AMC’s ‘Turn’:
Lively Fiction, But Tenuous Connections to Fact

By on

TURN-Official-Teaser-TrailerOh, 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 6th.

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 (the season finale airs at 9 PM Sunday night), not as history but as entertainment (sex and violence guaranteed). Check out the repeat schedule online at www.AMCTurn if Sunday evening plans interfere. 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 (TVHS) Historian, at the Caroline Church in Setauket, and take his next Walk Through History with Farmer and Revolutionary War Spy Abraham Woodhull on June 14th from 2 – 4:30 PM.

Or, take the Society’s 90 minute walking tour of the Setauket Village Green on Sunday, June 22nd 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. Meet on the steps of the Setauket Neighborhood House, 95 Main Street, at 1:55 PM.

Of course, if you haven’t yet taken a guided tour inside TVHS of the exhibit, Spies! How A Group of Long Island Patriots Helped General Washington Win the Revolution, what are you waiting for? It’s open most Sundays from 1 – 4 PM at 93 North Country Road. In Setauket. Of course. Information: (631) 751-3730.

This essay is an expanded version of the orginal first published in the Long Island Studies Council Newsletter (May/June 2014) and the Times-Beacon-Record, May 30, 2014.

This entry was posted in History, Military History and tagged , , on by .
Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan

About Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan

Elizabeth Kahn Kaplan is an educator, writer, and lecturer about art, artists, and American history to both adult and school-age audiences. Formerly the Director of Education with the Three Village Historical Society in Setauket, NY, she curated their exhibit "Spies! How A Group of Long Island Patriots Helped General Washington Win the Revolution." She is a co-editor of the Society's publication, William Sidney Mount: Family, Friends and Ideas, about the world-renowned 19th century American genre artist.

14 thoughts on “AMC’s ‘Turn’:
Lively Fiction, But Tenuous Connections to Fact

  1. Bruce DearstyneBruce Dearstyne

    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”:

  2. Mary K

    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.

    1. Elizabeth Kahn KaplanElizabeth Kahn Kaplan

      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.

  3. Elizabeth Kahn KaplanElizabeth Kahn Kaplan

    Thank you for your comment, Mr. Dearstyne and for providing the link to

    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

    1. Bette Mcerlean

      Regarding Anna Strong, you use the name “Nancy” interchangeably with “Anna”. That confused me. Was it her nickname?

      1. Elizabeth Kahn KaplanElizabeth Kahn Kaplan

        “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.

  4. steven paul mark

    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 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.

    1. Elizabeth Kahn KaplanElizabeth Kahn Kaplan

      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.

  5. Pingback: AMC’s Turn – First Season Review | Journal of the American Revolution

  6. Karen Adler

    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.

  7. Jenn Hoff

    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.

  8. Jenn Hoff

    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!

  9. Jenn Hoff

    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?

  10. Jenn Hoff

    Geez, I can’t believe the British soldiers really used gravestones as part of their fort! How disrespectful.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *