, ambitious, and much better educated than his brother officers, as an active

spy master.”37 Relying heavily on primary sources including letters and military records,

and including extensive amounts of his own analysis, Bakeless’ work safely belongs in

the historiography with those previously mentioned.

Continuing to move from a micro to a macro approach, historians Corey Ford, In

A Peculiar Service: A Narrative of Espionage in and Around New York During the

American Revolution, Corey Ford documents the role Nathan Hale played in espionage,

he explains the beginnings of the Culper Ring, otherwise known as Washington’s

Manhattan Agency, and theorizes about the mysterious lady known as 355. Regarding

the latter, Ford argues that 355 played a role in Townsend’s decision to resign from the

Manhattan Agency. Citing their first quarrel, Ford states “they would be married [and]

they would leave the city together [but] 355 refused; her liaison with the British secret

service was too valuable a source of intelligence to abandon, she insisted, and her duty

was to remain” in New York.38 “Racked by his Quaker conscience,” Ford explains,

“filled with guilt and self-blame, he notified Washington that he would serve no

36
Ibid, 166.
37
Ibid, 164.
38
Ford, A Peculiar Service, 208.
 Beecroft, 12

longer.”39 Despite the significance of 355, “of all the secrets of the Culper Ring, the

identity of 355 has been the most carefully preserved.”40 Furthermore, similar to

previous scholars, Ford explains that “since British intelligence had learned that the

Americans were using a Sympathetic Stain,” Washington ordered Tallmadge to “work

out a cipher and numerical code to be used by the Culpers in future correspondence.”41

Because “the machinations of military espionage fascinated him and he took keen

personal pleasure in plotting subterfuges to outwit the enemy,” Washington always

wanted to be ahead of British intelligence and considered it necessary to achieve

victory.42 Conducting counter-intelligence allowed Washington to track his enemy,

thereby enabling Washington to prepare for the enemy, and in some cases, plan ahead.

This book is a valuable component of the historiography as well because it focuses on the

specific topic of espionage in New York, a region of heavy contention during the war.

G.J.A. O’Toole also discusses espionage during the Revolutionary War in

Honorable Treachery: A History of U.S. Intelligence, Espionage, and Covert Action

From the American Revolution to the CIA.43 O’Toole traces intelligence-gathering,

espionage, and covert action back to their roots in the Revolutionary War, arguing that

“the ultimate ancestor of all American intelligence services is the Sons of Liberty,” which

39
Ibid, 208.
40
Ibid, 206.
41
Ibid, 187.
42
Ibid, 191.
43
For a unique perspective on espionage during the Revolutionary War, see Bryce
Traister, “Criminal Correspondence: Loyalism, Espionage and Crèvecoeur,” Early
American Literature 37.3 (2002): 469-496.
 Beecroft, 13

was founded in 1765 in response to the Stamp Act.44 O’Toole believes that the Sons of

Liberty and its “eventual involvement in intelligence operations against the British were

natural consequences of the general displeasure of the colonists with British rule, not

deliberate policy.”45 It is also believed that “up to one third of the population of the

colonies were loyal to Great Britain […] and many of the Loyalists were ready to serve

the British as secret intelligence agents.”46 Because Washington believed that “the

necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged,”

Washington established the Knowlton’s Rangers “to carry out reconnaissance missions

and other special operations ‘either by water or by land, by night or by day.’”47 These

Rangers “marked the birth of United States Army Intelligence,” and their first assignment

“was to patrol possible British landing sites along the shores of Manhattan and

Westchester.”48 O’Toole even notes that the Committee of Secret Correspondence was

“the first American government agency formally established to collect foreign

intelligence,” done so by the Continental Congress in 1775.49 This was done in the hopes

of establishing better relations with France so aid could be provided during the war. In

all, while this book focuses on the history of American espionage and intelligence as a

whole, the section on the Revolution can be useful despite its limitations. Certainly not a

major contribution to this topic, it can, however, fit within the historiography.

