Appendix #S3: Summary Views from Principal Historians - The cause and culpability of the Great New York Fire of 1776.
Donald J. Cannon, editor, Heritage of Flames: The Illustrated History of Early American Firefighting (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977) pages 179-80 - The editors of this exceptional collection of illustrations and manuscripts believe that the multiple origins of the fire, the damage to firefighting equipment, the removal of bells etc. demonstrate without doubt that the fire was not accidental. Although there was arson, they do not unequivocally assign culpability for the fire. However, they do explicitly ask the question: "Why would the British want to burn the city they just won in battle...For what purpose would they risk the destruction of the whole city they had selected as their haven for as long as the war would last?" Their implied answer to the question is that the British would not, but the Americans would.
Augustine E. Costello, Our Firemen: A History of the New York Fire Departments, Volunteer and Paid (1887; re., New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1997), page 204 -Costello concluded that "Later writers, with all of the facts before them and after an impartial survey, are inclined to believe the fire was the result of deliberate design; nor, if the newspapers and correspondence of the day can be believed, is there much room left for doubt....Notwithstanding, however, this seeming mass of testimony, it was impossible to obtain legal proof sufficient to fasten the act on any particular individual..."
Lowell M. Limpus, History of the New York Fire Department (New York: E.P.Dutton and Company, Inc., 1940) page 67 - Limpus sites Costello "Little room for doubt 'that the fire was the result of deliberate design.' - and Herbert Asbury Ye Olde Fire Laddies, (New York: Knopf, 1930] who called attention to 'the incontrovertible fact' that some half-dozen fires burst out simultaneously...while the volunteers were fighting the first blaze at Whitehall."
Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) pages 241-242 - The opinion of Burrows and Wallace must weigh more heavily than most given the massive scholarship behind their book. "Although no credible evidence of deliberate arson ever came to light, it was Washington who delivered the final verdict...Providence or some good honest fellow, has done more for us than we were disposed to do for ourselves." As the historical record of a hundred books and articles show, Washington did not deliver the final verdict. For even more credible evidence, see The Gotham Center for New York City History, March 10, 2020, The Carleton Commission and Evidence of Arson in the Great New York Fire of 1776.
Barnet Schecter, The Battle for New York: The City at the Heart of the American Revolution (New York: Walker and Co., 2002), page 206 - Schecter writes "...neither the accusations of arson nor of a plot actively or tacitly approved by Washington have ever been substantiated without more than circumstantial evidence." He dismisses the initial multiple fires as communicated by sparks etc. rather than arsonists. He also points out that no one was ever convicted, and all were eventually released. Of course, in light the testimony of fireman Dash on the ground that night saying that the sparks could not have gone as far as the fires and Henry on board his ship coming to the same conclusion, perhaps the sparks did not start all of the fires. Not everyone was released...Amos Fellows died in prison, Van Dyke was paroled in 1778, etc.
David McCullough, 1776 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005), 221-23. - McCullough wrote "It was never determined, then or later, that the "Great Fire" was anything other than accidental." To explain the multiple fires, as other authors like Schecter, he quotes Frederick Mackenzie, a British officer, to explain multiple fires. Mackenzie did observe that some fires were caused by sparks, but he certainly did not contend that the sparks were the sole cause of the multiple fires.
At the Carleton Commission Mackenzie testified: "...a fire which appeared in a house in Chatham Row, four or five houses Eastward of D. Inglis's - that this house was so far distant from the houses before on fire and the direction of the wind was such, that in the Deponent's opinion, the fire was not communicated from them, but this house had every appearance of being purposely set on fire... Major Mackenzie was then asked by the Board if he ever supposed the fire was accidental- To which he answered that he never did -." McCullough also repeats the 'hundreds of suspects, none brought to trial, all released' narrative of many other authors. However, as mentioned above, not everyone was released.
Carp, Benjamin L. The Night the Yankees Burned Broadway (Early American Studies (Fall 2006)) The McNeil Center for Early American Studies. P511 - Carp's thoroughly researched article has reinforcing references for virtually every important narrative point. It concludes. "The setting of fires during wartime was something that Whigs (American Patriots, ed.) were willing to practice, yet not countenance openly. Though we cannot ascribe specific responsibility, we can assert in the broadest terms that Americans sympathetic to the Whig cause set New York City on fire in September 1776."As far as this author (B.T.) can determine, Carp was the first to extensively use the Carleton Commission in his narrative. He regarded the testimonies as evidence. The testimonies, after all, were sworn statements, usually from eye-witnesses. Even though the Report from the N-YHS manuscript does not contain conclusions or summary, it still has the many sworn testimonies that are largely consistent and, as Carp shows, can be corroborated by sources outside the Commission itself.
Atkinson, Rick. The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princetin 1775-1777 (The Revolution Trilogy) (New York: Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition. 1999) (p. 399). "No persuasive evidence ever emerged that the fires had been set deliberately... British authorities reportedly detained two hundred other suspects, but all were released... despite rewards offered for incriminating testimony. Seven years later, a British commission failed to resolve whether the fire was accidental, deliberate, or a combination of both, although it was generally agreed that no American order led to the city's burning." Atkinson, as one of the modern authors writing after Carp, at least refers to the Carleton Commission. He writes that its two dozen sworn testimonies of deliberate arson "failed to resolve" that there was deliberate arson, which of course ignores even Fellows torching a shed and Nooth standing in his blown-up hospital. He does not consider the two-dozen sworn testimonies of arson persuasive7. However, if it can be inferred from the testimonies of four American Patriots that the Commission Report "generally agreed" there was no high level endorsement, then perhaps the two dozen testimonies could also have be characterized as being in "general agreement" of deliberate arson.
Edward C. Goodman, FIRE! - The 100 Most Devastating Fires and the Heroes Who Fought Them (New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2001) page 18 - Goodman writes "The fire began on September 20 and was rumored to have been set by Americans who supported General Washington and, fearing that the British would take New York, wanted to leave them no shelter." The question is 'were these rumors true?'. Certainly many Patriots, both civilian and military including Washington himself, believed burning the town was the best way to counter the usefulness of the city to the British during their occupation of it.
NYC Fire Museum, Andrew Coe, Editor, F.D.N.Y. An Illustrated History of the Fire Department of the City of New York (New York: Odyssey Publications, 2003) page 7 - The editor concludes "The British declared that the fire was sabotage...but were never able to convincingly prove their charges."
Editors of Country Beautiful, Text by Nancy Backes, Great Fires of America (Waukesha, Wisconsin: Country Beautiful Corporation, 1973) p36 - Backes finds the observations of multiple fires compelling- "...On September 21, by more than a simple coincidence, the city experienced the largest fire in its history to that time. There is little doubt that it was a rebel act of sabotage. Numerous fires broke out in various sections of the city, mysteriously all at the same time - 1AM."