Tea Parties: 18th Century v. 21st Century

Comparing the Boston Tea Party to the various tea parties that took place across the nation last week is complex to say the least. After all, we're trying to compare 18th century America with today's society. Most of the social, cultural, and technological norms are completely different now. The majority of American colonists wouldn't even recognize modern America as being their "stomping ground."

With that said, here are a few specific differences between the tea parties of today and the original tea party of 1773:

1. First off, the legacy of the Boston Tea Party (1773) has been used on a number of occasions. In fact, Mahondas Gandhi (not Mahatma Gandhi) invoked the legacy of the Boston Tea Party in 1908 by inspiring his fellow Indians to burn British registration cards. In the early 1970s there were a large number of gatherings that called themselves "tea parties." At one “I Love America” rally led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, followers were asked to burn bags of tea, symbolizing the people’s anger over the newly-enacted Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, protestors gathered at the White House to call for the impeachment of then President Richard Nixon by throwing bags of tea on the White House lawn. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor. And finally, in 2006 a breakoff of the Libertarian Party called the “Boston Tea Party” was founded.

2. The motivations behind today’s tea parties and the original tea party of 1773 are completely different. The Boston Tea Party (1773) was actually a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut, as opposed to today’s tea parties which protested rising taxes and an increase of government spending, etc. In 1773, The British East India Company was nearly bankrupt and instead of providing a "bailout" or government loan, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which eliminated for this company the duty on tea exported to America. As a result, smaller merchants in the colonies were expected to suffer, since they didn’t received the same tax cuts as the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the peak of a boycott against a company that got huge corporate tax cuts granted to them by the government. Once the ships from the East India Company arrived in Boston’s harbor, men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock were quick to seize the opportunity and turn it into a political advantage by rallying local Boston merchants to their cause. On December 16, after assembling at the Old South Church to express their grievances, Samuel Adams stood and gave the “secret message” to his devout “Sons of Liberty” (and Masons) to assemble at the docks, where they had their “tea party.” 342 chests of tea (property of the East India Company) were seized and dumped into Boston Harbor.

Now, this is often contrary to what many people know about the Boston Tea Party. After all, most Americans believe that the American Revolution was the result of taxes being levied against them by Britain. This isn’t 100% accurate. To understand the role that taxes played in the American Revolution we must go back to 1765. The British Empire, fresh of its complete rout of the French in the French and Indian War, was faced with a mounting debt as a result of that war. As a result, Parliament decided to levy a small tax (a fraction of one percent) against the colonists in America. Parliament believed that the colonists needed to play off a small portion of Britain’s debt, since the war had been fought to protect the colonists in the first place. As a result, the STAMP ACT was passed. However, the colonists exploded in anger and protested the act. Led by Boston Revolutionary Samuel Adams, the colonists succeeded in having the Stamp Act repealed. One of the main reasons for their success was their usage of the old propaganda phrase, “No taxation without representation,” which had been coined in 1750 by Reverend John Mayhew. By repealing the Stamp Act, the colonists believed they had succeeded and that everything would be ok.

The colonists’ excitement, however, was to be short-lived. In 1766 Parliament passed the often forgotten DECLARATORY ACT, which stated that Parliament had the right and power to govern its colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In essence, this became the catalyst for the revolution. It created a “showdown” between the legitimacy of Parliament’s rule and the sovereignty of the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would quote the Declaratory Act several times in the Declaration of Independence.

So, while taxes were an issue early on, it is important to realize that they played a very limited role in bringing about the American Revolution.

3. The Boston Tea Party was an illegal action of a mob that committed assault, theft, destruction of property, etc. The tea parties of today did no such thing (at least to my knowledge). The Boston Tea Party was literally an act of defiance to the laws of the British. The participants were willfully and knowingly being insubordinate to the will of King and country. The results of their actions caused the British to impose a complete blockade of Boston Harbor. Today’s tea parties, while an expression of anger/intolerance of current government decisions, did not invoke the same response nor did it take the same radical steps of defiance.

4. Today’s tea party participants claim that their petition was a “grass roots” movement led and organized by the people. The Boston Tea Party was not. It was led by prominent and influential Bostonians like Samuel Adams and the VEEEERY rich John Hancock, who, interestingly enough, stood to lose a fortune by the East India Company. His motives were not as pure as we are often taught.

5. The Boston Tea Party was NOT assembled out of a growing concern over the size of government, government spending, etc. Instead it was assembled on issues like colonial sovereignty v. Parliamentary rule, corporate tax breaks, and a lack of government funding for the development of the American merchant class. In fact, this last point (the development of the American merchant class) was a fundamental issue for Thomas Paine in his extremely influential pamphlet, “Common Sense.” It’s worth noting that political activist Glenn Beck has quoted Thomas Paine on several occasions, especially during the tea parties of last week. However, Beck neglects to recognize the fact that Paine was IN FAVOR of bigger government, more government spending, higher taxes, welfare programs, etc.

And while the differences between the tea parties of today and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 are vast, it’s important to remember that at the heart they share the same basic principle: that the people are where sovereignty and power ultimately reside…at least that is the hope of its participants, whether in the 18th or 21st century. And it’s likely that we haven’t seen the end to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party!!!

Why Did the British Lose the American Revolution?

So, how exactly did the British lose the American Revolution? After all, the British army was the best trained, best equipped, and most professional army in the world. The Royal Navy was, at the time of the American Revolution, the undisputed ruler of the High Seas. Though economically strained by debt from the Seven Years War and soon by the expanding nature of the American Revolution, the empire's infrastructure was still stable and relatively sound. Not only that, the British Empire still retained the loyalty of at least a third, perhaps more, of the colonists living in the thirteen North American colonies which revolted.

By contrast, the American colonists were in economic and political disarray. The states were not effectively unified. The national government was largely impotent. Continental currency was practically worthless. The American army was poorly supplied, insufficiently trained (initially), and inconsistently paid.

Virtually all the advantages went to the British, and yet the American colonies won their independence. Why?

Why Did the British Lose the American Revolution?

How did the British lose the American Revolution? How did the strongest empire in the world lose thirteen fledgling colonies in North America?

The reasons Britain lost the American Revolution begin with an understanding of what the British had to accomplish militarily in order to win. King George III and Parliament bulled their way into a military confrontation with the colonies, when a political solution would've been far less costly and much more effective in retaining the loyalty of most American colonists.

Had the British government listened to some of its own members, like Edmund Burke, who counseled respect and conciliation toward "our English brethren in the Colonies," the war could have been avoided. This was not to be the case, however, as British Tories carried the day.

Once war broke out, the British had to suppress the American insurrection and restore their preeminence in North America. To accomplish this, they had to crush any American army in the field and win the loyalty or at least compliance (however reluctant or grudging) of a majority of the American colonists.

The British faced three significant obstacles to achieving those objectives:

1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.

2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.

3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion.

How the British Could Have Won the American Revolution

Even though waging war in the first place was not the best choice for the British, the British did have several opportunities to defeat the Americans:

1. New York and New Jersey Campaign - 1776

The New York and New Jersey campaign of 1776 afforded Britain its first opportunity to score a decisive blow against the American colonies.

By December 1776, the British had decimated the American Continental Army, humiliating and chasing them out of New York and into New Jersey. Had it not been for Howe pulling his punches a bit in New York and some freak weather conditions (dare we say "miraculous"?), the American army could've been destroyed in Long Island.

Even with a remnant of Washington's army escaping New York, however, the situation still looked bleak. Washington's army was on the run and literally disintegrating. Thanks to casualties, surrender, desertions, and expiring enlistments, the American army was down to a shadow of its former self in December 1776 and faced extinction.

Had General Washington not attacked the Hessians at Trenton on December 26, 1776 (and won), it's likely the American Revolution would've faded into oblivion. The United States of America would've been a short-lived dream. Washington did attack the Hessians, however, and followed up that victory with another at Princeton. Then, in addition to talking most of his troops into extending their enlistments, Washington positioned his army for winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey -- in a way that forced the British to withdraw from New Jersey and retreat back to New York.

While no one should forget the sacrifice and bravery of the Continental Army, it is not an exaggeration to say that the leadership of General George Washington saved the American Revolution.

