J. F. W. Des Barres' 'Great Folly'
Image 5. LOC L690. G3804.N4S3 1776 .M4 Manuscript map of British and American troop positions in the New York City region at the time of the Battle of Long Island (Aug.-Sept. 1776)
Acknowledgements
I should like to acknowledge a number of people who have assisted and supported me in the writing of this paper. Firstly, there is Frank Licameli (Lt. Colonel, ret.) who many years ago sought me out after a short interview I gave, about one of the plans featured in this paper, which was published in New York’s DNA News. Frank’s expertise and knowledge of Revolutionary War New York has been a veritable blessing to an Englishman such as I. Further, I would like to acknowledge all of the helpful and knowledgeable archive staff I have worked with over the years, both in the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, and the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. Thanks also go to Mary Sponberg Pedley of UMCL for her timely, helpful and encouraging remarks along with my sister Muriel Adamson who has been a constant source of expertise, especially in matters relating to Intellectual Property. Last but not least a very special ‘thank you’ goes to my wonderful partner Cindy Wrenn for her astute insights and, not least, for living with me, my maps, books, computer and interminable video making.
Copyright and Permissions
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author, except for purposes of research and education.
Please cite as follows: Adamson, A.J.W. Des Barres’ Great Folly. An examination of Des Barres’ first and last major foray into the realm of political mapping and the little known Plans he created to that end. Heritage Charts. 2023. www.heritagecharts.com
Glossary of Terms
Each of the following terms may be found in this paper. Each have varying (specific) definitions and possibly even meanings, in the context of the modern world. What is important is to acknowledge that the definitions which appear below are related to the works at the center of this investigation, which were created over 250 years ago. For the purposes of this paper they are defined as follows:
Cartography
The science and art of making maps.
Hydrography (Hydrographical)
Features of an underwater area, the ‘sounding’ or measuring for depth, tides, shoals, rocks and other underwater obstacles.
Topographic (topographical)
A topographic survey or map which relates or shows the natural physical features of an area of land, for example; hills, valleys, and rivers. This may be extended to include roads, settlements and permanent structures such as houses, bridges and fortifications.
Topological
Where information and detail has been simplified so that only vital information remains and unnecessary detail has been removed.
Map
A map is a symbolic representation of selected characteristics of a place, usually drawn on a flat surface. A map is generally drawn to a large scale and may not be geographically accurate. It does not need to be drawn to scale.
Plan
A plan depicts detail of the working of a design or scheme to achieve a specific goal. In the instance of a military plan it details the position of military units and other significant or specific topological features relative to the success of the operation. A plan needs to be accurate.
Survey
A survey is an accurate depiction of a site (property, area of land, defined boundary) which is scaled and detailed to show all the natural and man-made features.
Manuscript
A work which has not been officially printed, reproduced or published for public consumption. Manuscripts are always unpublished works. The Latin 'manuscriptus' means written by hand, but it may today include something which has been typed, so long as it refers to an author's originally produced work sent to a publisher.
Engraved Plate
A printing plate made of copper which was hammered flat, engraved or scratched to accommodate ink upon which paper was pressed to create a print.
Finished Copy Drawing
The completed drawing, taken from the original survey surveys. Drawn to scale, ready to be copied, enlarged or reduced
in scale for purposes of printing, publishing or distribution.
Scale
The relationship (or ratio) between distance on a map and the corresponding distance on the ground.
Draft
A rough drawing or sketch
About the Plans
The three plans in question are currently in the care of two institutions: The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) and the Library of Congress Map and Geography Division (LOC). They currently carry the shelf identifiers: A9459 press 31c, ‘L690 press 83’ and G3804.N4S3 1776 .M4. For simplicity sake, they will be referred to herein by an abbreviation of their original shelf numbers with an identifying prefix: UKHO A9459 (Image 1), UKHO L690 (Image 4) and LOC L690 (Image 5).
UKHO A9459 (Image 1) is made up of two distinct parts; It has at it’s center a finished-copy drawing of lower Manhattan which has been stuck on to the surrounding paper to form the center piece of a larger draft plan. This finished-copy drawing at its heart is in fact an irrelevance to the overall purpose of the draft plan in it's entirety and is therefore included here as part of the ‘draft plan’. The surrounding sheet is drawn by hand in pencil and ink and completed with water-colour to emphasise relief.
Spelling
Where there is a choice, American spelling has been used throughout, except where a word has been quoted directly from a title or the text included on the original document in question.
Image 1. UKHO A9459. New York, East River, part of Hudson River and adjacent country
Image 4. UKHO L690 press 83. New York Bay and Harbour and vicinity shewing the disposition of the forces &c.
When placed on top of one another, digitally, it is clear to see that the original draft of the plan perfectly matches the middle section of the two subsequent L690 plans (Image 6).
Of further note is that the Lower Manhattan center-piece is almost certainly Bernard Ratzer’s finished copy drawing for the 1770 Faden and Jeffreys production of the Plan of the City of New York [See Appendix 2]. It has been glued onto the second, ‘surrounding’, sheet upon which Des Barres has sketched the environs of New York; Long Island, West Chester County and New Jersey, as fitted his purpose to depict military disposition therein.
Separation
According to William Stanley, Chief Historian (emeritus) NOAA, in 1956 one of the two L690 plans was presented to then Rear Admiral Henry Arnold Karo of the former US Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps after a visit to the then UK Hydrographic Office in Cricklewood [6] it was housed in the NOAA (C&GS) [7] Library until the 1970s when it was then displayed at the Washington Science Centre in Rockville, Maryland. It was gifted to its present location in the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division in the mid 1990s [Appendix 3].
It should also be noted, that in a verbal account [8] given by Mr Stanley, when the plan was first gifted to Admiral Karo and NOAA it was already framed and shipped complete with frame. This would suggest that at some point in it’s history it had also been displayed in England for a number of years prior to it being gifted abroad. If indeed this was the case then we may assume that it had graced the wall of an Admiralty or Government office as it had been returned at some point to the Admiralty Hydrographic Department for storage. This notion is further supported by the note in the UKHO index Book ‘A’ which states that there are two copies with one ‘mounted’ at the time of listing, which was almost certainly about 1826 [9] when Book A first came into use. This would therefore indicate that it had been displayed prior to the Book A entry. Of further note is that the shelf mark written on the bottom right of the two L690 editions as well as the draft A9459 is in the same hand as entries in a later catalogue ledger in the UKHO archive dating from 1915-16 when a further attempt was made to catalogue material more accurately.
Image 10. LOC L690 dimensions & construction
The LOC edition top and bottom boarder sections have been repaired and strengthened on the verso but still suffer from a crack along the seam, presumably from continual rolling-up of the map over time (Image 14).
Whilst the LOC L690 edition is in good condition, much better than the UKHO edition, it does shows signs of discoloration due to sunlight damage over the years; That it was previously mounted or framed, hung and displayed for 20-years might well account for the discoloration, with the bottom right section showing the area where it is likely that an information sheet [11] was either framed along with the plan itself or attached to the glass in the frame whilst at the Washington Science Center, Rockville, Maryland. This would explain the slightly darker patch in the bottom right of the plan (see images 15 and 16 below). A copy of the information sheets which accompanied the LOC L690 when it was passed to the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division may be viewed in [Appendix 4]. It is supposed that the information sheets were part of an exhibition at some point.
Image 21. UKHO L690 Section showing one of the fields of action at Brooklyn, August 27th 1776.
Image 22. LOC L690. Section showing main field of action at Brooklyn,
August 27th 1776.
The Making of the Plans
Intentions
In the absence of Des Barres’ complete draft plan (see Image 2 above) we may assume that the land area covered on the draft was the same as that of the two L690’ plans. This, of course, would reflect the expectation back in London that the campaign would not progress beyond the immediate environs of Long Island and New York Island, once it was clear that New York would be the next theatre of action, after the loss of Boston in March 1776. Indeed, there are clear signs that when Des Barres drew the draft plan he drew all the roads and topographic detail first, adding whatever military disposition later over the top of the outline as information came to him through August to late-December 1776 (Image 26 below).
Image 31. Center section LOC L690
<< Swipe to view >>
Image 32. Center section Blaskowitz HQ Map
Video 2. The Case for Engraving (Click image to view)
Engraving
When viewed separately it is easy to assume that each of the L690 maps/plans have been draw by hand. It has even been suggested that the LOC L690 (2nd edition) is a hand-drawn copy of the UKHO L690 (1st edition). When the maps/plans are viewed together (digitally) we can see that this is not the case.
To etch or engrave a copperplate requires the transfer of a design from a draft onto the plate. The original design would have to be traced exactly onto a treated paper from which it could be etched onto the plate, in reverse. Laborious as the method is, it allowed the finished engraved copper image to be reproduced, quickly, a multitude of times. Additional detail could be added to the engraved copper at a later date simply by flattening the relevant part of the copper and re-engraving that specific area.
If it was Des Barres’ intention to produce only one, final, finished copy of the plan it would have been less expensive for him to have drawn it by hand. That the base-line detail on each of the 6 sheets which make-up the plan is engraved, implies that it was always Des Barres’ intention to produce any number of copies of the plan quickly, upon which he could then add the military disposition by hand, as it came to hand. By engraving the base topography in this way he could effectively ‘practise’ adding the relevant military detail and start a new version or edition quickly, until such time as he happy with the result. Once the desired result had been achieved, all assuming a British victory withing the geographic scope of the plan, he could then engrave the final military detail onto the existing plates, with the first copy going to the King himself and subsequent copies to those Des Barres courted for their patronage.
Both editions of the map include a further detail which confirms that engraving [24] was employed; the replication of ink marks from imperfections on the copper produced small but distinct ink splodges which appear on both editions. Such marks litter both editions of the maps/plans and likely came about as the result of the plates having been used previously and ‘knocked-up’ from the back to flatten the copper ready for a new engraving. If the process was not completed meticulously such imperfections could well emerge when the plates were inked.
Image 38. LOC L690 Ink spots
Image 40. LOC L690 Ink spots
Image 37. UKHO L690 Ink spots
Image 39. UKHO L690 Ink spots
When examining detail such as trees and terrain one needs to be careful not to confuse added watercolour with the base image-lines. The two images below (Images 41 & 42) clearly show how easily colour and shading can confuse and distort the overall image while the base-line drawing remains the same.
Image 56. Section from William Faden's Plan of the Engagement on Long Island 1777 [Appendix 6]
Style Choices
The issue of annotating troop positions and movements on a single sheet map is a difficult and sometimes treacherous affair for map makers as it runs the risk of over-complicating the story in the eyes of the lay reader.