44 G.J.A. O’Toole, Honorable Treachery: A History of U.S. Intelligence, Espionage, and

Covert Action from the American Revolution to the CIA (New York: The Atlantic
Monthly Press, 1991): 9
45
O’Toole, Honorable Treachery, 16.
46
Ibid, 17.
47
Ibid, 1, 21.
48
Ibid, 21.
49
Ibid, 27.
 Beecroft, 14

Each work referenced in this historiography can be placed within one of three

categories. While some sources talk specifically about one or two individuals, others

widen the scope and discuss a handful of spies and their relations with one another, or

even focus on espionage and counterintelligence as a whole. In this way, a trend in the

historiography can be seen that moves from a micro focus to a macro focus on the topic

of Revolutionary War espionage as time progressed. In other words, early authors such

as I.W. Stuart and William Henry Shelton focus exclusively on Nathan Hale, while

Morton Pennypacker, Edmund Thompson, and John Bakeless discuss multiple members

of the Culper Spy Ring, and later authors Carey Ford and G.J.A. O’Toole discuss the

topic of espionage as a whole. The work by Alexander Rose goes along with AMC’s

recent television show Turn, which documents the Culper Spy Ring, focusing specifically

on childhood friends Abraham Woodhull, Major Benjamin Tallmadge, and Caleb

Brewster. Both the television show and Rose’s book have brought new students to this

subject in history in recent years, one that has a surprisingly long historiography. Anyone

interested in researching the topic need not look any further, and even so, the information

can be had providing they care to look.

Bibliography
Bakeless, John. Turncoats, Traitors and Heroes. New York: De Capo Press, 1998. Print.

Cascone, Kenneth T. Review of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy
Ring, by Alexander Rose, New York History 91.2 (2010): 161-167. Accessed
December 20, 2014. JSTOR.
http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/23185110.

Ford, Corey. A Peculiar Service: A Narrative of Espionage in and Around New York
During the American Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965.
Print.

O’Toole, G.J.A. Honorable Treachery: A History of U.S. Intelligence, Espionage, and

Covert Action From the American Revolution to the CIA. New York: The Atlantic
 Beecroft, 15

Monthly Press, 1991. Print.

Pearl, Nathalie. “Long Island’s Secret Agents of General Washington During the
Revolutionary War,” The Nassau County Historical Journal 8.1 (1945): 5-12.
Accessed November 13, 2014. ILIAD.
http://illiad.sfsu.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=351420

Pennypacker, Morton. The Two Spies: Nathan Hale and Robert Townsend. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930. Print.

Pennypacker, Morton. General Washington’s Spies on Long Island and in New York.
Brooklyn: Long Island Historical Society: 1939. Print.

Rose, Alexander. Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring. New York:
Bantam Books, 2006. Print.

Shelton, William Henry. “What was the Mission of Nathan Hale?” The Journal of
American History 9.2 (1915): 269-289. Accessed November 13, 2014. ILIAD.
http://illiad.sfsu.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=351370.

Stuart, I.W. Life of Captain Nathan Hale, The Martyr-Spy of the American Revolution.
New York: Hartford, 1856. Print.

Thompson, Edmund R Ed. Secret New England: Spies of the American Revolution.
Maine: The David Atlee Phillips New England Chapter Association of Former
Intelligence Officers, 1992. Print.

Tiedemann, Joseph S. Review of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy
Ring, by Alexander Rose, The Journal of Southern History 73.3 (2007): 685-686.
Accessed December 20, 2014. JSTOR.
http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/27649498.

Additional Sources Conferred

Crary, Catherine Snell. “The Tory and the Spy: The Double Life of James Rivington,”
The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 16.1 (January, 1959): 61-72.
Accessed November 13, 2014. JSTOR.
http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/1918851

Cray, Robert E. Jr. “Major John André and the Three Captors: Class Dynamics and
Revolutionary Memory Wars in the Early Republic, 1780-1831,” Journal of the
Early Republic 17.3 (Autumn, 1997): 371-397. Accessed November 13, 2014.
JSTOR. http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/3123941

Groh, Lynn. The Culper Spy Ring. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969. Print.

Hatch, Robert McConnell. Major John André: A Gallant in Spy’s Clothing. Boston:
 Beecroft, 16

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986. Print.

Randall, Willard Sterne. Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor. New York: Morrow,
1990. Print.

Royster, Charles. “‘The Nature of Treason’: Revolutionary Virtue and American

Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 36.2
(April, 1979): 163-193. Accessed November 13, 2014. JSTOR.
http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/1922263

Speidel, Judithe D. “The Artistic Spy: A Note on the Talents of Major André,” New York
History 68.4 (October, 1987): 394-406. Accessed December 18, 2014. JSTOR.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23178798.

Traister, Bryce. “Criminal Correspondence: Loyalism, Espionage and Crèvecoeur,”

Early American Literature 37.3 (2002): 469-496. Accessed December 17, 2014.
JSTOR. http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/stable/25057283.

Van Doren, Carl. Secret History of the American Revolution. New York: The Viking
Press, 1941. Print.