Lost Names - “East Mountain and Patreidge Field”

By

On October 25, 1777, the British column of the Convention Army marched through a region with place names that have changed considerably since that day.  “This morning we Set out [from Pittsfield] march’d through the East mountain and patreidge field.” noted Private David How, one of their guards with the Massachusetts militia. [1]

It's unclear from what I've read as to exactly where East Mountain was (or is).  Partridgefield, which the British prisoners and their guards would all pass through after leaving Pittsfield, was one town in 1777, and just six years old.  Now it is three towns, Dalton (incorporated in 1784), Hinsdale (incorporated in 1804), and Peru, allegedly renamed as such in 1806: "because it is like the Peru of South America, a mountain town, and if no gold or silver mines are under her rocks, she favors hard money and begins with a P."  Regardless, their march on the 25th would not be easy.  

When the British column reached Partridgefield, seen here looking west from the center of Peru, it may have looked like they had the worst of the mountains behind them.  Unfortunately the hills would continue, and Massachusetts militia Lieutenant Israel Bartlett would note in his diary: "We marched to Worthington 20 miles, through exceedingly bad mountains...” [2]  While most of the column appears to have marched through Partridgefield, the keeper of the journal associated with the 47th Regiment of Foot, who appears to have consistently traveled at or near the rear of the British column, indicates that after marching ten miles from Pittsfield on the 26th, they stopped there for the night. [3]  

Only a few manmade structures that date from the time of the march still remain in the three towns that were Partridgefield.  The Massachusetts Secretary of State's MACRIS database, a listing of historic properties in each city and town across the state, includes three buildings which that date from 1777 or earlier, all privately owned; as well as the Peru Center Cemetery, seen here with a bit of snow on its sloping grounds, where the first burial is noted as dating from 1776.  

"Partridgefield" isn't the only town along the route of march of the Convention Army to have undergone a name change since 1777.  Two towns on the route of march of the German column were known by different names then.  The first was Lansingburgh, which was commonly referred to as "New City" in 1777 - and later became a part of the Troy, though it retains its sectional identity as Lansingburgh still.  The second is Hillsdale, in New York, which was Nobletown then, and arguably a part of Massachusetts.  

Changing place names, be it for military bases or historic buildings such as had been proposed for Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts, is a "hot button" issue for many today.  Those who favor a change point to the need for reconciliation and to be considerate of the impact of a name associated with an enslaver or Confederate general may have on others, or sometimes history correcting itself.  Those against name changes often argue that removing a name will result in history and tradition being "lost" (though some ironically while arguing they didn't know who the site in question was named for).

Nobletown and Partridgefield are examples of places that were named for their founders, but came to be called by another name.  It might be argued that, as a result, we are not familiar with the story of Robert Noble or Oliver Partridge, or the settlement of these towns.  Simply keeping a name in place might help us remember a figure from the past, but alone it does little to help us understand history.  There is another town on the route of march of the Convention Army that stands as an example of how naming a place for someone well known at the time doesn't guarantee that later generations will  understand why that person was important, or remember what they contributed during their lifetime.  We'll look at that further once the Convention Army is across the Connecticut River, and reaches "Western". 

[1] Howe, 49.
[2] Bartlett, 401.
[3] Journal of the 47th, 157.



For more on the Convention Army's 1777 march from Saratoga to Boston, see:


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

George Washington and Saratoga - "A Matter Of Such Magnitude"

By
Image
February 22, 2023, marks the 291st anniversary of the birth of George Washington, pictured here in a  Library of Congress  print published in Germany in 1777 or 1778.  For more than two centuries Washington's birth has been widely noted, and was a federally recognized holiday from 1885 to 1971.  For the last five decades an all encompassing "Presidents' Day" has supplanted not only a holiday observance on the date of Washington's birth, but the February 12th celebration of the birthday of another truly great American President, Abraham Lincoln. In the fall of 1777 Washington hands were full as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.  While Major-General Horatio Gates defended the upper Hudson River Valley, Washington was responding to British General Sir William Howe's expedition moving not north to support Burgoyne, but south by ship into the Chesapeake Bay and then north by land to Philadelphia.  On September 11th British forces maneuvered to fla...
Read more

The Battle Of Hubbardton - "No Visible Advantage"

By
Image
On July 6, 1777, British and German forces under the command of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne occupied the American fortifications at Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence  and took control of Lake Champlain.  Outnumbered, American troops retired south to Skenesboro, some by boat, others by land southeast on military roads to Castleton, Vermont.  Burgoyne responded by focusing his attention on those fleeing by boat, and left the pursuit of those who traveled by land to the commander of his Advance Corps, Brigadier-General Simon Fraser, "Knowing how safely I could trust to that officers conduct."   [1] British Lieutenant James Hadden of the Royal Artillery noted in his Journal :  "July 6th At daybreak this Morning the retreat of the Enemy was discover'd, and B. Gen'l Frazer, with about 8 or 900 of his own Corps (leaving the rest with the Tents Batteaux's &c &c) pursued them towards Huberton, leaving his Artillery which the Road was not capable o...
Read more

Burgoyne’s Camp Kettle - “Captured October 17, 1777, In The Battle Of Saratoga[?]”

By
Image
A number of museums have displayed items said to be associated with British Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne.  They offer visitors a physical connection to the Saratoga campaign, and serve as a reminder of the American victory in October of 1777, which changed the course of the Revolutionary War.  One of these objects is a kettle described as “Burgoyne’s Camp Kettle” which, up until recently, was on display at the Bennington Battle Monument in Bennington, Vermont. My introduction to Burgoyne’s Camp Kettle came by way of a postcard, as pictured here.  In addition to the painted description on the kettle itself which identified this as “Gen. Burgoyne’s Camp-Kettle”, the back of the postcard indicated that this was “Gen. Burgoyne’s Camp Kettle captured October 17, 1777, in the battle of Saratoga, where Gen. Burgoyne surrendered” .  A caption on the front of the postcard indicated that the picture was taken at the Bennington Battle Monument, a Vermont State Historic Sit...
Read more