Des Barres, as we have already seen when we looked at in the section on Editions updated or ‘tidied-up’ information on the LOC L690 (2nd edition), whereby he dropped the annotations in favor of a style of notations or ‘snap-shots’. This allows the reader/audience to see that on any given date troops units were in certain positions, with little reference to where they had come from or indeed where they were going.
The gain from Des Barres perspective was that he was able to produce a plan which, assuming good labelling and index/references, would abbreviate the story without having to detail every movement. It also, of course, had the benefit of disguising the possible lack of information Des Barres was in possession of as the war progressed further north.
Presented below (Images 55 & 56) are sections from two contemporary examples of annotated plans by Claude Joseph Sauthier [Appendix 5] & William Faden [Appendix 6].
Image 55. Detail from Claude Joseph Sauthier's 'A Plan of the Operations of the King's Army..' 1777 [Appendix 5]
Table 1. Timeline
Timing & Sources of Military Information
Timing
In the making of the plans Des Barres' biggest problem was unquestionably that of time. He had put himself firmly in the grip of competition with other cartographers, such as Sauthier & Faden to produce the best plan of the operations as quickly as possible, albeit on a totally different scale. At the same time, he needed reliable sources of military information to make his plan as definitive as possible. Neither of these two essentials were an easy task from 3,000 miles away and despite his experience it was not a world Des Barres was used to.
To consider this further let us look at the following, much abbreviated, timeline which gives an indication as to when information likely became available to Des Barres and others back in London. The timeline (Table 1 below) also shows which events were included and which were excluded on the draft (A9459) and both L690s, along with a list of events which may have assisted Des Barres’ information gathering.
Image 57. Detail from Rawdon's plan of the Battle for Long Island showing units.
Whether Des Barres had his own sources of information, able to supply information before Lord William Howe’s public letters, may never be known but such information is unlikely to have reached him much before the official correspondence came back to London. Like everyone else, Des Barres will certainly have gleaned information from all four of Howe’s letters or reports back to London which arrived between the 28th September 1776 and 30th December 1776. December brings us to the end of all military information included on the two L690s.
Interestingly, the report of the 21st of September contained information which Des Barres apparently considered no longer relevant to his finished-copy L690 plans (UKHO & LOC) of operations. Specifically, that the bulk of the army had moved-on from their early September bases at Newtown and Flushing. Likewise, that the British positions on the Harlem Plains was also redundant information, even though the British remained in control of those positions under the leadership of Earl Hugh Percy after Howe had left New York Island for West Chester County to pursue the Americans on the 12th of October. This indicates that Des Barres considered, at this point in the making of the plans, that old encampments were less relevant than up-coming engagements for the purposes of his reporting.
The question as to when Des Barres started producing his first draft for the plan has already been raised in the section on Intentions however, regardless of how early he started drawing the draft and engraving the plates, he cannot have started recording the military operations before the first reports came back in early to mid-October. He appears to have made his last hand drawn amendment to the L690 maps/plans in early January 1777 as the news of the Capitulation of Fort Constitution (later Ft. Lee) on the 20th of November did not reach London until the 30th of December 1776.
Presented here below is a suggested timeline for the production of the three plans 1776-1777.
Possible Sources of Military Information
When we consider the military information and detail Des Barres included on his plans, above and beyond that provided by the official reports, we are left to ponder where else did he get his information? He clearly had contacts in the hierarchy of the military and there was a constant stream of people from officers to Aide de Camps returning, each with information, and no doubt Des Barres was listening, but it is more likely that he had another, more reliable source.
Perhaps the most accurate plan of the early operations, still in existence, is a battle plan[31] drawn by Lord Francis Rawdon[32] which details the movements and troops during over the 26th and 27th August 1776 (Images 51 & 52 below). See also Appendix 9.
Both of the two L690 plans are laid-out to a scale of 1 inch to 1320ft (¼ mile) as are the environs of the draft plan (A9459). A scale or 3 miles is provided on both editions of the two L690 plans to that end (Image 11).
Scale
Image 11. LOC L690 Scale
It should be noted however that the center panel of the draft plan, showing lower New York Island with part of Long Island, is drawn to a smaller scale altogether; that of about 1 inch to 2450ft. That the two L690 plans were then copied directly from the draft plan, the scaling inaccuracy was therefore replicated in the engraving of the copper plates for the printing of the L690s.
The result of this is that villages such as Newtown and Flushing are represented as being larger than lower Manhattan, which had over 20,000 people living in it in 1776 (Images 12a & 12b below)
The reason for this is that Des Barres was not concerned with producing a to-scale, accurate topographic map, but rather a sketch map of the environs of New York and Long Island upon which he could detail the plan of the military campaign. The Ratzer draft was just a convenient starting-point for such a sketch.
Image 12a. UKHO L690 Center panel Brooklyn Defences
Image 12b. UKHO L690 Manhattan
Image 12c. UKHO L690 Newtown & Flushing
Video 4. References for L690 maps/plans (Click image to view)
Image 58. Detail from Rawdon's plan of the Battle for Long Island. Table listing troop units
An intriguing insight into the type of people Des Barres knew and who would have been able to provide him with source information comes in a letter Des Barres received from Captain (later Admiral) Hyde-Parker of HMS Phoenix in April 1777 [33]. In his reply to Des Barre’s letter of the 6th August 1776 he says ‘I am extremely sorry my sketch of the North River was not more perfect’ and goes on to state that he will furnish Des Barres with more information soon. It is also of note that, in his letter, Parker makes a possible reference to Archibald Robertson, the engineer and artist who was on General Howe’s staff [Appendix 7]. Robertson was certainly a man of great knowledge and he would, as a valued member of General William Howe's staff have had detailed knowledge and understanding of troop movements and important events,
Another potential source of detailed information may well have been Maj Cornelius Cuyler, Aide de Camp to no less than Lord William Howe himself. Cuyler had returned to London to deliver Howes report of September 3rd which included information up to the 31st of August in person. Finally, we should not forget that Des Barres may still have had contact with some of Holland’s old survey teams, some of whom such as Charles Blaskowitz, Thomas Wheeler and George Sproule, were now working for various commanders in the field including William Howe and Henry Clinton.
The chart attributed to Lieutenant John Hunter (UKHO A339 – Appendix 8) is clearly related to the two L690 plans, not just for its confusion over Gravesend and New Utrecht but also its relationship with the soundings, both engraved and hand drawn, which appear on both maps. What is less clear however is the fact that this particular plan of the river cannot have been in Des Barres’ possession until January 1777 at the earliest, as it includes military detail up as far as Cornwallis’s pursuit of the American forces down through New Jersey in late November 1776. Indeed it is likely that it is the copy referred to by Hyde Parker in his letter of the 18th April 1777 to Des Barres. What is important to note is that Hyde Parker mentions an earlier plan of the (Hudson) river which he had sent to Des Barres previously, via his father, Admiral Parker.
It is entirely possible that that chart of the river contained similar, if sketchier, information which Des Barres utilised in the production of the L690s. Depending on when he gave-up on the production of the maps/plans he may still have used some detail from this later sketch as late as February 1777, including the soundings at the top of the North river which were added by hand on the two L690 plans.
Image 59. Detail from UKHO L690 showing reference letters (Z, M & P)
For an answer to this omission we need to look at the References included on the following three documents.
1. Plan of New York Harbour and part of the North River in 1776. Attributed to Lieut. John Hunter. UKHO A339 Ra/Heritage Charts A212 [Appendix 8]
2. A Sketch of the Operations of His Majesty’s Army and Navy at New York, 1777. J.F.W. Des Barres. HNS149/Heritage Charts A200 by J.F.W. Des Barres. [Appendix 10]
3. References to the Sketch of Operations at New York (HNS149/HCA200) with a view of the engagement on the Hudson river on the 16th August 1776. Library of Congress 75332508. Image 127. [Appendix 11]
For a summary of the References Sources for L690 see [Appendix 12].
Des Barres' move into the 'Political Context'
Considering the production costs outlined above which, again, Des Barres must have been aware of from the outset, we are led to ask two questions:
Why did he decide to make the move into the ‘political context’?
Who did he make the plans for?
The answer to the first question is almost certainly patronage. In order to expand on this, I would like to share the following hypothesis, which is presented in light of the fact that Des Barres was already heavily involved with the production of the Atlantic Neptune. Also that, by 1776, he was already in conflict with his Lords and Masters at the Admiralty over reimbursement for declared expenses related to the production of the Atlantic Neptune.
Why?
In late 1773 Des Barres left Halifax and returned to London, on instruction from the Admiralty, in order to compile the surveys which had been produced for the Atlantic Neptune. From thereon in, until the end of the war, Des Barres was totally reliant for information, reports, survey material and the like from contacts and acquaintances as to events unfolding in America. As the war gained momentum and spread south from Boston, through New York, there was an increasing interest in political affairs and military information in particular amongst Government, associated agencies, business interested parties and of course the British public for information. Suddenly, the topographic and hydrographic type of information included in various atlases & ‘pilots’(including the Atlantic Neptune) was not enough.
The most up-to-date information was increasingly being made available through a growing number of influential newspapers and periodicals such as the Gentleman’s magazine, The London Gazette Extraordinary and the London Chronicle. Further, an increasing number of publishers and mapmakers such as William Faden, Charles Blaskowitz and John Montresor amongst others, were fanning the flames of interest with the publication of their work. Claude Joseph Sauthier’s ‘A plan of the Operations of the King's Army under the command of General Sir William Howe against General Washington in New York and East New Jersey’, published in February 1777 by Faden is a case in-point [Appendix 6]. In addition, there were an increasing number of reports being returned from Commanders in the field.
With the production costs as they were, and especially because of the size of the Plans (h74” x w54”), it is hard to envisage Des Barres ever expecting to sell enough of the maps/plans to cover his costs, let alone make a profit.
Des Barres was unquestionably astute and he well-knew the importance of connections and patronage. In a world full of competition Des Barres knew that Patronage was essential to the future funding for his beloved Atlantic Neptune. Then, as today, central to securing successful patronage was self-promotion and most importantly, being seen as current, up-to-date and in touch with current events. His production of the L690 is, even by his own standards, an audacious attempt to produce both an up-to-date narrative of the major events for the control of New York between June and November 1776, as well as a production on a grandiose scale, worthy of the patronage of a valuable ally or two.
If, as has been suggested, the plans were intended as a first draft, later to be reduced for publication they would never have been the product of engraving.
Who?
The answer to our second question as to who Des Barres made the plans for is, once again, with no contemporarily supportive documentation the answer is, open to conjecture as follows:
It was documented in the accompanying information to the LOC edition of the map/plan written at the time of the document transfer from the UKHO at Cricklewood to US Coast and Geodetic Survey department in the 1956 that the two copies were likely intended for the Howe Brothers; General Sir William Howe K.B. and his brother Vice Admiral the Rt Hble Lord Viscount Howe (Richard). Such a notion may well be convenient by way of an explanation for there being only two copies, however, it seems very unlikely simply because on close inspection of both plans, as we have already seen, it is clear that the UK version predates the LOC version in military detail and events depicted. On that basis alone it is fair to assume that it was Des Barres’ intention to produce only one, ultimate, finished plan. Besides, which of the Howe brothers would he gift the inferior edition to?
If it was Des Barres’ intention to make copies of his ‘finished’ version (2nd edition) to distribute, then we may certainly include the Howe brothers in the list of intended recipients but men of political and monetary power such as Lord North (Prime Minister), Lord Hugh Percy, Lord Germaine, and so on but top of the list would undoubtedly have been the King himself, George III. Unless specific correspondence comes to light outlining Des Barres’ intentions or instructions we may never know the answer but, for now, it is as close as we may come.
There is always the possibility that Des Barres, had all along intended the (oversized) plan simply as his own ‘sketch-pad’ of events at the time, although I think we may, based solely on production cost, dismiss the notion.
Redundancy
Returning to the question of ‘folly’, now might be a good time to reveal that for all of Des Barres’ great intentions, and costs, the entire project was doomed to failure, almost from the outset.
Firstly, as we have already seen, the L690 plans did not cover the region as far north as White Plains which, as soon as the information that upon losing control of Harlem Heights in mid-October, Washington had chosen to high-tail it up as far as White Plains, arriving on the 21st October, and indeed, that General Howe would choose to follow him made the map incomplete.
Secondly, the ultimate problem for ‘out-of-town’ cartographers and mapmakers who must rely on the survey work of others, glean information from others and even copy from others is the question of accuracy. In one glaring instance, Des Barres fell-foul of this very thing which underpinned his whole reputation as a leading cartographer and mapmaker and simultaneously threatened his credibility: He transposed the towns of Gravesend and New Utrecht on Long Island, the sight of the British Landing on Long Island on the 21st of August 1776 (Image 60 below).
Image 60. LOC L690 Brooklyn (Gravesend Bay) detail
Image 61. A Plan of The North River and Part of New York Harbour by Lt John Hunter detail
Recovery
From Des Barres's perspective, we may assume that not everything was a total loss; Firstly, he was presumably able to cut his losses and supress the project, assuming he was not working to fulfil a specific commission, of which there seems no evidence. Secondly, we know that he was able to make good use of all of the information he had amassed, and he wasted no time in the production of a much smaller plan which he entitled ‘A Sketch of the Operations of Mis Majesty’s Navy and Army under the Command of Vice Admiral the Rt Hble Lord Viscount Howe and Genl Sir William Howe, K.B. in 1776 [Appendix 10]. The plan was published on the 17th of January 1777 and included in the Atlantic Neptune. That the expenses he incurred in the making of the plans must have hurt him there can be little doubt.
After 1777 Des Barres produced a few other plans of engagements of the war for inclusion in the Atlantic Neptune as it progressed south toward the Charleston including: Charts of the Delaware leading up to the battle for Philadelphia in 1777, ‘A Plan of the Siege of Savannah’ in 1779, and ‘A Sketch of the Operations before Charleston’ in 1780. All however are based on the work of surveyors such as John Hunter, John Wilson and others in the field. There may well have been others providing information to Des Barres but history has shown Des Barres to be sparing in his acknowledgement of others.
Appendix 1. Samuel Holland to J.F.W. Des Barres. 1771
Appendix 1
Samuel Holland to J. F. W. Des Barres Kittery, Pisquataqua River, May 27th 1771. Heritage Canada, Des Barres Papers, Series 5 (MG23F15, Vols 1-2, p85)
Holland to Pownall, 15th June 1772
The General Map… is at a stand, for want of copies of Mr DesBarres’ Nova Scotia surveys, as I know this Gentleman has little desire to send me copies, I would be glad to have his plans sent me, to be returned as soon as I had obtained this reasonable request.
National Archives (UK) CO 5/70,f33
Transcription of Holland letter to Des Barres (above)
My Dear DesBarres,
… I have wrote to you so often hence my arrival here that I was most determined not to trouble you any more with my servants(?) but some of your friends / I met at Boston last week, assured me you had arrived by the Beaver so that your letters are going to the West Indies. It would have me made very happy to have received an answer on the large paquet I sent you by the Canceaux or on the letter Mr Derbage inclosed on his to Mr Scott. Mr Derbage has received answers on all his letters, but I never a line from you as the first was a Plan or proposals for the mutual advantage of our operations in our Survey*, an exchange of Plans, your answer would have been of service to have negotiated this Summers Surveys & other matters concerning the service the Canceaux could perform in soundings etc as I cannot survey on the East coast before the return of the Canceaux for want of boats & seamen, I am employed with inland surveys of Rivers, Bays etc During last winter we have been employed in Surveying Lakes, Rivers and Roads, the Connecticut River is along(?) the Boundary line between New Hampshire and Massachusets Provenceto its source, I am just setting out on a new Survey, & as I would not this opportunity. I have onlay time to assure you that I sincerely am my Dear Des Barres your Humble Servant & friend S: Holland. Madam Holland begs to be remembered to her … Monr Des Barres
*All underlining is Holland’s
Appendix 2. Ratzer Map. Heritage Charts A201
Appendix 2
Plan of the City of New York in North America: Surveyed in the years 1766 & 1767. Bernard Ratzer. 1776 (second edition) shown. Heritage Charts A201.
Dear Francis Licameli
I have been contacted by a member of the Washington Map Society board who
was at the Geography and Map Division, LC the day you were shown the very
large American Revolutionary map in their collection. I believe you asked
about the background of the map. To that end, I was in charge of the NOAA
Map Library where the map had been housed for many decades. In 1956 RADM H.
Arnold Karo, then Director of the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey was invited
to attend a hydrographic conference in London. At that meeting he met RADM
Ritchie (then British Hydorgrapher). During Karo's visit Richie showed Karo
two very large maps that were identical depicting Long Island, Manhattan,
and the surrounding New York waters. The maps were believed to have been
produced by Joseph DesBarres (then cartographer to King George) while he was
working in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They were made for the two brothers,
commanding the British forces during the American Revolution: Lord Sir
Richard Howe, naval forces and Lord Sir William Howe, army forces. The two
maps were housed in the Cricklewood Library (now part of the Brent Archives
in London). Admiral Ritchie presented Admiral Karo with one of the maps.
It was placed in the NOAA (C&GS) Map Library. In the early 1970's I had the
map framed and displayed at our headquarters at the Washington Science
Center, Rockville, Maryland. After I retired in 1994, the map apparently
was given to the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Davison.
I hope this information can be of some value in your research.
Regards,
William Stanley
Chief Historian, NOAA (emeritus)
Appendix 3
Email transcript: William Stanley Chief Historian, NOAA (emeritus) to Frank Licameli, Dec 12 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Image 23. UKHO L690. Section showing main field of action at Brooklyn, August 27th 1776.
Appendix 6. Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/gm71000864/.
Appendix 6
William Faden. Published by act of Parliament October 10th 1776. A plan of New York Island, with part of Long Island, Staten Island & east New Jersey, with a particular description of the engagement on the woody heights of Long Island, between Flatbush and Brooklyn, on the 27th of August 1776 between His Majesty's forces commanded by General Howe and the Americans under Major General Putnam, with the subsequent disposition of both armies.
The British plan was to march the main force of the army up onto the Jamaica/Bedford road, in order to get around the back of the American defenders, who’s attention was to be taken by simultaneous diversionary attacks on the left flank by Major General Grant and also the Hessians under De Heister and Donop through the middle from Flatbush on the morning of the 27th September.
Unsure of the strength of the American defences on an around the steep pass or road up through the hills leading to the Jamaica/Bedford Road, which was a perfect place for an ambush, General Clinton sent a small force on the night of the 26th, up through the wood above the pass to reconnoitre and assess the strength of the American force. This crucial detail of the attack is included on the draft plan (A9459), but not on the subsequent L690s, nor indeed other plans of the attack made by other map makers at the time.
Image 25. UKHO L690 Section showing main field of action at Brooklyn, August 27th 1776.
What we see on the draft plan (Image 25 above) is the kind of detail which Des Barres clearly possessed but, for the sake of simplification, deliberately omitted from the two L690s.
_copy_red.jpg)
Appendix 6. Clements Library ID: 200. https://search.lib.umich.edu/catalog/Record/990046718140106381
Appendix 9
Francis Rawdon-Hastings. “Sketch of the Position of the Army on Long Island upon the Morning of the 26th of August, 1776; with the March on the Ensuing Night; and the Action of the 27th.” Map. 1776.
Appendix 8. UKHO A339 Ra/Heritage Charts A212
Appendix 8
Plan of New York Harbour and part of the North River in 1776. (Att. Lieut. John Hunter).
Appendix 9. Heritage Charts A212
Appendix 10
A Sketch of the Operations of His Majesty’s Army and Navy at New York, 1777. J.F.W. Des Barres. HNS149/Heritage Charts A200 by J.F.W. Des Barres.
Appendix 7
Transcript of letter from Captain Hyde Parker, to J. F. W. Des Barres. April 1777
[page 1 – 170]
My Dear Friend
Upon my arrival at New York last March* I was agreeably surprized to find that you were still in this world, having had great doubts upon that subject, not should I have been convinced to the contrary but by your two letters – one dated the 3rd of August 76 the other the 7th January 77, these I do assure you are the two only letters I have had the pleasure of receiving from you since my arrival on this side of the Atlantic. With those letters, I also received your two books of charts. As to those mentioned I have been sent by Mr Marsh of the Eagle. He denies having ever received any of the purchase have you mention. You will therefore receive my best thanks for those you was so obliging as to send me, and be assured that I shall always be happy and ready in being of any sort of use to you.
I am extremely sorry my sketch of the North River was not more perfect. I sent it to my father in order for him to give it him a general idea of the business that had been carried on. I shall now soon have one finish’d more completely
[page 2 – 171]
in the interim. I enclose you the account of the North river as I delivered it to Lord Howe. By this you may be able to dress the former Plan, as to the soundings. They are in general regular except at the places where the sunken objects are. There is at that place a sort of ridge of five fathoms from Burdetts mountain to about one mile to the norther’d of Fort Washington. The rest of the River has in general from seven fathoms in the best of the chanel shoaling gradually on each side to four, after that it shoals very quick, but I think you better not meddle with the soundings until I furnish you with better gratuicals. By the bye My Dear Des Barres I see you have persisted in your error of the Bearings of Cape Codd from Boston light House. Instead of NNW as printed in your directions it ought to be WNW. Of this I wrote to you from Boston.
As to the Pheonix’s criticals as you are pleased to call them If I mistake not they were marked in the plan I sent my father but I will endeavour by the next to give you every idea I possibly can of her situation and that of every other ship employed upon the difficult service. I wish
[page 3 – 172]
to my soul I had had your boy Jack to have sketch the landing upon New York Island. I think it would make one of the greatest picture that can be imagined. If you are acquainted with Captain Vandeput ask him. Thew you are none(known?) by his Clerk. If you happen not to know him I beg you will take the first opportunity of telling him that you are a friend of mine. After which you may ask him for that or any other favours you please. He is one of us and be an addition to your acquaintances _ A Capt Robinson [Robertson?] of the Engineer’s made a sketch of that landing and I am told has a masterly hand at those sort of things. He has promised make a coppy which I certainly will reserve for you. Any services have been so wholy confined to New York and not to have given me an opportunity of furnishing you with any thing but those particularswhich I have, and do now send. Should any thing in future allow you may be a focus of my attention - My best wishes attend Denmark Danmark street, where I hope to visit one next Fall or early in the Spring although at present there is no seeing through this accursed unatural war and how it is to end I cannot forsee, but hope with all my soul that people live(underlined), may not be disappointed in these sanguine wishes. I hope you are ……… [torn page corner]……….
[page 4 – 173]
….. when I left you. Adieu my Dear Friend and Believe me with great truth.
Your Affectionate Friend
HParker
Phoenix
Off Cape Henry, April 18th 1777
* Parker was appointed Captain of the Phoenix on the 7th April 1775.
Image 28. UKHO A9460 Des Barres draft plan of East River
It was drawn and pieced together on two pieces of paper by Des Barres as part of his preparation for the making of two charts of the East River and Long Island Sound between 1777 and 1778.
The upper right section of the draft (highlighted in red) was clearly made by Des Barres for the making of an inset included on his chart of Oyster and Huntington Bay [13] (Image 29 below) which matches directly with this original draft survey [14].
Image 29. Inset panel from Oyster & Huntington Bay 1778. UKHO Des Barres 16
Importantly, Des Barres copied across the outline of lower Manhattan, along with part of New Jersey (Paulus Hook) and Brooklyn from the finished draft (A9549) on to the second piece of paper (highlighted in blue on image 28 above). The copy gridlines [15] across the finished draft (A9459) and this lower section outline match exactly.
Image 30. Copy Gridlines UKHO A9459 and UKHO A9460
Des Barres then used the complete draft to produce his ‘Chart of New York Island & North River, East River, &c’ [16] (Image 31 below).
Images 3a & 3b. UKHO Book A Ledger << swipe to view>>
Although undated, this chart (Image 31) was likely made around the same time and the Oyster and Huntington Bay chart between 1777 and 1778 and was likewise included in the Atlantic Neptune.
The rather simplistic and topographically inaccurate environs depicted on the L690s were clearly made by Des Barres without the benefit of accurate surveys such as A9460. That he was able to use, perhaps within a year after abandoning the L690 project, such an accurate sketch (A9460) to make the two new charts shows how quickly New York was being properly surveyed as part of the British occupation of New York in 1776. His further use of Ratzer’s (likely) finished copy drawing as a starting point for a new chart is undoubtedly a mark of faith as to that plan’s accuracy.
Inaccuracies
Amongst the more obvious inaccuracies on the two L690 plans is the outline of New York Island (above lower Manhattan itself), whereby the east side the Island adjacent to Blackwell’s (now Roosevelt) Island is bloated. Even the shape of Blackwell’s is likewise affected, bending it like a banana (see also the section below on the influence of Bernard Ratzer). This is different to all other depictions of New York Island, including Des Barres’ own, later charts as we have just seen.
When the L690s (Image 31) are seen against Blaskowitz’s depiction of New York Island on his 1777 ‘Headquarters’ map [17] (Image 32) showing New York Island and the East River, the difference is marked.
It should be said that Des Barres would almost certainly have had access to survey material such as Ratzer’s finished copy drawing for his plan of the City of New York, once it had been discarded by William Faden (1711-1783) in 1770 [4]. In much the same way, both Thomas Jeffreys Snr (1719-1771) and later William Faden, as Geographers to the King, were able to acquire material through special relationships with both Government departments and individual surveyors. This was all thanks to the demand for information and maps and the inability of the Government and it’s departments to print and produce them and the subsequent reliance on private publishing houses to transmit information. Even the Atlantic Neptune was, technically, printed and distributed by Des Barres, not the Admiralty.
Specifications
The two L690 plans are quite remarkable, not just for their size (h74” x w54”) but also for their construction, each being made up of 6 sheets of paper with the left and right-hand borders being drawn and painted-on the same sheet as the respective engraving. The top and bottom boarders are attached with an approximate 1-1.5cm (1/2”) overlap, not painted-on as with the side borders. It would appear they were added separately because the engraved sheets each measure (with lost paper under the join from the sheet above) 23” tall and there was no surpluce paper upon which to draw the boarder at the top or bottom. The overlap of the 6 sheets which make-up the map down the middle of the chart is right over left and upper over lower, with an overlap of, again, approximately 1-1.5cm (1/2”) on each join. All boarders are 3 inches wide. Image 10 below shows the order in which the panels were attached. The measurements and specifications apply to both the UKHO and LOC L690 editions.
Image 6. UKHO A9459 over UKHO L690 press 83.
Image 14. LOC L690 top panel repair
Image 15. LOC L690 area of discoloration << swipe to view>>
Image 16. LOC L690 Information sheet covering the discolored area
Condition
The physical state of the two L690 plans are quite different; the UKHO version retains good colours but is badly warped and cracked (Image 13). It is currently awaiting conservation [10].
Image 13. UKHO L690 paper crack
Editions
Although the two L690 plans appear (apart from general wear and tear) to be identical, sharing as they do the same topographical detail and military information, upon closer inspection it seems that they are not. By examining the detail and presentation of the plans, including the draft plan, we can see that they are sequential and may therefore be regarded as different editions of the same plan.
We can see this development or progression, from the draft plan (UKHO A9459) through to the LOC L690 when we look at Des Barres’s depiction of the Advance Guard and Reserve of the British Army on the Bedford road on the morning of the 27th August, moving toward the American lines at Brooklyn as depicted on all three maps (Images 14-16).
Image 17. UKHO A9459 British Advance Guard on road to Bedford, 27th August 1776
Image 18. UKHO L690 British Advanced Guard on the road to Bedford, 27th August 1776
Image 19. LOC L690 British Advanced Guard on the road to Bedford, August 27th 1776.
Image 27. Projected Sheet numbers using
Des Barres’ ‘Plan of the Operations…’
When we look at the two L690 plans we can see that the military detail on the LOC L690 plan (Image 16) is presented in a much less sketchy style with clear color, than on the UKHO edition (Image 15). Note also that the section of road which appears on the UKHO plan has been erased on the LOC edition (Image 16) in order to accommodate the updated troop position. The Artillery has also been excluded and the two troop units at the front of the column are not connected by movement annotations to the position shown on the lower left as they are on the UKHO edition (Image 15).
It is certainly an interesting detail that Des Barres chose to simplify the military depictions as he progressed the editions. Of special note is that on the UKHO A9459 draft (Images 17 and 20 below) Des Barres includes detail which does not appear on other contemporary plans of the battle: He specifies one file of ‘flankers' to the north of the army and two to the south nearest the enemy.
The UKHO L690 plan (Image 21 above) shows annotated troop movements (dotted red lines) while the LOC L690 plan (Image 22 below) has clearer definition of troop units with no animation lines. More detailed colour has also been added to better distinguish roads and troops.
Image 31. UKHO DesBarres21. Manhattan Island & East River section
The Influence of Bernard Ratzer
The influence and importance of Bernard Ratzer’s seminal ‘Plan of the City of New York, in North America surveyed in 1766-1777’[19], on the cartographic world cannot be overstated. It was first published in 1770 by London publishers Faden and Jeffreys and republished in January 1776 with the anticipation of hostilities in New York. Augustyne and Cohen [20] describe it as ‘perhaps the finest map of an American city and its environs produced in the 18th century. Its geographic precision combined with highly artistic engraving was unsurpassed in the cartography of its day’.
Des Barres, based in London since November 1773 [21], was totally reliant on survey information about New York from others. Ratzer’s finished-copy survey which had been sent to London, enlarged and engraved by Faden and Jeffreys in the making of the now famous Ratzer Map, provided his starting point for his L690 map/plan of the campaign in and around New York in 1776.
So intent on using, what was to Des Barres, just a scrap of an old survey as a convenient starting and focal point for his draft map (UKHO A9459) in 1776, that he totally disregarded the fact that the information/detail of Ratzer’s map was already between 3 and 10 years out of date: The memorial to General Wolf, next to the Delancy property on the West-side of Manhattan Island which had been erected between May 24th and July 12th 1762, probably by Lt. General Robert Monckton, had been taken-down sometime around Monckton’s death in 1772. Other details of Manhattan which also appear on the L690 maps include: the fresh-water collecting pond on the battery had been was removed in 1773 and Delancy’s Square, off Bowery Lane, which had appeared on Ratzer’s plan of the city in 1766/67 was never built [22].
Where Des Barres’ starting point for his draft for the L690 maps/plans was the Ratzer draft plan for his ‘Plan of the City New York’ we can see that it only covers a fraction of the area Des Barres wanted to lay-out for his own plan but it dictates Des Barres’s projected shape for the rest of the New York island[23] in particular.
If we look at the main section of the Ratzer map of New York and environs superimposed onto one of the L690s to scale, this is particularly evident (Image 30).
Image 36. Ratzer Map section on UKHO L690
When both plans are viewed together, it is evident that the base-line topography on them was produced from a combination of a copper-plate pressing with hand-finished labelling, detail and colour to finish (see Video 2 below). It should be noted that in his effort to add and update the hand-drawn military information on the LOC L690 (2nd edition) Des Barres’ had to erase [25] some of the base-line engraving in order to accommodate the changes (see again Image 19 above).
There are two areas on the L690 plans which are markedly different from one another in terms of detail: King’s Bridge (red) and north of Fort Washington (blue). In these two areas the topography on the LOC L690 edition has been changed and new detail/terrain has been added, presumably to show a more accurate depiction of the topography and military disposition, based on updated information. Also, the position of one of the redoubts has changed. In order for this to be achieved the relevant copper plate would have been flattened in those areas before reprinting the particular sheet in order to allow the 2nd edition (LOC) to be redrawn by hand in these areas. Note that the baseline engraving outside the red and blue sections is identical.
Video 3. L690 Discrepancies in the Topography of the two L690 plans
(Click image to view)
Image 41. UKHO L690 section detail
Image 42. LOC L690 section detail
Engraved Military Fortifications
Where we know that all troop positions on the L690 plans were added by hand, the significance of fortifications included on the plans which were engraved hold an important clue as to when Des Barres either started engraving the plates for the production of the two L690s or possibly returned to the coppers to add additional detail, although there is no difference between the two plans we have.
Some of the American fortifications around Brooklyn are engraved as are the British men-of-war, specifically; the Phoenix, Rose & Tartar in the North River (16th August) testing the defences; the transport ships anchored off Staten Island (July/Aug), the men of war which covering the landing at Gravesend Bay (22nd August) and Renown, Phoenix, Rose, Orpheus covering the landing Kips Bay (15th September). Landing craft transporting British troops are engraved at Kips Bay, but not at the initial landing at Gravesend Bay. Here the detail of the craft are added separately on the two editions by hand. This is likely because Des Barres had initially, at the point of engraving the first (lower) coppers, decided to only depict the accompanying ships. By the time he came to engrave the 3rd and 4th coppers, after the 15th September he changed his mind. The Last fortifications on the L690 maps which were engraved were the American defences around Fort Washington.
When we look at the American defense lines and fortifications in Brooklyn, on both editions of the L690 plans, we can see that those highlighted in red have been added by hand (Images 43 & 44). They were not included at the point engraving because at the time Des Barres drew the draft (Image 43) the defences were in themselves incomplete. Work on the line of forts was started in February 1776 under the auspices of Maj. Gen. Charles Lee [26]. Also on images 44 & 45 note that the area highlighted in green indicates that the defences were engraved on to the plate for printing.
Brooklyn
%20A9459.jpg)
Image 43. UKHO A9459 (draft) Defence ramparts at Brooklyn
Image 51. UKHO A9459 detail of Newtown & Flushing, LI
All troop positions at both Newtown and Flushing (September 1st to 15th), along with Howe’s Headquarters which are also shown on the draft (Image 51 above), have been omitted on the subsequent L690 editions (Image 52 below). Only the artillery pieces were included on the L690 prints, presumably by mistake. Where the troops had been camped only empty spaces are left.
Image 52. LOC L690 detail of Newtown & Flushing, LI. Missing troop positions
This omission is also true of the British positions on Harlem Plains on the 15th September. Note the artillery position in the top left of the Image (53 below) shows 125 Jägers. A Jäger company consisted of four commissioned officers, 16 non-commissioned ones, one non-combat officer, and 105 men [30].
Image 53. UKHO A9459 detail of Harlem Plains. September 15th 1776
Areas in Blue show artillery positions engraved. Red highlights omitted troop positions on both the UKHO & LOC L690s.
Image 54. LOC L690 detail of Harlem Plains. Missing troop positions. September 15th 1776
Rawdon’s plan includes a table of march for the British units (Image 58 below). Overall, it exceeds Howe’s report to Lord Germaine of the 3rd September, in detail. It is however extremely unlikely that it would prove to be a direct source for Des Barres but it is a good example of the type of information which was to emerge at this time.
It should be noted that Rawdon accompanied General Clinton to England in January 1777 (arrived 1st March) before returning to the war with the General in July. He would certainly have been an invaluable source of information although it would, likely, have been too late for Des Barres even if there had been the opportunity to meet.
All of which begs the question; if this kind of detail is incorrect how much would the important recipient of the plan be able to trust the other information provided? It is worth pointing out at this stage that one of his sources for this map/plan, Lt John Hunter, also got it wrong on his survey of the Hudson or North River (Image 61 below).
Conclusions
Firstly, the military information included on the plan is exceptional - especially early on in the campaign around the landing and action at Brooklyn, even though it gets ‘sketchier’ as the campaign went North. Although we do not, as yet, know for certain who his sources of military information were, the plans shows us that he was very well connected.
The fact that he replicated the mistake Lt. Hunter made in transposing Gravesend and New Utrecht highlights the perils of making maps & plans, remotely. That is, being reliant on the information of others.
When looking at the likely costs involved, we have an indication as to the character and tenacity of Des Barres. He was clearly prepared to take risks.
That there are no financial or production records of the plans, beyond the plans themselves, tells us that the plans probably never saw the light of day, at least not in the way they were intended. The lack of records would further suggest that Des Barres hid the costs in amongst his other accounts.
That he started laying-out the scope of his plan as early as April or May 1776 shows that he was proactive and forward thinking.
The construction of the plans, such that he could have extended the geographic area, had he so chosen (or was able to afford to do so), is masterful – if somewhat unmanageable.
That he, ultimately, still managed to utilize the military information he had amassed into a small scale, single-sheet, plan of the campaign shows that he was not one to give-up easily. Indeed, his ‘A Plan of the Operations of His Majesty’s Fleet and Army…’ was well received [40] and is, after Blaskowitz’s Headquarters Map, one of the most complete of its kind although the heavy hachuring and indecipherable lettering and labelling make it difficult to read. That it was produced in something of a hurry there can be little doubt.
Overall, we must conclude that Des Barres’ attempt to produce the ultimate ‘statement’ plan of the campaign in New York in 1776 was a failure. It was truly a Great (and expensive) Folly, which fell-foul of the same arrogance that befell the British (and so many after them) who assumed that a conflict would be contained and decided in the anticipated place.
Hopefully, this examination of the plans themselves has shed further light on the processes by which Des Barres produced his charts, maps and plans for the Atlantic Neptune; his use of whatever material was available to him, and above all else his indominable desire to remain at the forefront of his profession.
References on the Plans
For all of the military disposition shown on the two plans there is one thing missing on both copies of the L690s; the Key to the letters Des Barres used on the two L690 plans.
Appendix 5
Claude Joseph Sauthier. A Plan of the Operations of the King's Army under the Command of General Sir William Howe, K.B. in New York and East New Jersey against the American Forces Commanded by George Washington from the 12th October to the 28th November 1776. Published Feb 25th 1777.
Appendix 5. UKHO A305/Heritage Charts A204
Construction
When the finished draft was completed it would appear to have been split in half, just off centre, to make the tracings and transfer of detail onto each of the six copper plates for the production of the L690 plans easier. When the sections of the original draft were then glued back together, no allowance had been made for the sections of the draft which were now lost under the join of the two sections. This flaw is also evident when we look at the two finished L690 plans; detail is lost under the joins or seams when they were then glued together. The following short video highlights this loss of detail.
Video 1. Unpicking the Seams (Click image to view)
Image 7. UKHO A9459 Center panel Brooklyn defences.
In the two images above note the loss of the fortification under the overlap of the paper sections. In image 8 (below), taken from the first of the two L690 editions, note the same overlap but that the fortifications to the south of the road were was added, by hand, after the sections were joined.
L690%20missing%20fort.jpg)
Image 9. UKHO L690 Center panel Brooklyn defences.
Image 26. Military disposition on UKHO A9459 draft
By laying-out the extent of his plan, perhaps as early as May 1776, Des Barres may well have been giving himself time to start preparing and engraving the plates for the production of his finished plans which were always going to have the military disposition added by hand. Any fortifications already in existence, known to Des Barres, which appeared on the draft plan would also be engraved on the subsequent L690 editions, although even then the LOC L690 (2nd) edition includes some fortifications (added by hand) not included on the UKHO L690 (1st) edition, presumably as Des Barres received updated information (see section on Engraved Military Fortifications below).
Unless, in time, it is found we will never know if the missing top section of the draft plan included all of the military disposition shown on the later L690 editions, but it would be fair to assume that it did. It is also to be expected that the missing lower section of the draft also included all military disposition, pertaining to the operation progressed north throughout August, September & October 1776.
Des Barres’ intention to record events on a plan of a predetermined area or extent is further supported by the fact that the events of mid-late October 1776 centered around White Plains are not depicted at all, yet General Cornwallis’ attack and capture of fort Constitution (later Lee) on the 18th of November 1776 is. In the end, if it was Des Barres’ hope that all events would fit the geographic area he had laid out, he was severely let down by the General Washington who chose to keep moving north to White Plains and of course by General Howe who chose to follow him.
When considering Des Barres’ intentions we should acknowledge a second possibility and that is whether it was Des Barres’ intention to draw and expand the area of the plan to accommodate the operations as they unfolded? In support of this second notion, we may return to the structure of the plans where we know that the top and bottom edges were attached separately and not drawn, as with the two sides (along with the fact that the top and bottom sheets of the A9459 draft are missing). This suggests that he could extend the plan as needed.
The approximate dimensions of such a finished plan (to include the area of White Plains), including the surrounding border, would be approximately h132” (11’) x w54.5” (4’ 5”). Such a length would certainly require a very long table or a tall room, along with a set of steps and a telescope to read the military information at the top of the plan.
Perhaps we could find the answer as to Des Barres intention in both suggestions inasmuch as he prepared a plan which could be extended as events unfolded but ultimately chose not to, in the light of the fact that it would nearly double the production cost by adding up to 6 more copper engravings, were he to extend as far north as White Plains.
Using Des Barres’ own 1777 Plan of the Operations of His Majesty’s Fleet and Army as a template [12] with the L690 scaled-down to be included, we can see how the plates would be arranged (Image 27 below). The area of White Plains is marked in red and the area of the projected sheets is shown in yellow.
Des Barres' Process
As has already been mentioned, it is very clear, when looking at the draft plan (UKHO A9459) that the scale and accuracy of drawing employed by Des Barres on his ‘surrounding’ sheet is far less precise and at a different scale in relation to the central panel showing Manhattan, part of Long Island and New Jersey (Image 1). The likely reason for this lack of accuracy is that, with the constraints of both time and money Des Barres was under, the topography and scale of the draft and the subsequent L690s was less important than the depiction of military disposition. The production of a more accurate map of the environs would, from over 3,000 miles away, be consuming both of time and money. He was, after all, presenting a plan or report of the military operations, not a map of New York and environs. Topographic accuracy was less important than military content. Certainly the larger scale of the drawing of the environs, makes the marking of troop positions easier and clearer.
There are no place names to be found on the middle section of the draft plan (A9459), they were added at the point of engraving. Likewise, when compared with the two finished-copy L690s the draft, apart from military disposition, is also lacking a great deal of topographic detail including woods, buildings, fields, rivers and other terrain, all of which were also added at the point of engraving. Perhaps the best we may say is that the draft plan and subsequent editions are little more than artistic renditions of the true detail of the topography.
Interestingly, we get a further glimpse into the process by which Des Barres’ worked, in the preparation of his charts and plans, when we examine his draft sketch of the East River, held in the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO A9460).
L690%20Lines.jpg)
Image 44. UKHO L690. Defence ramparts at Brooklyn
L690%20Lines.jpg)
Image 45. LOC L690. Defence ramparts at Brooklyn
.jpg)
Image 46. UKHO A9459
%20L690%20Lines.jpg)
Image 47. UKHO L690
%20L690%20Lines.jpg)
Image 42. LOC L690
A search of Des Barres's personal papers held by the Library and Archives of Canada, along with UK Treasury papers and of course Des Barres' accounts and memorials to the Admiralty have yet to offer-up any listing or indeed mention of the two L690 plans. As frustrating as this may be, we should perhaps not be surprised. If indeed Des Barres recognised that the project was doomed to failure by the end of December 1776, he may well have scrapped all financial records of his failure, or tried to disperse his financial losses in his other claims and memorials related to the Atlantic Neptune, leaving the two unfinished plans on the shelf. A loss of that amount of money, would certainly go some way to explaining Des Barres' persistent complaining about the financial burden he was under at this time.
Fort Washington was constructed as of June 20th 1776 with the earth-work ramparts to the south also shown on the L690s (marked ‘T’), which were likely put together in mid-late September after the British had occupied Harlem Plains, before White Plains and the eventual battle for the fort on the 16th November.
In images 49 & 50 (below) we can see on the two L690 maps/plans that the Fort and its immediate line defences are all engraved. Only the troop positions have been added by hand (note that, as with lettering elsewhere on the maps/plans, the engraved lines of the fort itself have been in-filled by hand on the UKHO L690).
Fort Washington
Image 49. UKHO L690 Ft. Washington
Image 50. UKHO L690 Ft. Washington
Elsewhere there are some artillery positions marked on the draft and included on the L690 prints on Harlem Plains dating from mid-late September 1776. Also in Newtown along with more on the heights covering the East River and Horn’s Hook fort.
In Image 51 (below) we see detail from Des Barres’s draft plan of the British camp at Newtown, Long Island, from the 1st September until the move to the landing at Kips Bay [29] on the 15th September 1776. Note the following military disposition: Artillery position (circled blue), also General Howe’s Headquarters (circled green) just south of the crossroads at Newton. The 2nd, 3rd & 5th Brigades are also marked in Newtown while the 71st (Highlanders) regiment and a Light Horse unit (17th) are shown as being camped at Flushing to the Northeast.
May 1776 Des Barres starts laying-out the topography for his draft map of New York.
June Des Barres starts engraving the six copper plates for the L690s to show the basic topography of the selected area based on the draft. Place names may have been included at this point.
Mid-October Des Barres adds military disposition to his draft map including the landing (August 22nd), Battle for Brooklyn, British camp at Newtown, British landing at Kips bay (15th Sept) and British position on Harlem Plains. The missing upper section of the draft likely also included the American positions at Fort Washington.
Mid-late October Des Barres adds engraving to the plates for the L690 to include known fortifications on Brooklyn and Fort Washington. Also, Men of War at Staten Island (June/July), the Phoenix, Rose & Tartar in the North River (16th August) testing the American defences; The landing in Gravesend Bay (22nd-24th August), The British landing at Kips Bay (15th September), including the transport barges from Newtown inlet and men of war at Bushwick Inlet. Also, soundings on plates 1(bottom left) and 3(middle left), place names and river names. Once the plates were finished all troop positions and newly discovered fortifications were added by hand. The soundings for the upper part of the North or Hudson river were added by hand at a later date, and correspond with those on Hunter’s plan (UKHO A339 – Appendix 8). The printing of the 2nd edition of the engraved map/plan is likely to have been started, if not simultaneously with the 1st edition, soon afterwards with detail simplified and corrected once it had been ‘trialled’ on the 1st edition and as new information came available.
30th December General Howe's report of the Battle of White Plains (28th October), Battle for Fort Washington and the capitulation of Fort Constitution 18th (November) received by Lord George Germain the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
May 1777 Des Barres receives John Hunter’s plan of the operations in New York from Captain Hyde Parker having already received a plan the previous year, (somewhere about April/May 1776) via Admiral Parker.
Image 7. UKHO A9459 Center panel expanded.
Image 8. UKHO A9459 Center panel expanded
See images 7, 8 & 9 below
On the Images 46-48 above we again see the development of the two L690 plans. Once again, engraved forts and redoubts are highlighted in green and those included by hand are highlighted in red. On Image 48 an entrenched line of defence, by the Livingston estate, has been added by hand (circled red). The large fort marked ‘A’ overlooking Brookland Ferry (circled Green) was marked and laid-out in March 1776 but never completed. It was eventually named Fort Stirling which George Sproule [27] described as a ‘Hexagon fort with bastions but never got it in a state of defence’ (marked A on both L690s – Images 47 & 48 above). The presence of the fort was used by General Howe as one of the factors in his decision to halt the British advance on the 27th August. For more on this see David Smith's excellent book 'William Howe and the American War of Independence' [28].
Appendix 4
Information sheets kept with the LOC L690 when it was passed-on to the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division From the Washington Science Center, Rockville, Maryland. Note the pencil inscription on the left margin.
Image 20. UKHO A9459. Detail of the British Advance Guard on the road to Bedford showing flankers, August 27th 1776.
Footnote
We should ponder once again, that in amongst the maps and plans Des Barres used in the making of his L690, one was almost certainly Bernard Ratzer’s finished copy survey for his seminal 1770 Plan of the City of New York. Further to that, Des Barres glued it onto his own sketch of the environs of the city, by way of being a starting point for the draft of the plan he was about to make.
If indeed that, under further investigation, proves to be the case it would, in cartographic terms, make it as valuable a document as that which the art world would consider a Michelangelo stuck onto a Da Vince.
Image 62. The Ratzer Plan of New York City (scaled) on UKHO A945
In another example of simplification we see the main field of action later-on in the day of the 27th of August, closer to the American lines at Brooklyn (Images 21 & 22 below).
Appendix 11
References to the Sketch of Operations at New York. Des Barres, Joseph F. W. The Atlantic Neptune. [London, -82 V. 1, 1781, 1780] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/75332508/. IMAGE 127.
Appendix 10. Additional References to The Plan of Operations.
Appendix 12
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 1
Appendix 12. Page 1
Appendix 12. Page 2
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 2
Bibliography
Atkinson, Rick. The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777, Vol 1: Henry Holt &and Company, New York, 2019.
Augustyn, Robert T.., Sanderson, Eric W.., Cohen, Paul E.. Manhattan in Maps 1527-2014. United States: Dover Publications, 2014.
Baynton-Williams, Roger. The Art of the printmaker 1500-1860: A&C Black Publishers Ltd, London. 2009.
Brown, Richard H.., Cohen, Paul E., Brown, Richard H. Revolution: Mapping The Road To American Independence, 1755 To 1783. United Kingdom: WW Norton, 2015.
Edelston, Max. The new map of empire: how Britain imagined America before independence: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Evans, G.N.D. Uncommon Obdurate: The Several Public Careers of J. F. W. Des Barres: Peabody Museum of Salem, Massachusetts & University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 1969
Hornsby, Stephen J.. Surveyors of Empire: Samuel Holland, J.F.W. Des Barres, and the Making of The Atlantic Neptune. Ukraine: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011.
Johnson, Alex. The First Mapping of America: The General Survey of British North America: I.B.Tauris, 2017
Johnston, Henry Phelps. The Campaign of 1776 Around New York and Brooklyn. United States: Long island historical Society, 1878.
Mowat, Henry. Transcribed & abridged by Wahll, Andrew. Henry Mowat Voyage of the Canceaux, 1764-1776: Abridged Logs of H.M. Armed Ship Canceaux. United States: Heritage Books, 2003.
Murray, Jeffrey S.. Terra Nostra: The Stories Behind Canada’s Maps. Ukraine: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006.
Pascoe, L.N. ‘The Story of the Curator of the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty 1795 to 1975’ (unpublished). Available from research@ukho.gov.uk
Pedley, Mary, Sponberg. The commerce of cartography : Making and Marketing Maps in Eighteenth-Century France and England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Robertson, Archibald. ‘His Diaries and Sketches in America, Book Two. 1762-1780’. The New York Public Library and The New York Times & Arno Press Reprint Edition by The New York Public Library and Arno Press Inc. 1971. ISBN 0-405-01224-1.
Robinson, A. H. W. Marine Cartography in Britain: Leicester University Press. 1962.
Ross, David. THE HESSIAN JÄGERKORPS IN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA, 1776-1777, Journal of The American Revolution, May 14, 2015.
Smith, David. William Howe and the American War of Independence: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.
Smith, David, Turner Graham, New York 1776, The Continentals’ first battle: Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008.
Stokes, Isaac Newton Phelps. The iconography of Manhattan Island. United States: Dodd, 1915.
Nebenzahl, Kenneth. A Bibliography of Printed Battle Plans of the American Revolution 1775-1795: The University of Chicago Press. 1975.
Webster, John Clarence. The Life of Frederick Wallet Des Barres. Forgotten Books, London. 2018.
Appendix 12. Page 3
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 3
Appendix 12. Page 4
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 4
Appendix 12. Page 5
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 5
Appendix 12. Page 6
References for the L690 Plans Combined. Page 6
The topological inaccuracies on the plans are no less important when viewed with a military eye, as may be seen when we compare Des Barres’ L690s (Image 33) with a contemporary Hessian plan and Blaskowitz’s plan of the operations (Images 34 & 35 below).
Image 33. LOC L690 Harlem Plains
<< Swipe to view >>
Image 34. Hessian Plan by R. J. Martin 1777
<< Swipe to view >>
Image 35. Blaskowitz Headquarters plan 1777
Des Barres’ depiction of the Heights of Harlem are very simple and imply a single high ground whereas the Martin [18] plan and the Blaskowitz plan each detail separate high grounds upon which the different units are encamped. For detail of the troop positions on Harlem Plains on the Des Barres L690 plans, see the chapter on Engraving (Images 48 & 49) below.
To view the Table of Content and navigate to sections please click here
List of Maps, Plans & Charts
UKHO A9459 & Heritage Charts A202
New York, East River, part of Hudson River and Adjacent County with military dispositions shown
UKHO L690 press 83
New York Bay and Harbour and vicinity shewing the disposition of the forces &c. J.F.W. Des Barres.
UKHO A9460 & Heritage Charts A220 New York etc.
UKHO A339 Ra & Heritage Charts A212
Plan of New York Harbour and part of the North River in 1776. Att. Lt. John Hunter
UKHO DesBarres21 & Heritage Charts A208
New York, East River & Long Island Sound. J.F.W. Des Barres.
UKHO L690 press83 & Heritage Charts A215
New York Bay and Harbour and vicinity shewing the disposition of the forces &c. J.F.W. Des Barres
UKHO A111 & Heritage Charts A207
Oyster & Huntington Bay, Long Island Sound with inset of Hell's Gate. J.F.W. Des Barres
UKHO A305 & Heritage Charts A204
A plan of the operations of the King's army under the command of General Sir William Howe, K.B. in New York and east New Jersey, against the American forces commanded by General Washington from the 12th of October to the 28th of November 1776, wherein is particularly distinguished the engagement on the White Plains the 28th of October. Claude Joseph Sauthier.
