Oh, dear. What a disappointment. Many who were thrilled by the news that the AMC Channel was creating “Turn”, a television series to tell the true story of George Washington’s Long Island spy ring were startled to see glaring inaccuracies depicted, from the opening scene on April 6, 2014.
Had the writers not pinned the names of historic figures onto their characters, and instead developed a script of pure fiction about spying, adultery, gratuitous violence and traitorous generals during the American Revolution, one could sit back with feet up and relax with escapist fantasy. No problem. But – when a producer and a network advertise a program as “a true story,” and then proceed not only to bend the truth but, on occasion, to break it across their knees, and when “real” characters bear no resemblance to their flesh and blood namesakes, it is time to protest.
Where to begin? Perhaps by coming to the defense of Anna Smith Strong, in a valiant attempt to resurrect her good name and sterling character. In AMC’s sexed-up, Hollywood version, which opens in the year 1776, Anna is in her twenties, married to Selah Strong, a tavern keeper. She wears revealing dresses (no modesty lace inserts for her) while carrying mugs of ale to rowdy locals. She responds to (some might say “encourages”) the yearning advances of Abraham Woodhull, to whom, according to the writers, she was secretly pledged until his father forced him to marry Mary Smith after Mary’s fiancé, Abraham’s older brother, had died. Abraham struggles to be a good husband to Mary, and father to his infant son, but still loves Anna and eventually succumbs to her charms.
Whew! Were I the current Regent of Setauket’s Anna Smith Strong Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution – a worthy organization devoted to educating the public about a local heroine – I would look into the feasibility of hiring an attorney to sue for libel on behalf of a historical person who has been a victim of grave character assassination.
The facts: Anna Smith was born in 1740, ten years before Abraham Woodhull. She was the daughter of landed gentry – the great-granddaughter of William “Tangier” Smith, an English early settler of Suffolk County. He and his wife, Madam Martha Smith, owned thousands of acres stretching from Long Island’s North Shore in Setauket to the Great South Bay in Mastic Beach. Anna Smith made a proper match at age twenty, in the year 1760. Her husband, Selah Strong II, was a Patriot and a judge who purchased a Long Island manor on Strong’s Neck in Setauket. They owned no tavern.
In 1776, the Honorable Judge Selah Strong II and Anna were Patriots living with their six children. In 1778 (and not in 1776 as “Turn” would have it) Judge Strong, accused by British forces of having “surreptitious correspondence with the enemy,” was captured and placed in a prison in Manhattan called the Sugar House. There is doubt that he was ever on the notorious prison ship, the Jersey, in New York Harbor. It was not Major Robert Rogers who secured Selah’s release through a subterfuge; it was Nancy, who put aside her Patriot pride to appeal to her Loyalist Smith relatives to obtain her husband’s release. For safety reasons, in 1778 Selah took their six children, who ranged in age from two to seventeen, to Connecticut, until 1781.
While he was away, Nancy became the only woman believed to have been involved in the Culper Spy Ring. Unlike the interpretation given on “Turn,” however, she was not the goad urging Abraham to be a spy; her role was not central. The only mention Abraham made of her in his correspondence was a reference to “a lady” that accompanied him to the city on at least one occasion in 1779, as a cover.
In 1776 Anna was 36; Abraham Woodhull, a great-grandson of another first settler, Richard Woodhull I, was 26 and unmarried. Abraham did not marry Mary Smith until 1781. They would have two daughters and one son. Nancy and Selah had nine children; their last infant was born after the Revolution, when she was 43.
Anna and Abraham did not fall in a passionate tumble atop a kitchen table in his house while his wife and son were at his father’s, and they were not interrupted by the British soldier quartered there. Love scenes between the two are pure invention.
Abraham’s father, Richard Woodhull IV, was a Patriot, not a Loyalist. He did not live in a grand house apart from his son, with servants and creature comforts to offer the estranged Mary and their infant. Richard, his wife Margaret, and Abraham lived together with Abraham’s unmarried sister in their farmhouse on Shore Road. Abraham did not marry Mary Smith until 1781. Richard Woodhull did not follow orders of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hewlett to dig up gravestones of the Setauket Presbyterian Church, nor did he persuade other residents of Setauket to do so. British soldiers dug up the gravestones, as a barricade for the British garrison. As for Richard being coddled by the Redcoats, while Abraham was away from the farm British soldiers came to arrest him; not finding the son, they severely beat the father.
