Bon Voyage Britain!

On this day in 1783, the final remnants of British troops withdrew from New York, a city and harbor they had controlled for over seven years. The withdrawal came three months after the finalization of the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the war between Britain and her former American colonies.

After the final British soldiers left the harbor, General George Washington made his triumphant entry back into the city that he had failed to defend seven years earlier. The loss of New York was arguably the toughest pill to swallow for the General. Washington had always taken the loss of New York personally and had suggested leading an attack on the city numerous times over the next seven years -- a prospect that his aids and associates back in the Continental Congress did not share.

The History Channel website has the following comments on the importance of New York and what the withdrawal of British troops meant to the new infant nation:

Four months after New York was returned to the victorious Patriots, the city was declared to be the capital of the United States. In 1789, it was the site of Washington's inauguration as the first U.S. president and remained the nation's capital until 1790, when Philadelphia became the second capital of the United States under the U.S. Constitution.

New Yorkers shaped the history of two new nations. The British evacuated their New York Loyalists to remaining British territories, mainly in Canada. These families had been dispossessed of their land and belongings by the victorious Patriots because of their continued support of the British king and were able to regain some financial independence through lands granted to them by the British in western Quebec (now Ontario) and Nova Scotia. Their arrival in Canada permanently shifted the demographics of what had been French-speaking New France until 1763 into an English-speaking colony, and later nation, with the exception of a French-speaking and culturally French area in eastern Canada that is now Quebec.

In 1784, one year after their arrival, the new Loyalist population spurred the creation of New Brunswick in the previously unpopulated (by Europeans, at least) lands west of the Bay of Fundy in what had been Nova Scotia. In 1785, the Loyalists yet again made their mark on Canadian history when their combined settlements at Parrtown and Carleton of approximately 14,000 people became British North America’s first incorporated city under the name City of Saint John. The division between the Anglophile and Francophile sections was ultimately recognized by creating the English-dominant province of Ontario, west of Quebec, in 1867.

Yes, New York has always been the "City that never sleeps."

Was Lexington and Concord the Beginning?

On this day in 1775, the British Army under the command of Lt. Colonel Francis Smith ordered his army of some 700+ to attack and seize the colonial armaments being stored at Concord. In response, the Boston Minutemen rallied in defence of their "nation," claiming that the British had finally crossed the proverbial line in the sand. The brave rabble of American militiamen who bravely stood against the British have been hailed for their bravery as they stood against the might of the British Army. As Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in his epic poem that has forever immortalized this battle:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Though nobody can doubt the boldness of this British advancement, several historians have begun to question whether or not the battles of Lexington & Concord have received too much attention and credit. While nobody will deny that the battle was both vicious and brave for the colonials, one has to question why this battle is given the unique distinction as being the "beginning battle" to the American Revolution.

First off, I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to discredit the heroism or significance of the Battle of Lexington & Concord. Instead, I believe that we should strive to put it into the context in the manner that its contemporaries understood it. By doing so, we can learn and appreciate the TRUE nature and importance of this battle.

As far as our Founding Fathers were concerned, the Battle of Lexington and Concord was but another British atrocity that demanded a response. The measure and severity of that response, however, was a topic of great debate between the several delegates to the Continental Congress. Understandably, the Massachusetts delegates demanded war, while many others demanded a peaceful response. War was never officially declared by the Congress, though they did manage to officially appoint George Washington to be the General of the newly established Continental Army. This, however, came AFTER the battle.

It is also important to note that very few of Massachusetts's sister colonies were making preparations for war. As far as they saw it, peace was still very much a possibility and hope. There was also no official declaration for independence, nor any new form of government established. Clearly, our Founding Fathers understood the atrocity of Lexington and Concord to be a serious problem, but not necessarily an act of war.

"Damned Lobsterbacks" and the Boston Massacre

The evening of March 5, 1770 was like any other evening in colonial America...well...almost. As young Private Hugh White of the British Colonial 14th Regiment took his post in front of Boston's custom house, one wonders if he sensed the impending doom that would shortly come. As the evening progressed, young Private White was met by his superior, Captain John Goldfinch, and the two men "exchanged in pleasant conversation." The conversation was to be interrupted, however, by the intrusion of a young local apprentice named Edward Garrick. Garrick accused the soldiers of several misdeeds, all of which were ignored by the British soldiers. Angry that his accusations were being swept aside, Garrick attacked the men through obscenity, calling the British soldiers, "a bunch of damned lobsterbacks." This insult was apparently sufficient provocation to cause Private White to strike Garrick on his head with the stock of his musket.

Upon seeing and hearing this altercation, scores of Boston citizens rallied to defend the young Garrick. As we all know, tensions were high to begin with, and the people of Boston did not need much provocation to start a riot. In literally minutes, the crowd gathered to roughly 300. Seeing the possibility of a riot, Captain Thomas Preston sent reinforcements to help support Private White and the other soldiers present. The crowd had already surrounded white, backing him up all the way to the customs door. As the other British soldiers arrived to help White, several were knocked down by the crowd, which caused the British soldiers to fix bayonets.

As the crowd continued to grow, more and more Bostonians joined in the chorus of obscenity that was directed to the British. Chants of "damned lobsterbelly" and "fight you wretched, damned lobsterbacks" brought the level of tension to its ultimate crescendo. As the snowballs, oysters, and insults continued to be hurled at the British (who were, quite frankly, having a very difficult time getting organized), several soldiers began to point their muskets at the crowd. This new sign of force caused even more snowballs to fly, and harsher insults to be shouted. Seventeen-year-old Samuel Maverick dared the soldiers to do their worst. "Come on and fire you damned lobsterback!" The rest of the crowd also joined in, yelling "Fire, Fire, FIRE!!!"

