Colonial Theory

Before we nail the coffin tightly, it behooves us to briefly state what we mean by Colonial Theory or Arnold Theory. Colonial Governor of Rhode  Island, Benedict Arnold came to America with his parents as a teenager in 1635. He moved to the still new settlement of Newport as a young man and became a leading citizen and land owner, eventually be appointed as governor.

We must remember that at that time, the interior just beyond the coast was a wilderness of heavy timber occupied by Indians, often unfriendly. The area that became Newport, when first settled by a few farmers producing small crops, had no need for a wind or water mill to grind corn. The ancient hand grinding methods were adequate to produce the bread for the pioneer’s own tables.

But Newport grew and by 1663, there were enough residents growing enough corn that transporting over some distance to be milled was a serious inconvenience remedied by Peter Easton, who built a windmill for himself and for the use of his neighbors, (for a fee no doubt). In 1675, a wind storm destroyed the Easton mill and Newport once again had a problem. Easton had built his mill when his father was governor, and now looked  to the new governor, Benedict Arnold for a solution and both sides of the dispute agree, he found one.

That is, of course, where the agreement ends. While we all agree that Arnold stepped up and provided Newport with a windmill, the hallmark of the Colonial Theory is that he built the Newport Tower, jaw-droppingly out of place as it would have been, from the ground up as a windmill. In the sections to follow we will dig into that and its implications further  but for now let’s look at the other dimensions of the Arnold Theory. Its critics ask what could have possessed the governor to build in stone when almost all other buildings in New England at the time were of wood? And what of the strange architecture with the building being above ground supported by eight pillars and arches? Nothing even remotely similar to this had existed in the new world before. The Arnold Theory’s answer is to point to a structure in England now known as the Chesterton Mill.

So the story goes, the refined piece of Renaissance architecture was the inspiration for the Newport Tower windmill. Recall that this story is being born in the mid- 1800s when the controversy over the origin of the tower heated up. In those days both sides of the dispute hurled distortions and even lies back and forth regularly. It was flatly stated and widely believed that Benedict Arnold had grown up quite near to the Chesterton building and saw it often. When he decided to build a windmill he remembered it and THAT is the origin of the baffling architecture of the Newport Tower. The other piece of the theory is that in his will written in 1677, when  Arnold mentioned his “stone built windmill,” that that meant he built the structure from the ground up for the purpose of being a windmill. Those three points, similarity to the Chesterton Mill, Arnold’s supposed exposure to the Chesterton Mill and his mention of his stone built  windmill in his will, comprise the total of the Colonial Theory and, they say, constitute conclusive evidence that there was no Newport Tower before 1675. The controversy has been going on for so long one can look back and see  periods in history when the Colonial Theory or a medieval build theory held sway. We sense that having been in an Arnoldist period in recent years, new findings are now propelling us to where the Colonial Theory  is about to be dismissed entirely. Considering the weakness of the several premises on which the Arnold Theory is based, it is a wonder it grew to prominence in the first place. To understand how that happened we have to keep in mind that this  controversy has been going on for well over 150 years. The first  speculations about the origin of the Newport Tower were from people from New York who had seen the tower and doubted it was built by early  colonials merely to grind corn. It was too elaborate and stylized for a little backwater settlement like Newport to have raised. The people of  Newport took great umbrage at this. Not only “could” Benedict Arnold  have built the Newport Tower, but by God he did and that’s that!