It is not true that Washington knew Abraham’s name. Washington never wanted to know the names of Abraham Woodhull (Samuel Culper Senior) and two other members of the ring that we may meet in future episodes, Robert Townsend (Samuel Culper Junior) of Oyster Bay, who became the main information gatherer in New York City, and the Setauket tavern keeper, Austin Roe. (Why “Turn” made Selah Strong a tavern keeper and eliminated the real one is a mystery thus far.)
A few other errors: The story of Abraham giving Hessian soldiers some cabbages in order to get news of the Hessians at Trenton in late December 1776 is pure fiction. And, according to historian Bev Tyler, his crop would not have been cabbage, but grain. Benjamin Tallmadge did not break military discipline by forging a letter to General Washington about the Hessian encampment in Trenton, and he was not reprimanded by General Scott or anyone else. In 1776 and 1777 Tallmadge was a respected soldier promoted rapidly, from Lieutenant to Captain to Major (and, eventually, Colonel) by General Washington. He soon replaced Nathaniel Sackett as head of the spy ring in 1778.
The list of egregious errors is too long to mention here. The credits for “Turn” still list Alexander Rose, author of Washington’s Spies: The True Story of America’s First Spy Ring. The thought that Rose was a contributor to the series originally encouraged one to expect a reliable telling. It is disheartening to think that Rose permitted the writers to subvert the history he had so carefully researched and written.
Not withstanding these sad thoughts, if the national audience reached by the program becomes “turned” on to the American Revolution and learns of the role played by Setauket and its Patriots to achieve victory, it seems churlish to quibble.
By all means, watch the program, not as history but as entertainment (sex and violence guaranteed). Take a sedative beforehand to combat apoplexy when fiction buries fact, and two aspirin if multiple commercials every seven minutes annoy. You can also check the “facts” of Turn online.
For the true story, I still recommend that you read Alexander Rose’s Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring. It’s the closest written version of the truth that we have. To hear the true story from the hero’s own mouth, you can’t do better than to meet Mr. Beverly Tyler (Bev), the Three Village Historical Society Historian, at the Caroline Church in Setauket, and take his next Walk Through History with Farmer and Revolutionary War Spy Abraham Woodhull.
Or, take the Society’s 90-minute walking tour of the Setauket Village Green to visit the grave of Abraham Woodhull in the Setauket Presbyterian Churchyard – yes, the place where the British ripped up some gravestones to fortify the church during the Battle of Setauket in 1777.
This essay is an expanded version of the original first published in the Long Island Studies Council Newsletter (May/June 2014) and the Times-Beacon-Record, May 30, 2014.
Thank you for this very interesting and informative post! This is real history.
TURN was actually filmed in Virginia. The state tourism office has placed ads in the series directing people to a Virginia website which connects to the sites in Virginia where it was filmed, not the sites in NY where the history was made. Readers of this blog might also find of interest the essay in the May 24 issue of the Albany Times Union, “TV’s Wrong TURN”:
http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/TV-s-wrong-TURN-5502940.php
And while we’re at it how about the latest “history” programs from the History Channel? It used to be that you could depend on them for programs that went beyond the usual thinking about a historical figure or period but now they’ve decided they need to appeal to the masses. Besides all the “reality” programs that have little connection to HISTORY the historical shows are what I call survey shows–they gloss over a period in history, tell you a few facts and make sweeping generalizations and comments that may or may not be true. In the latest version you would think that MacArthur and Patton won the 2 World Wars by themselves or damn near. I guess they chose them because they were in both wars but the wars were certainly more complex in their scope than these programs presented. I’ll get my history from well written books and shows like the Ken Burns specials on PBS.
Yes, The History Channel cannot be relied upon for accurate information, alas. There are also too many authors who repeat errors by accepting at face value what is written or said by others without bothering to verify the source of the information. Many authors cite author works as references without checking to see how how that author came by the information. Rarely can you find a primary source at the root of the statement.
Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Dearstyne and for providing the link to timesunion.com
Unfortunately, they have accepted as truth a major error of “Turn.” As I pointed out in my original post, Anna Smith Strong, a major character on the program, was a minor member of the ring, lending tangential support. She was never engaged to Abraham Woodhull, as she was 10 years older than he and mother of six children by her husband of 16 years (in 1776), Selah Strong II.
Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan
Regarding Anna Strong, you use the name “Nancy” interchangeably with “Anna”. That confused me. Was it her nickname?
“Nancy” was a common nickname for “Anna.” Anna Smith Strong is often referred to as Nancy Strong, and is often written about as Anna (Nancy) Smith Strong.
Agreed… that really threw me…. read the rest of the article wondering if there was a first and second wife, and couldn’t figure out which one Anna was lol
Thank you for your excellent article on the actual facts, not so much your editorial. I’ve been an entertainment attorney for 40 years and have worked up close with programming executives. They’re very good at fiction. Most of all, their jobs depend upon compelling an audience to watch their work. I sort of agree with your comment, ” if the national audience reached by the program becomes “turned” on to the American Revolution and learns of the role played by Setauket and its Patriots to achieve victory, it seems churlish to quibble.” It would be more than churlish–it would miss the point as to why these historical dramas have a place in our culture. I wonder how many people became interested in Medieval History when they saw “Pillars of the Earth” or the Civil War and the effects of Slavery when they saw “Gone with the Wind.” Americans who believe that TURN is accurate history probably think that Atlanta and New York City are filled with a certain, heavily cleavaged, loud-mouth group of housewives or that other TV “reality” shows are real. Obviously, they’d be wrong. The value of a series like TURN if enjoyed by the non-historian viewer, is that it will make that viewer curious and provoke her/him to learn more about the subject matter. Then, that viewer will appreciate that the true history is just as dramatic and just as good a story as the fictionalized one. Then, maybe, when TURN is renewed, as I hope it will, that viewer will enjoy pointing out what they see as inaccurate. For a lively discussion of the series by historians and other Revolutionary War researchers, go to http://allthingsliberty.com/2014/04/amc-turn-everything-historians-need-to-know/ and read the comments. For Hollywood’s portrayal of the battle between historical truth and fiction, watch “Sweet Liberty” starring Alan Alda, Michele Pfeifer, Michael Caine and Bob Hoskins.
Your opinion is well expressed. It reflects the mindset of an entertainment attorney, not a historian.
I would hope that my expressed opinion reflects the mindset of a historian.
The entertainment industry and its products should not self-advertise as being true. Fiction is welcome and respected as long as it doesn’t advertise itself as fact.
Thanks for the great information. I wish Turn had chosen to stick to the real history as much as possible. My basic understanding of scripting for TV or film leads me to think that one of the problems they were solving with the way they changed things was to consolidate multiple real historical figures into characters that could be as charismatic and compelling as possible. There are only a certain number of main or even secondary characters that can make a script that folks can follow and moves the plot along, as they say.
As it is, there are many many characters to keep up with, understand a bit of their story, and get a picture of their motivations and roles. I do wish they could have kept out untrue relationships and any gratuitous sex or violence, but I suspect there was plenty of sex and violence to go around. If the costumes are inaccurate historically to show cleavage, etc., that is really a shame. It is exciting to see history, however inaccurate, coming to life in a compelling way.
For anyone confused, I googled it and Anna apparently went by her middle name of Nancy sometimes. So it’s the same person in the article.
Elizabeth- Thank you for writing this article! I wanted to know the similarities and differences, and this provided me with a great foundation. You know, real life is often stranger than fiction, and they really didn’t need to change this story to make it exciting!
Anna is referenced as only a small part of the ring, but keeping in mind the diminished credit historically given to women, it wouldn’t surprise me if her role was actually larger. To me, it wouldn’t make much sense to tell a woman about the spy operation simply because they wanted a cover companion with whom to travel to the city. Her role may have indeed been that small, but it may also have been a little more substantial and not written down. Who knows? 🙂 And if it wasn’t Anna, there may have been other female spies of whom we know nothing. Either way, you have piqued my interest, and I am excited to read the book! Thanks!
