« Friday Links Illegal Demo on Bergen Street Destroys Old Stable »

January 13, 2006

Remains of Revolution Turn Up in Red Hook

manWhile digging a grave for his recently departed pet iguana in the backyard of his Coffey Street apartment building, 35-year-old Matt LaDuca came across a three-pound cannon shot that is believed to date back to the Revolutionary War. "I know you can go to Gettysburg and dig up musketballs, because over there they're a dime a dozen," said LaDuca, 35. "But in Red Hook? I don't know." Local historian John Burkard bets the cannon shot was used to fend off British troops during the Battle of Brooklyn in August 1776, noting that Fort Defiance was not far from where LaDuca now resides.
Red Hook Blast from the Past [NY Daily News] GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:56 AM | Comments (10)
Categories: Historical

Comments

That's very cool.

I am reminded that I read once about a couple of guys that like digging up people's gardens looking for stuff in what was once a pit privvy.

Posted by: Hal at January 13, 2006 9:34 AM

those glasses look sorta square to me

Posted by: Anonymous at January 13, 2006 10:16 AM

Argggh, it's true! He wasn't at the party, we promise! LOL

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 13, 2006 10:19 AM

great story. brooklyn is crawling with revolution history, but we don't get a dime of federal money for preservation. fort defiance should be a national monument.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 13, 2006 2:38 PM

I've been researching the Battle Of brooklyn and Red Hook's role for nearly 15 years. I didn't bet the cannon shot was anything. Because of the location of the find, on land once occupied by Ft Defiance I said "I believe the cannon shot was likely used to fend off the British Troops during the Battle Of Brooklyn. Why do you deliberately mis-quote me?

Posted by: John Burkard at January 15, 2006 1:40 AM

He paraphrased you. If he had put what you said in quotes then he would have been misquoting you, but that's not what he did. Lighten up. Geez.

Posted by: Meryckawick at January 15, 2006 10:06 AM

Things are a little looser here in the blogosphere, Mr. Burkhard. Besides, no quotes were used.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 15, 2006 11:37 AM

Yes, blogs may mis quote at will.

Of course, blogs are the first to call any person or press source on something they don't disagree with.

It's great to have it both ways.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 15, 2006 11:45 AM

Mr. Burkhard, I've read your post and the paraphrase up top and I don't see any real distinction. What are you objecting to? Do you see the words at top as misleading? If so why?

Posted by: just wondering at January 15, 2006 9:39 PM

Now you guys need to lighten up also, I wasn't angry, merely asking a question. The item was taken directly from the news article and mis-quoted,not para-phrased. But congrats meryckwick, your the only guy that spelled my name correctly. I guess bloggers cannot read either? but I do thank you for the free publicity,and I'm really not angry.

Posted by: John Burkard at January 15, 2006 10:03 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions