Nationalism and Martyrdom: Symbolic Deaths

Nationalism and Martyrdom: Symbolic Deaths in the American Revolution

The symbolic and ceremonial importance attached to the American Revolution and its martyrs, due to the beliefs held within the 'Nationalism' of the patriots of the American Revolution did not extend to include the African-American martyrs of the American Revolution who also died for this cause. It is the belief of this writer that this is because the freedom and liberty sought by those who fought the American Revolution was for the freedom and liberty of the practice of the Christian religion solely and not for the purpose of religious freedom itself and that the African-American martyrs did not fit into the symbology and ceremony associated with the beliefs of those adhering to the Christian religion as it were in the days preceding the American Revolution.

Part One

Role of Symbols in Nationalist Movement (Selection, Function)

The work of Jonathan Githens-Mazer (2007) entitled: "Ethno-Symbolism and the Everyday Resonance of Myths, Memories and Symbols o f the Nation" states that the power of symbols "determine the course and shape of everyday life and political behavior" and that this is often underestimated and even "taken for granted." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) Symbols are stated to range from "flags to anthems, from paintings to passports, from saints to martyrs" and all are stated to have the "ability to set agendas, add legitimacy to elites and institutions, and inspire powerful popular protests against colonial powers." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) Githens-Mazer states that everyday symbols "of identity which are common currency in popular culture...mechanisms such as resonance and engagement...can come to have the power to determine entire courses of radical political action." (2007) These symbols have an impact on political behavior however, it is almost impossible to predict the shape, course and strength of this impact." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Githens-Mazer states that nationalism might best be explained through "the unpacking and explaining of enduring and persistent national myths, memories and symbols..." And that instead of these being treated as "purely causal factors, it might prove most explanatory to consider these as providing popular and resonant bases for prisms of interpretation." (2007) Githens-Mazer state the hypothesis that "the everyday existence and persistent of myths, memoires and symbols creates the basis for nationalism, not by slow brewing antecedents of radical political action, but rather as providing what Connor has called 'nonrational' but none the less popular bases for interpretation and understanding of contemporary events." (Connor 1994 as cited in Githens-Mazer, 2007)

According to Githens-Mazer nation is defined as "a group of human being, possessing common and distinctive elements of culture...citizenship rights for all members, a sentiment of solidarity arising out of common experiences and occupying a common territory." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) Nationalism is "the movement for the attainment of a state on behalf of an existing or 'potential' nation - a collective movement by the nation, its elites and masses, to gain congruence between the institutions of the state and the identity of a nation." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Nationalism has been "over the past two to three decades...been associated with social, economic, and political transformation - as a mechanism to aid in this change, a function of this change, or in reaction to this change." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) Nationalism "can also be understood to occur in reaction to the transformations brought about in productive relations and a technology - all of which facilitated the 'imagined community' of the nation and as demanded by the structural transformations of the modern era or as proposed by political elites." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

One way to understand Nationalism is stated to be to hypothesize the nation "as a 'sacred communion'." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) Within this theoretical framework the nation "is predicated on the belief in common membership of its people, the sacred worth and value of its identity and the universal applicability of this identity to its members. As a social phenomenon, the nation is typified by every day practice and/or performance of rituals." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) the practice of ritual is stated as critical for the nation since "they are re-enactments of other actions that at their heart are prototypical and rendering the abstract with concrete meaning." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

According to Githens-Mazer, ritual "as the physical, textual and/or symbolic re-enactment of the master narrative that lies at the heart of the nation, is most apparent in ceremonies which commemorate important events for the nation - thus creating and perpetuating the resonance of these myths, memoires and individuals thinking of issues at the collective national-level -signposting issues of significance and the collective's orientation to them." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Ceremonies make provision of "points of entry for individuals thinking of issues at the collective national level- signposting issues of significance and the collective's orientation to them. They play a crucial role by reinforcing the sentiment that 'we are fulfilling history, and we will prevail.' They constitute a repertoire which 'implies the need and desirability [for the individual], of some form of [collective] action. As historical fact permeates collective memory it becomes a potent symbol with a collective resonant meaning to individual members of the nation - part of its 'system of ideas' and is taught in the nation contemporarily and over time." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Githens-Mazer addresses the "dynamic nature of myths, memories and symbols when practiced as everyday commemoration" and notes the specific importance of this as it "underpins popular perceptions of historical continuity and pre-modern antecedents." (2007) Commemoration of the nation in everyday practice or that is practices on a regular or annual or even occasional basis can be divided into two constituent parts:

1) content practice; and 2) symbolic practice. (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Content is stated to denote "the meaning which symbolic practice is intended to convey" in that "it renders practice with the quality of metaphor, a kind of metonymic practice 'using one entity to refer to another that is related to it." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) This is stated to be "distinct from symbolic practice...meaning is divorced from physical/tangible symbol itself." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Stated as examples in which meaning is attached to performance are "art, literature, plays and music." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) the following figure illustrates the 'potential changes in commemoration over time and as a function of social need.

Potential Changes in Commemoration over Time and as a Function of Social Need

Source: Githens-Mazer (2007)

Githens-Mazer states that nations and nationalisms "indisputably provide social networks, means and agendas to accomplish either attachment to or severance from the state, fundamentally affecting beliefs and attitudes of trust towards the state and elites. Nations are cause and effect of social interaction, impacting on, and possibly determining how trust networks are organized, the content of such relations and participation in long-term high-risk enterprises such as the state." (2007) it is related that social movements make the provisions of mechanisms for understanding:

1) How the repertoire of national myths, memories and symbols can be translated in political actions;

2) How repertoires of action can be translated into modern form of contentious politics in the nation;

3) How these movements are bounded by popular resonance, and must therefore take place within the confines of repertoires of interpretation and action which are familiar to their participants;

4) Potentially provide a way to measure and compare the effects of myths, memories and symbols in the same nation, and between different nations, and 5) Potentially provide a way to understand the mechanisms which underlie harnessing, controlling, and even construction of nationalist movements. (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Githens-Mazer (2007) states: "Nationalism is a form of contentious politics which occurs where the constraints on political opportunities are under transformation, and where those who participate in nationalism do so in reaction to a variety of incentives." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

Githens-Mazer reports that which bonds the collective may arise from socialization however it is also "likely to result from the institutions of nationalist movements and elite/practitioner efforts to organize and persuade others of the merits of the nationalist cause." (Githens-Mazer, 2007) it is stated that the performance of sharing and ritualistic behavior on a collective level involving "national myths, memories and symbols" enables the individual to "see the factors of not only agency, but especially urgency and injustice as being resonant with and highly relevant to, their own experience and influencing their political behavior in a specific moment." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

In conclusion, Githens-Mazer states: "Myths, memories and symbols, distilled, perpetuated and enshrined in 'national memory' can therefore be understood to create bases for nationalist mobilization through the consolidation and invocation of the factors of agency, injustice and identity. These are bases for a social movement based on the nation. Furthermore, despite the debates being waged over the ancient, pre-modern and/or modern character of nations, they are better understood as being derived from 'experience' - with perceptions of their legitimacy, salience and resonance not least a function of perceptions of continuity. Myths, memories and symbols become mobilizing factors by providing these points of entry for individuals to engage with issues at a national level and signpost how collective memories, while individually remembered should be oriented in terms of the collective which surrounds them." (Githens-Mazer, 2007)

2. Use of Figures Labeled Martyrs in the Contemporary Discourse Regarding the Nationalist Movement

The concepts of nationalism and the effects of Nationalism on language are stated to be based on Joshua Fishman's essays entitled: "The Nature of Nationalism" and "the Impact of Nationalism on Language Learning and Language Planning." (Sharon, 1995) Sharon states that Nationalism is defined by Fishman (1972) as "the organizationally heightened and elaborated beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of societies acting on behalf of their avowed ethnocultural self-interest." Nationalism and Nationism were distinguished by Fishman (1972). Nationalism is stated to contain three components:

1) the expansion or generalizing of the perceived ethno cultural characteristics;

2) the stress on the recognition and importance of these characteristics; and 3) an emphasis on the past traditions, values and symbols normally preserved by the lower classes. (Sharon, 1995)

Nationalist movements are stated by Sharon (1995) to generally "originate among the educated sector of a society. This is the group that has the knowledge and power to manipulate the different symbols and is better able to perceive the differences because of its contact with other power sources." (Sharon, 1995)

Part II

1. Definition of Martyrdom

Martyrdom is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as follows:

the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, 2009)

Therefore, for the purpose of this present study martyrdom or martyrs will be understood to be individuals who died a death related to their commitment to a cause of religious faith and in this case the right to live in a democracy in America for this purpose.

Part III

1. Analysis of Martyrs of the American Revolution

The mindset of the martyrs of the American Revolution must necessarily be viewed through a balanced measure if what these individuals stood for and against is fully comprehensible in terms of their willingness to become martyrs for their cause. While not a scholarly source it is stated in one article written by a Southern conservative which states in regards to the Christian view of Muslims that one might believe there is nothing in common between the two until they examine the common thread of martyrdom. It is stated specifically in this article as follows:

I've already said all I can ever say about Southern culture and Southern life here and here. But there seems to be a need to say more about Southern conservativism and why it has spread through the country the way it has. It starts with the fact that we as conservative Christians are taught to see America as our land. I mean, you guys in Europe and the loonies on the East and West Coasts think the Founding Fathers died to bring us religious freedom. They so did not. They died to give new Christianity a place where it could flourish."

From this view the martyrs of the American Revolution are better understood as their intent was focused on a cause that backed by the will to live and die fighting for their beliefs and their liberty and freedom to hold these beliefs as sacred in America.

Christopher Snider

The martyrdom of Christopher Snyder is related by the first black American poet, Phillip Wheatley in the work entitled: "On the Death of Mr. Snider Murder'd by Richardson" which relates the events of February 22, 1770 as follows:

In heavens eternal court it was decreed

Thou the first martyr for the common good

Long hid before, a vile infernal here

Prevents Achilles in his mid career

Where'er this fury darts his Poisonous breath

All are endanger'd to the shafts of death

The generous Shires beheld the fatal wound

Saw their young champion gasping on the ground

They raise'd him up but to each present ear

What martial glories did his tongue declare

The wretch appal'd no longer can despise

But from the striking Victim turns his eyes

When this young martial genius did appear

The Tory chief no longer could forebear.

Ripe for destruction, see the wretches doom

He waits the curses of the age to come

In vain he flies, by Justice Swiftly chaced

With unexpected infamy disgraced

Be Richardson forever banish'd here

The grand Usurpers bravely vaunted Heir

We bring the body from the watry bower

To lodge it where it shall remove no more

Snider behold with what Majestic Love

The Illustrious retinue begins to move

With Secret rage fair freedom's foes beneath

See in thy corse ev'n Majesty in Death (Phillis Wheatley, written in late February or early March, 1770)

It is related in the work of Anderson (2004) that the "attachment of the American colonies to Britain was never closer than it was at the close of the French War. The colonists were proud of being descended from British ancestors, and enjoyed sharing the rights of subjects of England. Sure, there were some grievances. The English navigation laws and trade monopolies bore heavily on colonial industry and commerce, but in other respects America may have been satisfied to remain under the governance of England."

However, this all changed and while it is largely and generally believed that the reason for this change was the attempt on the part of England to tax the American Colonies and this is in part true however, this must be examined more deeply according to Anderson (2004) who states: "First, the very origin of the American Colonies pointed to freedom as their birthright, as it was for the sake of liberty that the early colonists had left their homes to come to the New World. They had fled to the forests of America, facing danger and uncertainty rather than to endure oppression. Second, the habits of the early settlers, as well as the circumstances in the history of their descendants, had led them to examine the principles of political liberty. Third, the Colonies had suffered greatly from bad royal governors, the misconduct of which had taught the colonists to be wary of arbitrary power. Thus, the whole of the early history of the American Colonies had been a gradual growing fit for freedom. The Colonies could not long be subject to Britain." (Anderson, 2004)

It was the belief among those in the American Colonies that England did not possess the power to make laws in America but instead that power belonged to the Colonial Assemblies. Anderson (2004) states: "While it was conceded that Parliament might regulate commerce, as it had done in the Navigation Acts, the colonists held that they alone had the right to control their own internal affairs. Early in the colonization of America, the colonists had refused to be taxed by England. A string of colonial legislatures had denied England's claim to the right to tax the Colonies. The French and Indian War had added largely to the already heavy debt of England, and the British government reasoned that, since the war had been made for the benefit of the Colonies, the Colonies should help to pay the debt. The English position was that, while it had not previously taxed the Colonies, it was not because Parliament lacked the right to do so. The Colonists denied that Parliament had the right to impose taxes, and argued that their own losses and expenses in the war had been as heavy as they could bear. The British government began by imposing duties on certain imported articles, and began a strict enforcement of the Navigation Acts, which resulted in an offensive system of prying and spying that irritated the colonists." (Anderson, 2004)

The Parliament passed a law in 1764 which stated that it had the right to impose taxation on the Colonies in America and the 'Stamp Act' was recommended for imposition. The 'Stamp Act' made provisions for all deeds, notes, bills and other legal documents to be written on a 'stamped' paper to be provided by British revenue offices at rates which were fixed which in effect placed the imposition of a heavy tax on practically every type of business transaction. The law was passed in 1765 and was to take effect the first day of November of that same year. As the news spread throughout the American Colonies a great outcry arose first from Virginia and the first to arise to speak against this heavy taxation was Patrick Henry, one of Virginia's youngest legislators. The moving speech of Patrick Henry was one that set forth resolutions which the legislature passed speaking a claim for Virginia citizens in regards to the rights of born British subjects. This spread quickly throughout the Colonies and a convention was proposed by the Massachusetts legislature and the proposition was stated by Samuel Thomas. It was at this time that the 'Sons of Liberty' was formed by members who had committed to fight against the unjust taxation laws of the British government and these 'Sons of Liberty' set for to "harass the stamp officers" for the intent and purpose of forcing resignation of these officers. During this time stamps are stated to have been "seized and burned." (Anderson, 2004)

It is stated by Anderson that children in the streets of the Colonies "learned the cry, 'Liberty, property, and no stamps.'" (2004) Simultaneously "...the First Colonial Congress met in New York City on October 7, 1765, with nine colonies represented by 28 delegates. After three weeks of deliberation, Congress agreed upon a declaration of rights and a statement of grievances, which stated in strong terms the rights of the Colonies to be free from all taxes not levied by their own Assemblies. A petition to the King and to Parliament were sent. When the Assemblies came to meet in the winter of 1765, they gave these proceedings their hearty approval. When the day for implementation of the Stamp Act came, not a stamp was to be seen, and every stamp officer in Colonial America had resigned. The colonists had made the law of no effect. At the next meeting of Parliament, the Stamp Act was repealed. At the repeal of the Stamp Act, much of the old feeling of brotherliness toward the mother country was temporarily revived. Trade was resumed. However, the ordeal had brought about a great change in the colonists. Prior to this time, they had made a distinction between duties on imports, or external taxation, and internal taxation, such as that which would have been imposed by the Stamp Act. They had not previously objected to external taxation, balking only at internal taxation. Now they objected to all taxation, claiming that, because the Colonies were not represented in Parliament, it had no right to tax them at all." (Anderson, 2004)

During the year of the passing of the 'Stamp Act' there had been a requirement placed on the American Colonies "...to furnish quarters and supplies to British troops that were sent amongst them. Now, New York refused." (Anderson, 2004) During the year of 1767 an act was passed by the Parliament that placed a duty on not only tea but other imports as well and a board of revenue commissions was also to be established in America. However, upon the news of the same having reached the ear of the Colonies "...unrest broke out anew. From the press, from the pulpit, and from the bodies of the legislature came a denouncement of the acts. The British reacted by trying to intimidate the colonists. This did not succeed." (Anderson, 2004) it is related that a sloop was seized that belonged to a merchant of prominence and specifically that of John Hancock and regiments arrived from Halifax in Boston in 1768 to require that the Boston residents furnish quarters for troops however, Boston is stated to have "politely refused." (Anderson, 2004)

The British took possession of the State House as hot outrage spread throughout Boston and no less this incident disturbed the town of Boston on the Sabbath. Hate for the redcoats engulfed Boston and to further ignite the situation in February 1769 Parliament is stated to have "...censured the rebellious spirit of the Colonies and called on the King to have those guilty of "treason" brought to England for trial. This resulted in an indignant protest from the colonial legislatures. The Assemblies of Virginia and North Carolina protested so strongly that they were ordered dissolved by the royal governors." (2004) on January 17, 1770, it began in New York when British soldiers cut down the liberty pole belonging to the 'Sons of Liberty' and a riot ensued which spread like wildfire from one colonial city to another.

The majority of Boston citizens refused to pay import taxes on products of the British and the merchants "banned together to ostracize anyone who continued to sell boycotted products." (Anderson, 2004) on February 22, 1770, a merchant named Theophilus Lillie is stated to have "ignored the boycott" resulting in the attempt to Ebenezer Richardson, a Loyalist and informer, attempting to destroy "an effigy that had been placed outside of Lillie's shop. His actions caused a scene, provoking an angry mob to assemble against him. Seeking refuge in his home, he fired several shots from a window. Seeking to come to the aid of Richardson, a small guard of British soldiers, provoked by jeers, by taunts, and from rocks and snowballs being thrown at them, also fired upon the crowd. One of these shots killed 12-year-old Christopher Snider." (Anderson, 2004)

It was the death of Snider, young though he was, that resulted in a funeral procession that is stated to have passed "from the Liberty Tree to the cemetery" which ultimately resulted in the passing out of flyers in Boston that called for Snider's death to be avenged." (Anderson, 2004) Only five days later the culmination of the outrage at the death Snider gained momentum and on March 5th the Boston Massacre occurred." (Anderson, 2004)

Anderson writes: "The scenes were probably not unlike that which we see as Israeli soldiers patrol the West Bank or other Arab-controlled areas." However it is stated that the response from the colonists "was reserved. Rather than retaliating for the massacre, they petitioned the governor to remove the troops from the city. Two of the British officers who fired upon Boston civilians were convicted of manslaughter, and all of the soldiers involved were returned to England. The attempt by the British to raise revenue by taxation was a total failure, costing the English five hundred times the amount of revenue collected. The new duties were repealed in April, 1770. Unfortunately for them, Parliament made one exception to this repeal, removing duties from all articles except tea, with the intention of asserting that it had the right to tax the Colonies. To the British government, it was a matter of principle. But it was the principle to which the colonists objected. The American people determined not to import any tea." (Anderson, 2004)

It is related that the Parliament in 1773 let the East India Company ship their tea to the Colonies "free from the English duties, requiring only that it pay the three pence a pound in America, thinking that that colonists would be willing to pay this small duty, since tea would then be cheaper in America than it was in Britain. Britain misjudged the colonist's resolve. When the tea arrived at the various points, it was either sent back or locked up. In Boston, the people refused to allow the tea to land. At the same time, the English governor would not permit the ships to be sent back. The dilemma was solved when a group of men, disguised as Indians, boarded the tea ships, emptying the tea into the harbor. This was accomplished quietly, without a riot, on December 16, 1773." (Anderson, 2004) This incident is famously remembered as 'The Boston Tea Party'. (Anderson, 2004) Taking effect in June 1774, the Port Bill is stated to have resulted in a great deal "of distress in Boston...[and]...the fight was on." (Anderson, 2004)

Nathan Hale

Nathan Hale is stated in the work of Stuart and Hale (1855) entitled: "Life of Nathan Hale: Martyr Spy of the American Revolution" to have been born in Coventry Connecticut, June 6, 1755, the sixth of twelve children, nine sons and three daughters, offspring of Richard and Elizabeth Hale, and was the third in descent from John Hale, the first minister of Beverly, Massachusetts." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale's father is described as a man of "...sterling integrity, piety and industry..." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale was raised "scrupulously 'in the fear of God." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale was loved and adored and had the respect of his peers. In April 1775 it is stated that the Lexington Alarm...summoned the country to arms. Upon the arrival of the express with the news from Boston, the citizens of New London at once assembled in town meeting - breathed forth in speeches and resolutions their spirit of patriotic resistance - and determined that Captain Coit's Independent Company, the only uniformed company in the place, should march to the scene of hostilities the next morning." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

Hale is noted as having stated "Let us march immediately, and never lay down our arms until we obtain our independence." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Stuart and Hale relate that in his farewells Hale did not speak of any grandiose war time patriotism but instead simply stated that he had "been inclined for good reasons...to accept a place allotted him in the army- perceiving an opportunity...for more extended public service..." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale was attached to a company "under the immediate command of Major John Latimer...[which]...constituted part of a regiment that was raised by order of the General Assembly, in 1775, both for home defense, and for the protection of the country at large..." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

Stuart and Hale write that at the time nearing Nathan Hale's demise the American army totaled 14,000. Of those, "one-fourth of them were on the sick list. One-third were without tents. They had clothes, shoes, and blankets only for a summer campaign and winter was approaching. Food and forage were difficult to obtain. The military chest was entirely empty of money, and had been so for two months." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) These fourteen thousand in the "early part of September, 1776, lay stretched along- detached, agitated, and full of gloom - from the Battery in New York far to Kingsbridge. And facing them from the extreme southern point of Long Island to a point opposite the Heights of Harlem - posted at Bedford, Bushwick, Newtown, Flushing and Hellgate- riding in ships and transports whose formidable batteries frowned upon the American shores from the Narrows to Paulus Hook, and up the East River to Flushing Bay - was arranged a British army of not less than twenty-five thousand men - a land and naval force magnificently equipped with artillery, military stores, and warlike materials of every kind, for the special purpose it was proclaimed, of 'looking down and ending forever the opposition of the rebels' and which, under the command of the most able and distinguished generals was now in the first flush of victory - was haughty, emulous, impatient of farther conquest, and confident of success." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