I have a question- Why did Anna/Nancy’s husband take the family to Connecticut and she stayed? That seems so odd. Is that what happened? Did I understand that correctly?
Geez, I can’t believe the British soldiers really used gravestones as part of their fort! How disrespectful.
Thank you, Jenn, for your well-expressed and relevant comments. Of course you are correct that there were most probably other women and men who gathered information – on both sides — during the Revolution. Most never mentioned their activities, since the character (reputation for trustworthiness) of an 18h century person would be undermined.
To answer your question as to why Selah Strong, Anna (Nancy) Smith Strong’s husband, took their six children to Connecticut after he was released from the Sugar House prison in Manhattan: Connecticut was still in Patriot hands and he and the children would be safer there. His wife, Nancy (the usual nickname for “Anna”) remained on their property on Strong’s Neck in Setauket to maintain a presence, to protect the family’s claim after the war. Seals and the children did return to Strong’s Neck after a year’s absence. And yes, British soldiers did overturn the gravestones of the Setauket Presbyterian Church to barricade and protect it during the Battle of Setauket on August 22, 1777. There are two churches on the Setauket Village Green, adjacent to each other. Members of the Caroline Episcopal Church – the Church of England – were primarily Loyalists, Members of the Setauket Presbyterian Church were primarily Patriots – thus, their church was considered fair game by the British to be used as they saw fit.
I love this show. It is so well written and the historical scenes of New York are persuasive. I am able to enjoy it despite the inaccuracies although I always make a point to find out what they are. I am here because this plot line with the gravestones is driving me batty. They got the stones from a quarry. In the time spent agonizing over whose rock to choose why not just go to the quarry and get some empty ones? Don’t even need to polish them. Now I find herein that it really did happen historically. It must have been on a sudden emergency basis, or perhaps a deliberate snub to the Presbyterians? Seems like a bit of a plot hole but, hey, I forgive it.
The British Garrison at Setauket did in fact use the Presbyterian graveyard as a quarry to fetch the stones needed, in order to build the earthworks around their fortification there.
You are correct in assuming that the Redcoats were sending the Yanks a message… don’t mess with the King. The local Anglican congregation would typically be treated better by the Crown, because their political views were usually very similar.
The vulgar ransacking of their gravesite caused great animus and resentment on the part of
Americans towards the British for generations afterwards. No joke.
The TV series gets much of Culper’s story wrong, but it also gets much of it correct. Read the book by Alexander Rose, “Washington’s Spies,.’
It is very compelling and factually accurate. It’s definitely worth the read.
Michael M. DeBonis.
Pardon my typos here.
Giant commercialism of historical figures. Most disgraceful behavior of Hollywood in order to make a buck. AMC should be ashamed but I am thinking they are not because they are money grubbers after all.
Carl Kraus, Jordan NY.
I’m pleased that you read my review. “Giant commercialism of historical figures,” as you commented, is nothing new but still disheartening. Come to the Three Village Historial Society on a Sunday from 1 – 3 to visit the exhibit, “Spies! How A Group of Long Island Patriots Helped George Washington Win the Revolution,” to get the full true story.
I’m coming across this article long after the fact, but I enjoyed Turn and was very capable of separating the true story from fiction. As someone who lives near these sites and has been to the fantastic Culper Ring exhibit at the Three Village Historical Society, I believe Turn has done more good for encouraging interest in history than harm. More people are interested in learning about the true – and just as intriguing – story about the members of the Culper Ring because of how accessible the show is. To dismiss the show as ‘sexed up’ and coming close to shaming people who do enjoy AMC’s program seems counteractive. Many recent visitors to Culper related historic sites would not have even known about these historic figures if Turn had not brought awareness of them to the public. I think that it has provided historians an opportunity to shine a light on the reality of the very rich, complex pasts in our communities to a wider variety of people. In any case, I would have loved to see a historically accurate version of the show with the same actors. They had a very talented group and production staff, and I hope someday the entertainment industry will see that honoring the truth of the past can be just as fascinating as fiction. Until then, I’m glad that Turn has sparked an interest in revolutionary history for so many.
10000% agree. I just watched the show for the first time this year and after every episode researched the truth of it and we would discuss as a family the differences. It really awakened all of us to love the history and do our own independent exploring.
