John Honeyman: Patriot Spy or Myth?
Despite it being a generally accepted historical fact for decades, historians have begun to question the veracity of the John Honeyman story
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Throughout history, generals and military leaders have strived to know their enemy. Starting with the Israelites in the biblical Old Testament, and continuing with the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, many nations and peoples have employed a variety of methods for gathering information about their enemies.
The names of these organizations have changed, from the Assassins of the Crusades to the Oprichnina in Russia, to MI6 in Great Britain, the CIA in the United States, and Mossad in Israel in more modern times, but the goal has not.
George Washington was no different than the innumerable generals throughout history that came before him. In a letter written in 1777, Washington stated quite simply, “The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged.” The British regulars had significant advantages in regards to numbers, experience, and equipment when compared to the colonials. Accurate intelligence would be vital to the Americans overcoming those shortcomings.
The colonies of America offered a unique breeding ground for espionage. It was extremely difficult to determine whether someone was a Patriot or a Loyalist because of the many things they had in common. A majority of those that served as spies for either side had lived in the colonies for most, if not all, of their lives. They spoke the same language, dressed in
similar styles, and could easily blend in with the people who were their neighbors for years. According to historian Jodie Gilmore, “It was, to say the least, a time of complex and sometimes confused loyalties.”
Nathan Hale is widely considered to be America’s first spy, but his career was a short one. Hale possessed plenty of patriotic vigor for the assignment, but none of the training. His first true spy mission failed after being captured by British spy hunter Robert Rogers. Hale was soon executed for espionage.
After Nathan Hale’s execution, Washington knew he needed a more efficient and effective intelligence network to be able to react and respond to the movements of the British army. Among those that are given credit for being part of that network is John Honeyman. John Honeyman’s story has a long history; first published in 1873 in a New Jersey journal. It has appeared in many works since then, such as William Stryker’s Battles of Trenton and Princeton in 1898, Rupert Hughes’ George Washington in the 1920’s, and Alfred Bill’s The Campaign of Princeton in 1948. Many more contemporary authors and historians, including Nathan Miller (Spying for America), Brian Kilmeade (George Washington’s Secret Six), and Rod Paschall (George Washington, Father of U.S. Intelligence) all write about Honeyman’s role as a spy that was vital to Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River to attack at Trenton.
Honeyman’s adventures are even told in the October 1941 issue of True Comics. In the comic, Honeyman is offered the job of providing meat to the British, but he decides to discuss it with his wife before accepting the job. As Honeyman deliberates his decision, his wife Mary tells him, “I’ve got an idea that you can help General Washington by doing it, John.”
According to the authors, Honeyman, a former British soldier who served at the Battle of Quebec in the French and Indian War, fed intelligence to Washington that laid the groundwork for the surprise attack. The authors all tell an elaborate story of how Honeyman, who was a
butcher in Trenton, allowed himself to be captured by the Continentals, met with Washington, then was allowed to escape and return to Trenton. Once in Trenton, he met with Colonel Rall, the ranking German officer in Trenton, where he assured Rall that, “the American army was hopelessly disorganized and incapable of launching an attack.” This false information, of course, led the Hessians at Trenton to fall into a drunken stupor while celebrating Christmas, making them incapable of defending themselves against an attack.
John Ferling, in his excellent work, Almost a Miracle, disproves the story concerning the inebriated state of the Hessians. Washington and the Continental Army achieved surprise, not because of holiday revelry, but because of a raid that General Adam Stephen had ordered of his own initiative, in which a small American force had attacked a nearby Hessian outpost. Rall had ordered several patrols to seek out the Americans, but they came up empty-handed and returned to camp with no further patrols sent out. In addition to the raid, the winter storms that hit overnight gave Rall a false sense of security, believing no army would venture out in such weather. Ferling makes no mention of Honeyman and his intelligence efforts.
Recent historiography has begun to question the accuracy of John Honeyman’s story as commonly told. David Hackett Fischer, in Washington’s Crossing, says that the story, “might possibly be true, but in the judgment of this historian, the legend of Honeyman is unsupported by evidence.” Author Alexander Rose, whose book Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring serves as the basis for the AMC Television series Turn: Washington’s Spies, doubts the Honeyman story as well. Rose addresses each facet of the story individually and offers evidence, or points out the lack thereof, to debunk the myth. An important part of Rose’s argument lies in the fact that there is no single mention of Honeyman in any of George Washington’s massive collection of correspondence and papers. A letter written on 14 December 1776 does show a request of his senior commanders to find someone who could be relied upon to cross the river and spy on the British. Miller, on the other hand, claims that Washington and Honeyman had established protocols for contacting each other shortly after Washington was named general. It is highly unlikely Washington would have asked at least four of his officers to assist in locating a capable individual if Honeyman was known to him. In addition, Honeyman himself never divulged his version of the story to relatives, including his own grandson John Van Dyke, who published an article about his grandfather in Our Home magazine in 1873. Van Dyke was fifteen when Honeyman died, and admitted he never heard the story from his grandfather.
Kenneth Daigler, one of the authors that Rose cites as a proponent of the Honeyman story, is a former CIA officer and the author of Spies, Patriots, and Traitors. He takes issue with Rose’s opinion. Based on his own experience in the intelligence community, along with the research for his book, Daigler counters that it was very rare for spies to document the information they gathered. He states that, “All intelligence professionals know only too well that the failures become public while the successes remain secret.” In other words, his strongest argument in favor of Honeyman is that there is no evidence to say he wasn’t a spy.
While sites like Wikipedia and History.com still promote the story of John Honeyman, the lack of any evidence suggests the story, like many others to emerge from The Revolutionary War Era, was fabricated. I am convinced, as Rose closed his argument, that “It is high time to bury the John Honeyman myth: a spy he never was.”
Sources:
Sun Tzu, The Art of War. (New York: Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2008), 37–38.
Jodie Gilmore, “Washington’s Spies.” The New American №21, 5 (March 2007): 35–39. http://search.proquest.com/docview/218095022?accountid=8289. [accessed May 31, 2015].
Nathan Miller, Spying for America: The Hidden History of U.S. Intelligence. (New York: Dell Publishing, 1989), 68.
Alexander Rose, Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring. (New York: Bantam Books, 2006), 48- 49.
Brian Kilmeade, George Washington’s Secret Six. (New York: Penguin Group, LLC. 2013), 216.
True Comics, Inc. New York: The Parents’ Magazine Press Inc. October 1941, Number 5. http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/Comic%20Art/truecomics5.pdf [accessed August 18, 2015].
Rose, Alexander, The Strange Case of John Honeyman and Revolutionary War Espionage. Studies in Intelligence Vol. 52, №2, (June 2008), 27–28.
John Ferling, Almost a Miracle. The American Victory in the War for Independence. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 176–177.
D.H. Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), Appendix X, “Doubtful Documents,” 423.