The Arnoldist legend tells us that Benedict Arnold was born and raised near Leamington and Chesterton in Warwickshire. It goes on to presume that  since he lived nearby, as a lad he had seen, and perhaps had even observed or helped with, the construction of what is now known as the  Chesterton Mill. This myth was pulled from the air but still persists even as the legend’s age approaches 200 years. In truth, Benedict grew up near Ilchester and Limington which are in Somerset. Benedict Arnold likely never saw, or even heard of, the structure at Chesterton. In 1635, the Arnold family along with a number of relatives boarded a ship at Dartmouth, Devonshire, and sailed for Massachusetts. It is interesting to note that all of them were from within 5 miles of Ilchester. Travel was rare for all but the wealthy, and to assume that a young boy had traveled from Ilchester to Chesterton is a huge stretch.  In all the documents and records of the Arnold family, there is not one mention of Warwickshire or, for that matter, any other part of England except Somerset which was home, and Dartmouth the port of departure. The distortion was then amplified by another of what we will generously  call errors rather than lies. That being that Arnold’s farm in Newport  was named Leamington Farm after Leamington, the village near the  Chestertom Mill. But the record clearly shows that Arnold’s Newport estate was Limington Farm, after the village of Limington near Ilchester where he in fact grew up. So in this way the story of Arnold’s familiarity with the Chesterton Mill  became one of the two legs on which the colonial theory stood for over  150 years (the other being the “supposed” similarity between the Chesterton Mill and the Newport Tower. The Real Chesterton Mill The structure at Chesterton was built in 1632, probably by famous architect Inigo Jones for the estate owner, Edward Peyto. He was also  commissioned at the same time to build a watermill and stone bridge nearby. It is generally thought that the structure known as the Chesterton Mill was designed and built as an observatory, fashionable  then on the estates of the wealthy, and much later converted to a windmill. There are claims to the contrary, that it was built as a windmill, but we have been unable to find any documentation of that. There are, however, several bits of evidence constituting a strong argument  that it was NOT built as a windmill. First, as we have said, Inigo Jones as hired to build a watermill at the same time as the Chesterton “mill.” Even the wealthy have no need for both a windmill and a watermill. There was no logical reason for Peyto to pour huge amounts of money into building both. Logically, at some later date in a time of drought the watermill could not function and the observatory was converted to wind power. The second and perhaps most powerful argument is that if the Chesterton  Mill had been built as such, it would have been a tower windmill. Tower windmills were stone or brick towers with a revolving top to turn the  sails into the wind. The problem is, there is no evidence of any tower  windmills in the English speaking world until around 1700, and the Chesterton structure was built in 1632. There were 17th century tower windmills in France that early but none in England. English windmills  were entirely wood and of three styles. More on that later. A third reason is that the Chesterton Mill looks top heavy and cumbersome as a  windmill. It does not fit the pattern of Inigo Jones’ architecture. But without the sails it is a model of his work. But why is any of this even significant? Remember that the cornerstone of  the colonial theory is that Benedict Arnold saw the Chesterton Mill as a windmill in the first couple years after it was built. That cannot be  true if it was built as an observatory. We would argue though, that it  still doesn’t matter for the purpose of evaluating the colonial theory.  Even “if” the Chesterton was built as a windmill which it certainly was not, and even “if” Arnold had seen it as a youth, which he certainly did not, it still adds no weight to the argument that the Newport Tower was built by Arnold from the ground. Let’s look at some differences between the structures. The Chesterton Mill is a highly refined work of Rennaissance architecture. The masonry is very sophisticated with each stone cut to perfection. The Newport Tower is crudely built from rubble stone that is hardly cut or shaped at all save for a few chips to help pieces fit into place. It is argued that these differences merely reflect building in England as  opposed to the backward colonies. True, the colonials were less concerned with beauty but they were concerned with function and utility. Even ignoring the stonework and the fact that the Chesterton has six pillars and arches instead of eight, there are other differences. The  pillars of the Chesterton are directly under the upper structure. That, combined with the finely fit and mortared stone, gives it the structural strength to withstand the stresses of a windmill. The Newport Tower could not possibly withstand such stresses since its pillars are set to the outside. No-one, even an unrefined colonial mason, would be foolish enough to build such a feature into a windmill knowing that it would weaken it far too much to hold up under windmill strain for long. We will return to these points but for now trust that the Chesterton was not a model in Arnold’s mind for a windmill and the Newport Tower could not have functioned long as such. Newport In 1675 Now that we’ve established some factual background for Benedict Arnold and the Chesterton Mill, let’s take a closer look at the reality of Newport in 1675. We covered on the Architecture page what a massive undertaking building the Newport Tower would have been, and how unreasonable its concept would have been. Now let’s look closer at what day to day life was like in Newport in 1675. In the spring of that year there was a major Indian uprising throughout  southern New England. It became known as King Phillip’s (nickname of the Indian leader) War. Thousands of lives were lost on both sides and even though fighting did not reach Newport, there was a constant threat.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island were in turmoil. The remote settlements like Newport that were not attacked lived in fear and with most of their men gone, were deeply concerned about defense. For over a year Newport was populated mainly by women, old men and children. Resources were scarce and although Newport had a hard time feeding itself, there was a need for extra grain to send forward to the fighting men. To make matters worse, only a few months into King Phillip’s War, the Easton windmill was destroyed leaving Newport without a mill and with  hardly any skilled men to build it. It is against this backdrop that we are to believe that Benedict Arnold produced from his own imagination the concept of a stone tower windmill, unknown in the English world, and decided to build this monumental folly even though he surely did not have access to the stone masons, the carpenters or even the laborers to do the work. A handful of men could have built a common and simple scaffold windmill (more on that later) but no, Arnold would not only build in stone, he would perch his structure on eight pillars with Romanesque arches. This would mean the ground level could not house the millstones because of wind blowing through. The millstones would have to be on the second floor where Arnold, we are told, decided it would be a good idea to have a fireplace. Suffice it to say the dust from milling  is quite flammable and a fireplace in the millstone room is akin to screendoors on a submarine. Not only did Arnold decide to put a  fireplace in the worst possible place, according to this theory he also decided to run the flues through the walls, unknown in any other area building, instead of using a chimney and venting the flues where the sails would not have fanned sparks into flames. But wait, there’s more! According to this legend Arnold also decided to build in the elaborate astronomical alignments we have covered. And while he would put in windows on the bayside of his tower, he would put none on the mainland side from where an Indian attack would come and where the tower might have some defensive function. And we can only guess what possessed him to build the outset caps of the pillars making  the tower unable to long withstand the stresses of a windmill. And he did all this in the midst of a devastating war with shortages of materials, manpower, food and one would think, money. Governor Arnold was not a stupid man. The notion that he made such decisions borders on the absurd.