Heritage Charts A201
Plan of the City of New York in North America: Surveyed in the Years 1766 & 1767. Bernard Ratzer.
Heritage Charts A200
A sketch of the operations of His Majesty's fleet and army under the command of Vice Admiral the Rt. Hble. Lord Viscount Howe and Genl. Sr. Wm. Howe, K.B., in 1776. J.F.W. Des Barres.
Library of Congress. G3804.N4S3 1776.M4 & Heritage Charts A216
Manuscript map of British and American troop positions in the New York City region at the time of the Battle of Long Island Aug.-Sept. [?, 1776] J.F.W. Des Barres.
Library of Congress. gm71000864
A plan of New York Island, with part of Long Island, Staten Island & east New Jersey, with a particular description of the engagement on the woody heights of Long Island, between Flatbush and Brooklyn, on the 27th of August between His Majesty's forces commanded by General Howe and the Americans under Major General Putnam, with the subsequent disposition of both armies. London, 1776. William Faden. https://www.loc.gov/item/gm71000864/.
Library of Congress 75332508/. IMAGE 127
References to the Sketch of Operations at New York. The Atlantic Neptune. [London, -82 V. 1, 1781, 1780] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/75332508/. IMAGE 127. J. F. W. Des Barres
Norman B Levanthal Map & Education Center 06_01_010453
"A plan of New York Island, and part of Long Island, with the circumjacent country, as far as Dobbs's Ferry to the north, and White Plains to the east, including the rivers, islands, roads, &ca." Map. [1777]. Blaskowitz, Charles.
Clements Library ID: 200.
“Sketch of the Position of the Army on Long Island upon the Morning of the 26th of August 1776; with the March on the Ensuing Night; and the Action of the 27th.” Map. 1776, 1776. Francis Rawdon-Hastings.
State Archives Marburg: HStAM WHK 28/47
Plan d'une partie du camp de l'armée anglaise à Hellgate et Newtown sur Long-Island, de sa descente sur New York-Island à Keppsbay, du camp qu'elle pris après avoir forcé les ennemis à se retirer dans leur lignes devant le Fort de Washington 16/11/1776. R. J. Martin. 1777
I should like to thank a number of people who have assisted and supported me in the writing of this paper. Firstly there is Frank Licameli (Lt. Colonel, ret.) who many years ago sought me out after a short interview I gave, about one of the maps featured in this paper, which was published in New York’s DNA News. Frank’s expertise and knowledge of Revolutionary War New York has been a veritable blessing to an Englishman such as I. Further, I would like to acknowledge all of the helpful and knowledgeable archive staff I have worked with over the years, especially in the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office and the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division.
I would like to thank my wonderful partner Cindy, who has supported and encouraged me whilst having the hardest job of all in living with me, my maps, books, computer and interminable video making. I should also like to acknowledge my sisters; Fiona for all of the interest and enthusiasm she has shown and Muriel for the expertise and guidance she has been able to give me.
Acknowledgments
Production Costs
Herein lies the basis for the assertion that Des Barres’ efforts to make a definitive, statement, plan of the campaign for the campaign in and around New York were little more than a ‘Great Folly’.
In 1795 Des Barres submitted his final claim for expenses incurred in the making of the Atlantic Neptune in a statement of his expenses incurred from 1763 to 1784 [34] In his statement Des Barres claimed that between these dates he had spent £21,072 in the production of the Atlantic Neptune. This figure included:
-
The cost of making the surveys of Nova Scotia carried out by Des Barres himself up until 1773 - £4,382
-
‘Contingencies’ including property rent, assistants, stationary & implements for the time he was in London between 1773 and 1784 - £5,475
-
The expense for engraving 257 Plates (as appears from the inspection of the Atlantic Neptune) at the price stipulated by the Government of 35 guineas for each Plate - £9,444.
-
To prepare and print Impressions of the charts - £1771.
Despite all of Des Barres’ protestations over the years that he was not fully reimbursed by the Treasury for his claimed expenses, there is justification on the part of the Government for the shortfall inasmuch as Des Barres’ allowance, on recommendation of the Board of Trade, of 35 guineas per Plate [35], plus a salary of 20 shillings a day from 1764 along with a deduction for fees incurred was ultimately viewed by the Treasury such that his salary and expenses had already been met. Furthermore, Des Barres’ arrangement with the Admiralty and the Government was in itself highly unusual to say the least. He was an Army officer, employed in the service of the Admiralty and although the Government was meeting his expenses he was effectively operating as a private or independent map publisher, with license to retain all profits on sales of the individual sheets and volumed of the Atlantic Neptune.
Tellingly, over the years 1774 to 1778 Des Barres’ operated as an in-house publisher who employed assistants who managed all facets of the production process, including engraving and printing. He also rented houses or work-shops and he, more often than not, provided for his assistants.
In 1774 he employed 4 assistants. In 1775 he had 6 and through 1776 – 1779 he had 14. In 1780 the number was down to 4 again and 1781- 1784 the number fell to 2 [36].
Crucially, it has always been assumed that the actual cost of producing and printing each sheet for the Atlantic Neptune, was indeed 35 guineas, because that is the figure stipulated by the Treasury that they would pay toward the production cost for engraving and preparing for printing.
When looking at the cost of producing just one edition of the L690 plan in 1776/77 we need to consider the notion that each of the 6 copper plates and the resulting printed sheets may have actually cost Des Barres less to produce than the allowed Treasury figure of 35 guineas, simply because with 14 assistants in his employ at the time he was likely treating the production as extranummary on the basis that the Government was already paying. That is not to say that the cost of engraving and printing did not come at a cost but it would be fair to reduce that figure down to an actual cost level.
Interestingly, there are two figures at play here; If Des Barres’ figure of £9,444 for engraving 257 plates between 1773 and 1784 at 35 guineas each is taken, it gives us a figure of £36 and 15 shillings a plate (£7,705 in 2023). This in-turn gives us a figure of £220 for 6 Plates in 1776 (£46,000/$56,000 in 2023) which seems rather inflated for an in-house production with a limited return.
If however, we take the figure of £5,475 [37] offered by Des Barres for ‘Contingencies’ in his accounts, including property rent, assistants, stationary & implements for the time he was in London between 1773 and 1784 and divide that by 257 we are left with a figure of £21 per Plate (£3,400/$4,141 in 2023). In other words; when the hourly rate for engraving is ignored, on the basis that the engravers were already salaried and otherwise accommodated, then we can perhaps put a more accurate figure on the cost of production of the copper plates and printing for the two L690 plans.
That two plans (which we know of) were produced from the same plates of course brings the cost per plan down to half of that figure (£10,200/$12,400 in 2023) [38]. Obviously the price drops exponentially the more copies Des Barres produced, a fact which must surely have been in his mind at the outset of the project. Whichever is the case, this was not an inexpensive exercise. We should also remember that while this assumes that Des Barres was, broadly speaking, ignoring an hourly rate or cost for engraving the engraving process depending on the complexity, still bore a cost of time if nothing else. Especially if the engravers expertise was diverted from other production[39]
End Notes
[1] S. Max Edelson. The New Map of Empire. How Britain Imagined America before Independence. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massacusetts. London, England. (2017). Page 329.
[2] Holland to Des Barres: Kittery, Pisquataqua River, May 27th 1771. Heritage Canada, Des Barres Papers, Series 5 (MG23F15, Vols 1-2, p85) Also, Holland to Pownnall 15th June 1772, CO 5/70, f333
[3] Matthew Edney & Mary Sponberg-Pedley: Livestream introduction to The History of Cartography: Cartography in the Enlightenment, Volume 4, Part 1: Session #1: The Building Blocks for Creating an Encyclopedia: Cartography Discovery Series. Presented by the Clements Library. March 9th 2021.
[4] Upon the death of Thomas Jeffreys Snr, William Faden continued the partnership with Jeffrey’s son, Thomas Jnr. Ultimately the partnership of Faden and Jefferys was dissolved in 1776, and Faden started to publish under his own name. With the progress of the American Revolultionary War Faden built his business into a profitable enterprise. The re-release of Ratzer’s Plan of the City of New York in 1776 was one of the last Faden and Jeffreys publications.
[5] For more information on the history and organization of the Hydrographic Office holdings see: Pascoe, L.N. ‘The Story of the Curator of the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty 1795 to 1975’ (unpublished). Available from research@ukho.gov.uk
[6] Curiously, the visitor ledger for Cricklewood, held in the UKHO, does not list Karo’s visit for this or adjacent years.
[7] NOAA (C&GS): National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (Coast & Geodactic Survey)
[8] Telephone conversation (05/31/2022).
[9] Geographical Ledger ‘Coasts of United States including Alaska – pre 1930, ref COD 2/5/1/8. 1815-16. United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.
[10The full extent of the damage to UKHO l690 is not evident from the image used in this presentation (image 4) thanks to extensive photoshop editing.
[11] LOC catalogue record is reads: Accompanied by 2 textual descriptions signs from previous exhibitions of the map: August – September 1776. [1] sheet: paperboard; 29 x 25cm. – Battle of New York. [1] sheet : paperboard ; 28 x 42 cm.
[12] Not to scale
[13] J.F.W. Des Barres. Oyster and Huntington Bays with an Inset of Hell’s Gate(1778) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3802o.ar123100. See also Heritage Charts A207.
[14] The draft survey includes the American fortifications built around the Walton House on Horns Hook which were erected in early 1776 and were destroyed by a barrage from the British guns positioned across the river on the 8th September 1776, also marked on the survey. Significantly, These are the only military dispositions shown on the survey. An entry in the Diary of Archibald Robertson states; ‘Sept.4th Evening, Captain Moncrief and I were ordered to raise two Battery’s at Hell gate against Walton's House, one of 3 24-Pounders and one 3 12-Pounders, a working party of 300 men. We began to work at ½ past nine and by 5 next morning they were completed within 2 hours work of 6o men. Archibald Robertson. ‘His Diaries and Sketches in America, Book Two. 1762-1780’. The New York Public Library and The New York Times & Arno Press Reprint Edition by The New York Public Library and Arno Press Inc. 1971. ISBN 0-405-01224-1.
[15] Copy gridlines were used to transfer, enlarge or reduce detail.
[16] ‘East and West Sheets: Hampstead Bay’. UKHO First Editions and Pulls held of Des Barres Charts: Office location 21. See Also Heritage Charts A201 & Library of Congress.
[17] Blaskowitz, Charles. "A plan of New York Island, and part of Long Island, with the circumjacent country, as far as Dobbs's Ferry to the north, and White Plains to the east, including the rivers, islands, roads, &ca." Map. [1777]. Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center, https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:z603vw04k. Richard H. Brown Revolutionary War Map Collection.
[18] Martin. R. J. Plan des Lagers der britischen Armee in Hellgate und Newtown auf Long-Island, auf New York-Island am 16. November 1776 (Plan of the camp of the British Army at Hellgate and Newtown on Long Island, on New York Island on November 16, 1776). 1777. Digital Archive Marburg (DigAM), Hessian State Archives Marburg, 2000/2001. HStAM WHK 28/47.
[19]Variously call the Ratzer ‘Map’ of New York in order to differentiate it from his 1767 publication the ‘Plan of the City of New York’ or ‘Ratzen Plan’ which covered only the area of Lower Manhattan.
[20] Robert T. Augustyn, E. Cohen: Manhattan in Maps 1527-2014, Dover Publications, Inc, Mineols, New York. 2014. Page 59.
[21] In 1773 Des Barres received leave to go to England in order to see to the publication of his maps and charts for the Atlantic Neptune and in the October of that year he boarded the Adamant at Halifax and sailed for London.
[22] This is an early example of what became common practice for map-makers to include projected building projects in editions of their maps in order to appear as current as possible, for as long as possible.
[23] Note that for purposes of display we might, just as accurately use Ratzer’s (presumed) finished copy (center panel; UKHO A9459)for the Ratzer Map of New York.
[24] Engraving would involve the use of either a burin tool or a needle for fine detail. For an explanation of the process see Richard Baynton-Williams, ‘The art of the printmaker 1500-1860, A & C Black, London (2009).
[25] Because the area involved is small Des Barres opted to scratch or erase the paper to remove the ink rather than flatten the copper and re-engrave.
[26] In February 1776 Lee wrote to General Washington, “We have fixed a spot on Long Island for a retrenched Camp which I hope will render it impossible for ‘em to get footing on that important Island as this Camp can always be reinfor’d it is our intention to make it so capacious as to contain four thousand men.”. Charles Lee to George Washington, February 14, 1776, Founders Online, National Archives.
[27] George Sproule “A plan of the environs of Brooklyn showing the position of the rebel lines and defences on the 27th of August 1776..” https://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wcl1ic/x-8657/wcl008728. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections.
[28] Smith, David. William Howe and the American War of Independence. : Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. P67-70[xxvi]
[29]Kips Bay is variously spelled Keps, Kips but id today known by the latter.
[30] David Ross. THE HESSIAN JÄGERKORPS IN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA, 1776-1777, Journal of The American Revolution, May 14, 2015.
[31] The plan is part of the Sir Henry Clinton’s collection of maps and plans now held by the University of Michigan Clements Library[1][See also appendix 7]
[32] Rawdon had been appointed supernumerary aide-de-camp to Lieutenant General Henry Clinton in January 1775 and was present with him throughout the initial Southern campaign and again here in New York. Interestingly, he accompanied Clinton back to London in January 1777 in his capacity as aide-de-camp. This raises the question as to whether, during that time whether Des Barres had access to Rawdon? He would certainly have been an invaluable source.
[33] Des Barres Papers, series 5 (M.G. 23, F1-5, vols. 1-2) Naval Surveys and Atlantic Neptune , 1762-1815. Canadiana Heritage. http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_mikan_104684
[34] Jones, J. Recapitulation of A Statement Submitted by Lieutenant Colonel Desbarres. For Consideration. Respecting His Services, from the Year 1755, to the Present Time in the Capacity of an Officer and Engineer During the War of 1756. ... Chapel Street, Soho, 1796
[35] One Guinea was worth one pound and one shilling. There were twenty shillings to the pound sterling.
[36] Abstract of the expense attending the preparation of the American Coast & Harbours…’ Copy in Des Barres Papers, Series V, p.304.
[37] Recapitulation of A Statement submitted by Lieutenant Colonel DesBarres for Consideration Respecting his Services, from the Year 1755, to the prefent time – in the Capacity of an Officer and Engineer during the War of 1756 – The Utility of his Surveys and Publications of the Coafts and Harbours of North America, inituled, The Atlantic Neptun – and his Proceedings and Conduct as Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief and Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Colony of Cape Breton. London Printed by J. Jones, Chapel Street, Soho. 1796. Page 5. This figure is also quoted by Pedley (2005) in Appendix 2 ‘Costs of Map Production in England’, p.226 as the cost of Copperplate and Engraving.
[38] Figures quoted here may only be regarded as estimations, considering historical interest rates over the past 248 years of which there is little data throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
[39] According to Jeffrey Murray in his book ‘Terra Nostra: The Stories Behind Canada’s Maps’. 2006. page.7 ‘In the eighteenth century, the cost of engraving a map in Britain, depending on its complexity, averaged from £2 to £30, but the Admiralty allowed Des Barres nearly £37. Although Des Barres left no indication as to how much time was spent engraving each of the 247 plates used in his Atlantic Neptune, it was not unusual for some of his contemporaries to take as much as a year and a half to two years to complete a complicated plate. One historian has suggested that, with a complex map, an eighteenth-century engraver might be expected to produce only one square inch a day’.
[40] Nebenzal(1975) describes the chart as ‘One of the greatest of The Atlantic Neptune Charts, with the best topographical information on the lower Hudson River valley, western long island and Staten Island. Locates entrenchments, encampments, troop positions, etc. Some regiments are named. The map is accompanied, on the same double folded sheet, by five aquatint shore profiles and the famous engraving of the engagement of the Phoenix and the Rose, after the painting by Dominick Serres. Page 66.
Introduction
Joseph Frederick Wallet Des Barres is best known for his publication ‘The Atlantic Neptune’ which was produced over four editions in 1777, 1780, 1781 & 1784, with individual charts being available throughout. The Atlantic Neptune, above all else, represented the pinnacle of 18th Century forward-thinking, planning and organization; bringing together the cartographic land survey carried-out under Samuel Holland for the Lords of the Board of Trade and Plantations between 1764 and 1775, and the British Admiralty’s hydrographic survey of the coastline of North America which ran commensurately. As Eddleson [1] puts it; ‘The Atlantic Neptune was the only great British atlas of the eighteenth century that came close to realizing the vision of perfected geographic knowledge to which all of them aspired.’ Even if the route and the methods employed by Des Barres to access and obtain the raw survey material were, sometimes, less than convivial [2] [Appendix 1] with Samuel Holland in particular, it was still a staggering achievement.
It is not the intention here to add to the already voluminous writings on the Atlantic Neptune or indeed those of the General Survey of British North America, but rather to introduce three little known, and even less-well understood, plans of the British operations around New York in 1776 made by Des Barres.
These plans are especially significant as they represent a major change in direction for Des Barres from what Edney and Pedley [3] describe as the ‘representational context’ of purely topographical mapping to the ‘political context’ of military mapping. The likely reasons for Des Barres’ significant change of direction will be discussed further-on in this paper, suffice to say I refer to the plans, collectively as Des Barres’s ‘Great Folly’.
In laying-out the story of these plans I have tried to consider Des Barres’ probable intentions, as well as the constraining factors, such as timing and sources of information, he faced in the making of such a ‘political’ or ‘current affairs’ plans. Some elements of the story remain incomplete due to lack of contemporary documentation, especially those relating to correspondence and financial accounts. Until such information comes to light, much of the story and background to these plans is necessarily dependent upon what may be interpreted, surmised and, of course, supported by substantively associated information. Most importantly, we have the plans themselves and what we know of J.F.W. Des Barres himself.
The story and detail presented here will hopefully engage both those with an interest in history and military information, as well as map enthusiasts and cartographic experts. It should be considered to be a start to a wider investigation into the process by which map makers such Des Barres worked, and it comes with an open invitation to other researchers to add to the story.
When referencing the cartographic material listed in this paper I have been conscious of the fact that the descriptions, as listed above, may fall into more than one category which may be confusing for the reader. Not least amongst the confusion of terms is that cartographic material may be a map, plan or a survey. Further, a map may be topological or topographic amongst many other things, and a survey may be a city/town survey, a land survey, engineering, topographic or geodetic, again, amongst many other categories.
Plans and maps may be engraved but unpublished and therefore remain a manuscript, as would a finished-copy drawing. By way of an example, one of the plans referenced in this paper – The Ratzer ‘Plan of the City of New York...’ which is one of the most valued depictions of New York ever produced is frequently referred to as the Ratzer ‘Map’ of New York, despite its true title and purpose. For this reason, in the section below ‘About the Plans’ I have defined from the outset, for the purposes of this paper, the cartographic material under consideration herein.
UKHO A9459 is the remaining section of what was a much larger draft plan which was used in the making of the two L690 Plans. See a projection of the draft plan below (Image 2).
Image 2. Projection of draft plan for the two L690 Plans with UKHO A9459 as the center section
The two L690 manuscripts which, as we have already seen, historically share a UK Hydrographic department shelf number (L690 press83) and were entered into the original Hydrographic Office ledger as a ‘Survey of New York’ and are accredited to Des Barres (note two copies listed). The introduction in that ledger indicates that the document list was first compiled in 1826 and thus formed Book A. The note at the end of the line reads ‘two copies / one ‘mounted’ (Image 3b). Of further note, the shelf mark written on the two plans only dates from 1915-16 when the Hydrographic department undertook a further reorganization of its collections [5].
The fact that they were entered in the ledger as a ‘Survey’ was a mistake and probably the result of the pressure Lt Alexander Becher was under in May of 1823 when he was first instructed to catalogue, classify and arrange over 9000 charts (amongst a pile of remark books and other Admiralty charts which were in ‘heaps’ and ‘covered in dirt and dust’ - see note 5). That the two L690’s had soundings on them probably led Becher to think them hydrographic surveys rather than military plans. Indeed, on close inspection all three of the manuscripts show military annotations of disposition including: troop positions, movements, redoubts, forts, and naval ships pertaining to the British campaign to secure New York and end the Rebellion between June and November 1776.
So, having just referred to the L690s as ‘manuscripts’ (which, by definition they are) and denounced them as ‘surveys’ It should stated that they are in fact ‘plans’ and will be referred to herein as such. They were certainly not made by Des Barres as topographic maps or surveys of New York.
This type of simplification and progressive presentation of military detail is evident across the two L690 plans and as such we may (ignoring the draft plan) consider the UKHO L690 as the first edition of the plan with the LOC L690 plan being the second edition.
This ‘progression’ of simplification may, in some ways, be seen to be detrimental to the story Des Barres is trying to tell. Here we see the simplified detail included on the two L690 plans for the night of the 26th and the morning of the 27th August (Images 23 & 24).