As we all know (even though the specifics are greatly debated), the British fired into the crowd, striking 11 random people. Young Samuel Maverick was instantly killed, along with four other Bostonians.

In the weeks after the "massacre," several of young Samuel Maverick's closest friends decided to join the movement for revolution. Many of them joined the army as soon as possible (most of them were under the age of 16). When asked why he had joined, the young William Greenwood (a friend of Samuel Maverick), stated "to kill those damned lobsterbacks."

Boston Massacre: Brilliant Propoganda or the Genuine Article

Of the many events prior to war with Britain, the Boston Massacre is one that receives a lot of attention. Yet this "massacre" only claimed the lives of five citizens (interestingly enough, a recently freed slave of Native American and African American decent, a man named Crispus Attucks, has been labeled as the first casualty of the American Revolution for being the first to die at the Boston "Massacre").

The painting above was done by one Paul Revere (I'm sure we all recognize that name) at the request of Samuel Adams. Revere's origional work was actually done as an engraving, not a painting.

The "Massacre" created such a stir in Boston that many citizens demanded that the soldiers responsible be shot at the same location of the citizens. What is interesting about the Boston Massacre is the fact that John Adams came to the defense of the soldiers. He stated that defending the soldiers in court was one of the noblest things he ever did in his life.

So my question is this: was the Boston "Massacre" a genuine slaughter or was it politically spun into one of the best pieces of revolutionary propaganda? As for me, I side with Propaganda!

Viva La France!

Many people don't realize this, but the American Revolution is often considered to be the first world war. The involvement of Britain and France (along with the often forgotten Spain) propelled the war to a larger level of importance. As we all know, Benjamin Franklin's efforts to secure French aid was a major turning point in the war. Yet so many people still neglect to mention the true significance of French aid during the war. The involvement of France put such a stress on the British that had never existed before. Even if French involvement was limited early on, their mere presence was invaluable.

Most of the fighting betweeen the British and France took place in the Caribbean. Again, most people forget that the Caribbean (and much of South and Central America) was considered to be the economic future for Europe. North America was only an afterthought. The Caribbean's importance took a tremendous amount of British military resources to defend, especially with France now joining with the Unites States. Because of this, only a limited amount of British forces remained in North America to fight the "rebels."

Let us not forget the importance of France (or the Caribbean) when it comes to the American Revolution. They played a very important role.

A Relic of the Revolution

A little over a year ago, this flag from a Connecticut regiment of colonial soldiers, was auctioned off in New York for $17.4 million. The origional owners of the flag were the decendants of a British soldier that captured the flag over 220 years ago. Upon his return to England, the flag became a family heirloom, handed down from generation to generation. It wasn't until 2006 that the decendants of this British soldier decided to auction off the flag at an American aution. The flag, which has been exceptionally cared for, is one of the best conditioned flags of the revolutionary era. If you look closely, you can still see a blood stain left from a colonial soldeir that was either killed or wounded. This certainly brings the reality of the American Revolution (which can often be forgotten in the study of history) to life. The anonyous bidder has stated that he plans to sell the flag to the Smithsonian in the near future.

The American Revolution: A Blessing for England?

Is it possible that the American Revolution was just as beneficial (if not more beneficial during the 19th century) for Great Britain? In his book "Rise and Fall of the British Empire" author Lawrence James devotes an entire chapter to this assertion. He claims that during the years immediately following the war with the American colonies that Britain reaped huge rewards.

For the British, the reality of parting ways with its former American colonies was better than most expected. Trade between the two nations actually increased after 1783, particularly cotton exports, which augmented from 15.5 million pounds in the 1780’s to 28.6 million pounds in 1800 (James, 119). Along with an increase in trade, the British Empire benefited by not having to pay for the protection of its American colonies, which had proven very costly in the past. American colonial independence also added a measure of credence to Adam Smith’s assertions that the American colonies were more of a liability than an asset. In his book Wealth of Nations, Smith pointed out that colonies were beneficial to empire, so long as control could be maintained. The American colonies, however, had become “less in the view and less in the power of the mother country,” and were therefore a liability

The reality of the post-war period was that the American colonists needed the British more than the British needed the colonists. As James points out in his book:

“Naturally there were alarms about the commercial consequences of a break between Britain and America,” but those fears subsided as British experts came to the realization that the infant American republic, 'could not survive economically without Britain'” (119).

The fact that the United States joined in an economic accord with thier former rivals is also indicative of how powerful the British economy really was. This economic agreement between America and Britain (known as the Jay Treaty) helped to deliver the former colonies from economic ruin (not to mention the fact that it made Britain a lot of money). As Joseph Ellis points out in his book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, “The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England…as the hegemonic European power of the Future, which proved prophetic” (136-137).

Often we look at the American Revolution from the perspective of the colonists. When we take a step back, however, and examine the revolution's impact on everyone involved, we can see just how "revolutionary" the American Revolution really was. Not only did it benefit the colonies, but it also greatly benefited Britain.

The Patriot: Too Harsh on the British?

The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson, is one of the only movies made concerning the American Revolution. Of the few that have been made, The Patriot certainly stands as one of the best. However, one of the criticisms made against The Patriot is that it paints the British in an unfair light. (That kind of puts it mildly, in fact).

The villain of The Patriot is British Colonel Tavington, a fictional character based on the infamous Banastre Tarleton. Tavington is played by Jason Isaacs. Tarleton was indeed ruthless, and was known for a few battlefield atrocities. But did he burn women and children in locked church buildings? That's taking "ruthless" a wee-bit far.

What do YOU think? Was The Patriot unfair to the British?