Well said, Megan and I agree with you. The Three Village Historical Society’s exhibit, “Spies! How A Group of Long Island Patriots Helped George Washington Win the Revolution,” has welcomed many visitors on Sundays from 1 – 4, and quite a number come because their interest has been aroused by AMC’s “Turn.”
The primary goal of “Turn” was to get Americans interested in our own history again. To these ends the show’s producers were successful. It’s a tv drama, not Benjamin Tallmadge’s Memoirs, verbatim. Alex Rose and his associates tell you this up front, so there is no false advertising here. TURN shouldn’t be confused with being a historical documentary, which it clearly is not. A mature audience should be able to tell the difference without getting bent out of shape. And historians from Setauket should also recognize that the story of the Culper Ring is America’s story, not just simply Long Island’s. No one makes more money off the Culper Spy Ring than the Three Village area. Now they realize they live in a world where they no longer monopolize the market on the Culpers.
Well said, Michael. The Three Village Historical Society certainly has benefited from “Turn,” and we are delighted that the story of the Culpers has reached a national audience. “Culper Spies” exhibits have multiplied in New York and Connecticut, for example: The New-York Historical Society, Fraunces Tavern Museum in Manhattan, the Fairfield CT Museum and History Center, and the Pequot Library in Southport, CT, are but four institutions with well-received recent exhibits. Many visitors to the “Spies!” exhibit at TVHS on Sundays from 1 – 4 PM have watched the program. They leave with inaccuracies identified, appreciating what “Turn” got right, yet knowing what was fiction, to improve ratings. “Turn”s original ads claimed that it was “the true story,” and we were disappointed not to find it to be so. But yes, we are grateful to the producers for focusing national attention on the American Revolution and its formerly unsung heroes.
Yes, but this overstating of your point by yourself and others leaves a bitter aftertaste lingering in the air. True students of history will read Alexander Rose’s great book, “Washington’s Spies.” It’s the definitive historical account of the Culper Ring. It seems Mr. Rose’s tv series is being attacked deliberately because his book cannot. And for all the critics who are determined to overstate their points…keep in mind one thing: before Alexander Rose did TURN, almost no one was paying attention to the Culper Spy Ring. Now many Americans have it ingrained in their popular imagination. TV series never get it all right. Oftentimes things get sacrificed. We as students of history need to be able to separate fact from fiction in responsible ways. Hollywood dramas are never great sources of information, when exploring history…but reading brilliantly composed and factual historical texts such as Rose’s book are valid sources of information. When Sophocles wrote his plays, he wasn’t concerned with historical accuracy…he was concerned with his philosophical message. We need to be very conscious and realistic about our expectations. It seems to me that too many people are attacking Rose’s tv series out of convenience, because they are too lazy to read his book.
Forgive me, Michael, for my long delay in replying to your April 9th posting. You are 100% correct that Alexander Rose’s 2006 book, “Washington’s Spies,” is the definitive work on the Culpers and is a must read. When I co-curated the still-popular “Spies!” exhibit at the Three Village Historieal Society in 2010, it was Rose’s book that inspired us. Every panel of the exhibit is grounded entirely on his work. For ten years I’ve presented public programs on the Culper Ring (now via Zoom, due to Covid-19) and continue to urge people to read his book, as being more trustworthy than Brian Kilmeade’s popular easy read, “George Washington’s Secret Six” In it, Kilmeade repeated the erroneous claims of others that an attractive “Agent 355” enticed secrets from the British in Manhattan. Even the online Encyclopedia Brittanica repeats that falsehood, claiming that she was the “paramour” of Quaker Robert Townsend. It is impossible for us to clear falsehoods spread by historians who write “It could have happened this way,” and ask the reader to accept fiction as fact.
I have just finished watching the 4th season of Turn and completely enjoyed every minute of it. Now that I know the characters, the story line and the places I am going to start watching it all over again. I paid a pretty penny to watch it on Amazon Prime as soon as it was available. It was money well spent and it garnered a 4.6 stars by other Prime members who watched it this way. Along with watching it a second time I will research the way things really happened so I am happy to have stumbled upon this article (thank you Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan). I also appreciate the other links that are added by others who have commented.