 Then What Kind of Windmill “Would” Have Made Sense?”

There were three types of windmills in use in England in the 17th century. All were wooden. First is the Post Mill seen above at right. Keep in mind that the sails or blades of a windmill had to be moveable so they could be directed into the prevailing wind. The post mill accomplished this by having the entire structure sit upon a huge central post. It could then be rotated on that axis into the wind. Second is the Smock Mill, above left. This is what most of us think of as a Dutch Windmill.  They too were wooden and in a tower shape so that they are sometimes  referred to as tower mills. This is a misnomer because a true tower windmill is made of brick or stone. The smock mill accomplishes turning its sails into the wind by use of a rotating top. Both mills above are much newer than 17th century but their general style was in use at that  time.

Some hold that because there are a few documents dating to the 1830s, in which then old men recalled that in their youth, the Newport Tower was a windmill and the revolving top had to be turned with a yoke of oxen. While that is possible, the memory of men in their 80s about events in their youth are very suspect. Perhaps they were confusing another mill, at Providence or elsewhere. Or, as we are more inclined to believe, they recall a scaffold mill built atop the Newport Tower.

That would have been the fastest, easiest and least costly way for Arnold to have gotten a mill operating. And, it would have been on his property and it would have been his “stone build windmill.” Unfortunately, Arnold probably did not have anyone in Newport capable of seeing that this type of mill on top of the tower would have created still dangerous levels of stress on the old walls and pillars below. But those problems would have come to light quickly. The contraption may have gotten them through the hard times of King Phillip’s War, but not long after it must have developed structural issues hence the effort to dig and shore up the foundations. And, recall the Gilbert Stuart painting on our homepage from 1775 that shows the tower in complete ruin and in use as a haymow. If it had been used as a windmill at anytime near 1775, there would be  evidence of “windmill” ruin in the picture, but there is nothing to indicate that. There are also several other even earlier paintings showing the tower in ruins, but not one showing it as a windmill.

Just as it is not our mission to speculate about who built the Newport Tower and when, it is not our mission to speculate how it was converted to a windmill or with what success. Indeed, there is no real evidence that it was ever used as a windmill, be we stipulate that it was. We believe it never functioned well and efforts, long after Arnold’s death in 1677, to fix it probably failed and it was abandoned by 1700.

Colonial Theory - Coup de Grace

If there is a reader out there who still believes the Newport Tower was built from the ground to be a windmill, we would like to hear from you. It’s been a good contest for over 150 years, but the colonial theory has been put to bed by recent discoveries if not long before. There are few other points we need to make before moving to conclusions. First is the lack of any mention of the actual building of the Newport Tower by Arnold. There are multiple documents that mention both the building and the destruction of the Easton Mill. And it was just a common, ugly scaffold mill. Why then didn’t trumpets blare all over Newport at the construction of this fantastic stone structure with its elegant architecture? Why indeed did not Arnold himself mention it in any documents or letters save for his will? And on the subject of his will,  if he had built the tower why would he not have referred to it with more pride even bragging perhaps that he had designed its novel architecture and built it for the people of Newport? On the other hand, if he merely used it to plant a scaffold mill atop, how else would he refer to it in his will except as a stone build windmill? He would hardly say, even  though true, “The old stone tower on my property that I converted to a windmill.” And speaking of the word “old,” it had been used to describe the tower soon after it was supposedly built. How odd if it were truly new, but perfectly understandable if the colonials had found it there when they arrived.

Additionally, there are at least eight documents and maps from before 1620, that mention a structure of some sort in or near the location of the Newport Tower. These are much in dispute as to the location each refers to and to what kind of anomaly is being described. Surely none of them says it is a stone tower built on eight pillars and arches. It would be a diversion from our purpose to go into each of these in detail since we are not attempting to answer the question of when or by whom the Newport Tower was built. But these sources are further evidence that the tower existed long before Newport existed if not before 1492. To those who claim these documents and maps refer to some other location and some other building we ask - what other building and what other location? If they are not referring to the Newport Tower, is there another candidate structure anywhere in New England to which they are referring? The answer is no.

We close this section with a quote from Phillip Means who published a book, “The Newport Tower” in 1941:

“In wordly matters at least, the Puritans of New England were intensely  practical; we may assume that their windmills had the same rough  practicalness that their palisades, blockhouses, and other constructions had. The Puritan windmill, of whatever type, almost certainly was built in the simplest manner possible, without any fuss and nonsense that might seem ungodly or uselessly expensive.”

next - Conclusions

webmaster@newporttower.org

[Home] [Dispute History] [Archeology] [Architecture] [Colonial Theory] [Conclusion] [Sitemap] [Untitled10]