It was decided that needed was a 'spy' - someone who could be dependably be sent into the enemy camp to gain information concerning the enemies next move. Additionally it was decided that such a move must be made by someone that could be trusted and depended upon so this was posed to the officers of the American military. However, there were no takers for this duty. Specifically stated is "From the group of reluctant, half-resentful officers - at the moment when all hope for the enterprise seemed at an end, and the heart of Knowlton, saddened with the thought of future misfortune was fast yielding to the torture of disappointment - there came a voice with the painfully thrilling yet cheering words - 'I will undertake it!' That was the voice of Captain Nathan Hale." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

Many were the considerations stated to Hale why he should not undertake this mission including the grief of his parents and on went the reasons that he should refrain from this mission. However, Hale is noted as having replied as follows:

think I owe to my country the accomplishment of an object so important, and so much desired by the commander of her armies - and I know no other mode of obtaining the information, than by assuming a disguise, and passing into the enemy's camp. I am fully sensible of the consequences of discovery and capture in such a situation. But for a year I have been attached to the army, and have not rendered any material service, while receiving a compensation for which I make no return. Yet I am no influenced by the expectation of promotion or pecuniary reward. I wish to be useful, and every kind of service necessary for the public good, become honorable by being necessary. If the exigencies of my country demand a peculiar service, its claims to the performance of that service are imperious!" (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

Hale presented himself it is stated to General Washington and departed with a disguise and accompanied by "Stephen Hempstead, a confidential soldier of his own company..." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale is stated to have dressed as a Schoolmaster." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

It is stated that when Hale was taken "exact drawings of the works of the enemy, with accompanying descriptions and notes were found between the soles of his pumps." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) it is related by Stuart and Hale that Hale began his return to the American camp "undetected and unharmed...Crossing the East River...he threaded his way back through the woods, and all round all the British posts and parties upon Long Island, until he reached in safety that point on the shore near Huntington where he first landed, and where it had been arranged that a boat of his own countrymen should meet him, and set him over to the Connecticut Main." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

It is reported that a barge appeared and that Hale, expecting such a transport "was seen approaching the shore...and expecting to receive at once a hearty welcome...walked deliberately down to the water side - when lo! To his utter surprise as the barge struck the shore she proved to be British." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Hale reportedly attempted to retrace his steps when "A loud summons commanded him to stop." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) the entire crew on the barge had their muskets pointed right at him and since there was no possibility of escape Hale reportedly "turned, and complying with their command, passed on board the barge." (Stuart and Hale, 1855)

On September 21 Hale reached New York bound for his trial and the entire city of New York was on fire. It is stated that Hale could have taken many outs at this time but instead he quite simply and "frankly, and at once, acknowledged his mission - confessed himself an American officer and a spy - proudly yet respectfully stated his success - bemoaned that his hope of serving his country was now suddenly cut off - and stood calm and fearless before his judge - awaiting his decision." (Stuart and Hale, 1855) Nathan Hale was quickly adjudged guilty of treason as a spy, a "captain in the rebel army" and the Provost Marshal of the Royal Army, was directed to...see him hung by the neck until dead" the following morning at day break. The hangman reported attempted to cause Hale to "utter some remark, strange or ridiculous, which might serve to glut the curiosity of the crowd, or to be remembers as a kind of self-made epitaph by a 'rebel captain'" yet it is reported that "never was a torturer more cheated of his purpose...Once glance it is said, at Cunningham (the hangman) - one slight momentary contraction of his features into contempt - and he turned his look, filled again with holy energy and sweetness upon the spectators - now impressed, most of them, with solemn awe - and some of them, the females, not forbearing to sob aloud. With a voice full, distinct, slow-which cam mournfully thrilling from the very depths of his being - in words which patriotism will forever enshrine, and every monument to Hale's memory sink deepest into its stone, and every temple of liberty blazon highest on its entablature - at the very moment when the tightening know cord was to crush the life of his young body forever - he ejaculated - as the last immortal testament of his heroic soul to the world he was leaving -" stated as follows: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country!"(Stuart and Hale, 1855)