If you have read this far you can see that it is a difficult proposition indeed to argue that the Newport Tower was built, from the ground up, by colonial Puritans as a windmill to grind their Indian corn. And if it was not built by them, it was built by Europeans from a much earlier date, making it the oldest Christian church in the western hemisphere. Can it be conclusively proven that it was NOT built by colonials? We suppose that depends on your threshold for conclusive proof.
So as our conclusion we list the key elements of what one must accept as true in order to subscribe to the colonial theory:
1. That in the midst of a devastating Indian war, and after the destruction of Peter Easton’s simple scaffold mill by a storm, Governor Benedict Arnold determined to replace it not with another simple and prudent Puritan scaffold mill, but with a fantastic bit of architecture unlike anything in New England.
2. That he got the idea for this architecture over 40 years earlier in his youth from having seen the Chesterton Mill, which at the time was not a windmill and which was nowhere near his home.
3. That he had access to the stonemasons, carpenters and funds for a building project ten times greater than to replace the Easton mill.
4. That he chose to build an open, arcaded ground level which served no function whatsoever, and was a great impediment to the structure being used as a windmill.
5. That he chose not to put the pillars directly under the structure for more stability but offset to the outside, again an impediment to function as a windmill.
6. That he built a fireplace into the second story where the millstones would have been (the ground level being rendered unsuitable due to its openness to the wind) and where a single spark could set the milldust ablaze.
7. That he ran the flues from this fireplace through the walls and exiting behind the sails where a spark could be fanned to flame.
8. That he built-in double-splayed windows and a series of niches with no apparent purpose in a windmill and not even facing inland where an Indian attack would come from.
9. That he further painstakingly aligned these windows and niches to produce perfect astronomical alignments with which to determine the solstices even though almanacks had been in existence for some time and such observations had been unnecessary for well over a century.
10. That he oriented the structure to true north rather than magnetic north even though they had the compass and all English builders of the time were using magnetic north.
11. That he made the structure decidedly out of round even though doing so made it nearly impossible to have the rotating top needed for a windmill.
12. That he never made any mention of building the tower even though it would have been a marvel and the only stone building in Newport.
13. That no-one else in Newport took notice of the construction or mentioned its raising in any documents or letters of the time, even though the building of the Easton mill received multiple accounts.
14. That all of the eight documentary and cartographical references to the tower from pre-colonial times are inaccurate, even though no other structure in New England existed that could have been their reference.
15. That the post holes found by Chronognostic equidistant from the pillars are not the foundations of an ambulatory (common on medieval round churches) even though they are precisely where such supports would have been, and that there is no other explanation for them because it is well-known there has not been any other structure that close to the tower.
16. That English builders did not use the foot as English builders invariably did, but somehow used the obsolete Scottish El.
17. That so many of the architectural features (arches, keystones, fireplace) that have parallels in northern Scotland and elsewhere in northern Europe dating from the 12th to 14th centuries, but no parallels in colonial America or even 17th century England, were conceived and employed by Arnold’s builders in 1675.
We could go on, there are more. Are each of the above believable? Because any one of them is sufficient to punch a fatal hole in the colonial theory. Of course, the Arnoldists of today (yes, there are still some out there!) have their little retorts for each of the above, usually something like “could have been” or “prove it wasn’t.” But we have nothing to prove since we make no assertion as to the tower’s origin. As to the Arnoldists, we invite you to join us in challenging “them” to prove the Newport Tower was built in 1675. They can’t even prove that it was ever used as a windmill, although we agree that it briefly and unsuccessfully was. Indeed, the colonial theory is among the many fringe theories on who built the Newport Tower. And it rests on less supporting evidence than most of them.
We believe the Newport Tower is worthy of much more public awareness and attention than it has received. It can no longer be dismissed as a mere old windmill. And, as a pre-Columbian and probably medieval artifact, it begs for more research into who really built it, when and why. Because if the colonials did not build this tower, then it raises some huge questions and shakes the foundations of American history and archeology. Where that trail might lead if followed with open minds will surely boggle those minds.
The Next Steps For The Tower
It has taken 150 years but we have gotten the monkey of a colonial windmill off the back of the tower, and it’s time to care enough, care about our own history, to look with open eyes and open minds and see what America’s oldest building has to tell us. It’s within our grasp to see at least the broad outlines of who “did” build the tower, and when and perhaps why. But this is going to take a sense of purpose, a sense of purpose that goes beyond just Newport or just New England. This is not merely a local curiosity anymore. It is a window into the earliest history of the continent.
There organizations and individuals out there who care deeply about our history. The tower has something to tell us if we will listen. Listening means putting our ear to the ground, or in this case, below the ground. The first step is some limited and targeted excavation. Not in or under the structure but 16 feet out where two post holes were recently found. If there are more post holes, also aligned with the pillars and equal distance from them, it is a watershed event. This could be accomplished with a modest budget. But neither the city of Newport nor the state of Rhode Island can, or should, be expected to bear the burden. It should be noted though, that both the city and the state will reap the rewards when the tower becomes one of the most compelling historical sites in the US.
p.s. - The claim is sometimes seen that the Chesterton Mill is now “known” to have been built as a windmill because of found documents. We have twice written to the authority at Chesterton asking for such documentation, but have gotten nothing even though they claim it on their website. Two things are equally true: 1) that we doubt the Chesterton Mill was built as a windmill; and 20 that it is of no great significance either way because it has very little architecturally with the Newport Tower beyond the superficial, and because there is no logical reason to think Benedict Arnold or anyone elese in 1670s Newport ever saw it.