I am also a member of the DAR, Aloha Chapter, Honolulu, Hi. and I value historical accuracy as well as a good story. The actors, costumes, sets, and scenery were all top notch, I am not surprised at the 4.6 star rating it received and it does compel me to delve into history a bit more which is a favorite pastime of mine. It is a win/win situation as I see it.
My own history, my paternal ancestor was Thomas Benedict and the first Benedict to immigrate to the new world, coming to New York in 1635. He was 15 years later than another of my ancestors, Suzanne White of the Mayflower who arrived in the winter of 1620/21. She gave birth to the first baby in the Mayflower group of pilgrims. He was named Peregrine and his six years older brother was Resolved, my direct ancestor. Suzanne’s husband William died before they got shelters built on the land and a short time later she married Edward Winslow – A gentleman from a well-off family who was prominent in the Separatist church in Leiden and involved with Brewster in printing anti-Anglican church religious tracts. He boarded the Mayflower with his wife and two servants, one of whom was Elias Story, who died early along with 8-year-old Ellen More, who was in his care. His wife died in March 1621. In May 1621, he married Suzanne, the widow of William White as the first wedding in Plymouth Colony. He was quite prominent in colony governmental, religious, and Indian affairs. In 1646, he returned to England to join the anti-royalist Commonwealth government of Oliver Cromwell and died of fever in 1654 while on a military expedition in the Caribbean Sea.
I found it strange that John Simcoe was portrayed as such a villain in Turn and then became so prominent and progressive when he was assigned to Canada and his legislation outlawing slavery. Hard to believe this dual personality into the same man.
You are correct, Marilyn. The portrayal of John Simcoe in “Turn” was pure fiction. As is made clear in a comprehensive factual article in Wikipedia, Simcoe was a respected British officer throughout his long and distinguished career. Among his exploits during the American Revolution, he organized the Queen’s Rangers on Staten Island, and led a massacre of Native Indians in what is now Van Cortlandt Park in The Bronx, but to the best of my knowledge never stepped foot in Setauket.
In Rose’s book Washington’s spies they note that in one of Abraham Woodhull’s letter he notes that Richard Woodhull (father) was roughed up by Simcoe while Abraham was away in NYC and Woodhull requested that they arrange to have him killed. Simcoe also incidentally happened to quarter his crew at the Townsend home in Oyster Bay and intimidated the residents (prior to and unrelated to the Culper ring). I don’t think there is much else to go on and they exaggerated the character into a sociopathic murderer with a personal vendetta against the Culper Ring members for the show. However it does appear that there was some long standing bad blood between them and it was war after all. Maybe Abraham Woodhull was just petrified of being caught. But Simcoe was probably not as nice as his memoirs made him out to be.
I too felt that the sexualization of the relationship between Abraham Woodhull and Anna Strong was slanderous, although well played for dramatic effect (they don’t really engage until they think Selah is dead in the show…not that this happened).
However the idea that she remained alone in Setauket while her family was in CT and made the long trip to NYC posing as husband and wife does raise questions of how they would have played this off without offending convention or propriety. I assume they could not be sharing a room at various inns? And with an age difference of 10 years he must have looked older and she younger to pass as a couple. In the show you could easily imagine playing out some sexual tension. Curious if there is any information about the Underhill Inn in NYC and what went on there as well. Was the extended family also collecting tidbits of intelligence to pass along or just a place to stay?
I read the review written by Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan – it was very informative. One unfortunate feature of many films that have been made over the decades is that script writers inject the culture of their time into period films, ignoring the culture of the period being portrayed. I have two questions: 1. In this series, are the words spoken by Washington what he really said, or are the words in the series the invention of script writers – do we even know what Washington said aside from public addresses? 2. In Episode 307, “Mary, Mary Quite Contrary”, Mary Woodhull is portrayed firing a musket at a Queen’s Ranger on the upper floor of a house – did this actually happen?
The answer to both your questions is “No.” Washington’s conversations with other characters are fiction; Abraham Woodhull was not married during the Revolution; he married in 1783k sired two daughters and then a son. His wife and son depicted in “Turn” are imaginary.