2. Saratoga and Philadelphia - 1777

The next opportunity for Britain to end the American War for Independence was suggested by British General John Burgoyne. Burgoyne's plan was to invade America from Canada and split the colonies in half - isolating New England from the Middle and Southern colonies.

Had Burgoyne and General William Howe coordinated their efforts, the invasion could have been as devastating to the American colonies as General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was to the South in the American Civil War.

Due to poor communication and the enormous egoes of the British commanders, it was not to be! General Howe launched an attack on the American capital of Philadelphia, leaving Burgoyne to fend for himself against the northern American army, commanded by Horatio Gates.

Burgoyne's advance bogged down and was decisively repelled at Saratoga. His surrender to Gates at Saratoga was the turning point of the American Revolution.

Howe's attack on Philadelphia was militarily successful, but the capture of Philadelphia did little to stop America's resolve to continue the fight, especially given what had happened at Saratoga.

Eventually, the British army withdrew from Philadelphia and fought General Washington's better trained army in its march back to New York. The battle was a draw, and both sides knew the war would go on for much longer.

3. The Southern Front - 1778-1781

The British had perhaps their best chance at winning the American Revolution by rolling up the American colonies from the South. Things looked good for them, after capturing Savannah, Georgia (1778), Charleston, South Carolina (1780), and the utter destruction of the southern Continental Army at Waxhaws (1780) and Camden (1780).

Unfortunately for the British, the American Congress allowed General Washington to appoint the next American leader for the South. Washington's choice was Nathanael Greene, a remarkable American general who wore the British down in a series of battles, which set the stage for Yorktown (1781).

Had the British been able to crush Greene, Yorktown never would've happened and the British probably would've swept the entire South.

4. Benedict Arnold's Treachery

The last best chance for Britain to win the war was Benedict Arnold. Had Arnold's plan succeeded, he would've handed Britain the keys to West Point. This would have allowed the British to take control of the Hudson River, drive the Americans fully out of New York, and perhaps split New England off from the rest of the colonies (as Burgoyne hoped to accomplish before Saratoga).

Not only that, but Arnold came close to delivering General Washington to the British as well. The loss of America's Commander in Chief would have been devastating to the colonies both politically and militarily.

Alas, it was not to be. Arnold's treachery was discovered, and West Point was saved. And with it, Britain's last best hope of winning the American Revolution evaporated.

The French Connection

French support of the American colonists was, of course, a significant factor in how the American Revolution turned out. Without French support, it's unlikely the Americans could've sustained a long war effort against the British Empire. Trapping Cornwallis at Yorktown certainly would not have happened, were it not for the French.

Once the French recognized the United States and entered the war, the American Revolution became a world war for the British. Losing the American colonies wasn't necessarily the "least of their problems," but it certainly wasn't their only concern.

Still, the Franco-American alliance had problems, and France too had more global than North American concerns. Had the British played their cards more effectively in the southern campaign and had Benedict Arnold's plan worked out better for them, it's still possible they could've won the American Revolution or at least ended it on more favorable terms.

Historians have long enjoyed asking "What if" questions about history, including the American Revolution. Whether the American Revolution could've turned out differently will likely continue to be a subject for such discussions.

Happy Green...I Mean Blue...I Mean Orange St. Patrick's Day!

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all American Revolution Blog readers!

Perhaps you are asking yourself why I would be posting something on St. Patrick's day on a blog like this. After all, weren't most colonial Americans Protestants? Why would they even bother with a celebration like St. Patty's Day? Well, aside from needing another excuse to drink (not that people needed an excuse to get drunk in colonial America), St. Patrick's Day was a powerful cultural symbol of Irish pride.

The first recorded St. Patrick's Day celebration in colonial America was held in 1737. According to the Charitable Irish Society, it was a group of 18th century Irish immigrants to New England who first brought the St. Patrick's Day tradition to the New World:

The origins of Boston’s Irish community stretch back to the early 18th century when considerable numbers of Ulster Presbyterians came to New England in search of economic opportunity and the religious and political freedom which the Penal Laws denied to Dissenters and Roman Catholics alike. Merchants and artisans of Ulster stock founded the Charitable Irish Society in 1737 with the express purpose of assisting fellow Irish immigrants in the traumatic process of settling in a strange new city and country.

Interestingly enough, these Irish immigrants from Ulster were NOT Catholic but Protestant. Their Presbyterian beliefs had also incorporated the St. Patrick's Day holiday as more of an expression of cultural heritage rather than a recognition of Catholic tradition.

Approximately three decades later, New York City became host to the first ever official parade commemorating the celebration of St. Patrick's Day in America. On that day, Irish soldiers, serving in the British military, marched proudly through the streets of New York, while eager crowds gathered to praise their bravery during the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War) and to recognize their Irish heritage.

Now, you are probably asking yourself why this post is in blue instead of the traditional St. Patrick's Day green. The answer is actually based in the history of this day. It was during the early part of the 17th century that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day became an officially recognized feast of Ireland. During those first centuries, St. Patrick was regularly recognized with the customary blue, since blue was regularly associated with the ancient colors of Ireland. It wasn't until many years later that the "wearing of the green," meaning to wear a shamrock on one's clothing, made its appearance, thus forever changing the "official" color of St. Patrick's Day. And perhaps we should change the blue to orange, since many Protestants actually chose to wear orange on this day as a symbol of defiance. And while this tradition is still continued by some Protestants to this day, it is interesting to note that many attribute the wearing of orange to William of Orange (William III), who defeated the Catholic King James II to take over the throne of England. Perhaps those who credit William III should remember that the "Orange" in William's nickname has nothing to do with the color, but the French province in southern France. In fact, the orange color in Ireland's flag is actually used to recognize Ireland's Protestant minority.

So should we start pinching those not wearing blue...or orange???

Gingerbread, Lovely Gingerbread!

When it comes to celebrating the holidays, gingerbread is to Christmas what the American flag is to the 4th of July. In all of its variety, gingerbread has delighted the pallets of generations of Americans. Even our colonial ancestors got a piece of the gingerbread action!

Gingerbread, which has traditionally been one of the most popular Christmas treats, was used to decorate both the homes and trees of early American colonists. The very first printed cookbooks, which were printed in the late 1400s, even carried a number of recipes for making gingerbread, which was thought to be an extremely healthy snack. In Germany, gingerbread took the name lebkuchen which means life bread because of its perceived health benefits.

In colonial America, the making of gingerbread was based on the traditional methods of Europe, primarily England, where bakers traditionally carved an assortment of shapes and designs out of their popular treat. Gingerbread men, which were traditionally cut into the shapes of various saints, were used to decorate one's home in commemoration of the respective saint's achievements. For the impoverished masses in both England and America, gingerbread men/houses were far too expensive to be enjoyed. As a result, bakers cut small strips of gingerbread or used the leftovers from their gingerbread men/houses to make "snaps." These "snaps" were often dunked in alcohol, much to the delight of the poor customer.

Yes, gingerbread truly enjoys a history that not only dates back to our colonial ancestors, but all the way back to our European roots, which, like a number of traditions, has taken on a unique American twist. With a heritage like this, gingerbread is sure to enjoy a starring role in the American celebration of Christmas.

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."

Joseph Galloway on the Supremacy of British Authority

Of the many justifications for going to war, perhaps nothing proved more influential to the American colonies than religion. A countless number of sermons point to the fact that religion played a powerful role in convincing the colonies that war with their "Mother Land" was justifiable and sanctioned by God.

This religious "fever" for war, though thoroughly convincing to the majority, did not convince everyone. Case in point: Joseph Galloway.

Galloway, who was a representative of Pennsylvania to the First Continental Congress, was a passionate voice in favor of American reconciliation with Britain, so much so that his loyalist leanings eventually led him to abandon his home in America and flee to Britain. Before his "treason," however, Galloway campaigned hard for a resolution to the crisis. To add credence to his argument, Galloway, like his pro-independence opponents, used religion to justify his proposals. In his popular pamphlet, A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and The Colonies, Galloway offers a gloom-and-doom prophesy on the possible dangers of American independence, which include his fear of a Franco/Catholic incursion into the Americas. He writes:

Do you wish to exchange the mild and equal rule of English customs and manners and your inestimable religion, for the tyranny of a foreign yoke, and the bloody supersticions of popery? Or if you design to give up your present enjoyment of all the blessings of life, for the horrors and distresses of a civil war, and the fatal consequesnces which must ifallibly attend yourselves, and your posterity? Are you still resolved to surrender up your reason to the miserable sophistry and gargon of designing men, and to hazard all these direful misfortunes, rather than be united with your brethren and fellow subjects in Briatian? (62).

In a September, 1774 speech given to the Continental Congress, Galloway continued his pro-British argument by pointing to the "supreme authority" of the British government over their American colonies:

These advocates also assert, what we cannot deny--That the discovery of the Colonies was made under a commission granted by the supreme authority of the British State, that they have been settled under that authority. and therefore are truly the property of that State. Parliamentary jurisdiction has been constantly exercised over them from their first settlement; its executive authority has ever run through all their inferior political systems: the Colonists have ever sworn allegiance to the British State, and have been considered, both by the State and by themselves, as subjects of the British Government. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; the one cannot exist without the other. The Colonies cannot claim the protection of Britain upon any principle of reason or law, while they deny its supreme authority. Upon this ground the authority of Parliament stands too firm to be shaken by any arguments whatever; and therefore to deny that authority, and at the same time to declare their incapacity to be represented, amounts to a full and explicit declaration of independence.

Galloway's insistence on British authority and law is interesting to consider when juxtaposed with the opening verses of Romans Chapter 13 of the Bible:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

And to those that questioned Galloway's loyalist reasoning by appealing to the "laws of nature" and "nature's God" to justify their treason, Galloway writes:

We have seen all the American writers on the subject, adopting untenable principles and thence rearing the most wild and chimerical superstructures. Some of them have fixed on, as a source from whence to draw American Right, “the laws of God and nature,” the common rights of mankind and “American charters.” Others finding that the claims of the colonies could not be supported upon these pillars, have racked their inventions to find distinctions which never existed, nor can exist…And after all of them have been fully considered, even the authors themselves, finding that they have conveyed no satisfactory idea to the intelligent of mind, either of the extent of parliamentary authority, or of the rights of America, have exploded them, and taken new ground, which will be found equally indefensible.

For Joseph Galloway and many others, the rampant talk of revolution and independence was not only a frightening upheaval of the status quo, but also a direct violation to God's laws. Great Britain had sovereign and divine authority over its American colonies, and any argument to the contrary was both treason and blasphemy.

Catholic/Protestant Wars in the Old and New Worlds

The traditional view of early colonial historiography has divided the various wars between England and France -- in both the New and Old Worlds -- into separate conflicts that are seemingly unrelated to one another. Instead of seeing these various wars as being linked with one another, many historians have chosen to classify these various Franco-English wars as unique and individual conflicts. For example, from the latter part of the 17th century to the middle of the 18th, historians have traditionally taken note of four SEPARATE conflicts between the French and the English: King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War and the French and Indian War -- as they were known in the colonies. However, what is often an overlooked fact of these conflicts is the reality that they all shared the same underlying root cause: religious intolerance.

Here is a list of the major Franco-English conflicts during the late 17th and 18th centuries:

Date: In Europe: In America:
1688-1697
In Europe: War of the League of Augsburg
In America: King William's War

1701-1713
In Europe: War of Spanish Succession
In America: Queen Anne's War

1740-1748
In Europe: War of Austrian Succession
In America: King George's War

1756-1763
In Europe: Seven Years' War
In America: The French and Indian War

***Chart taken from A Religious History of the American People by Sydney Ahlstrom, 58.***

From this chart, it is evident that a repeating cycle of violence and intolerance between England and France -- in both the New and Old Worlds -- was keeping these two rival nations in a constant state of war with one another. But what was main cause for such violence? What main factor continued to bring these two neighbors into conflict with one another?

Regardless of the smaller instigating factors of each of these wars, there remained a steady stream of religious fervor, which proved to be the main catalyst for war in each occasion. As colonial historian Karen Kupperman points out:

We should not underestimate the emotional force of this confrontation between Christians, which has been compared to the Cold War of the twentieth century. Each side believed the other was absolved by its religion of all normal moral and ethical behavior in dealing with the enemy, and capable of the most heinous plots.(From Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony, 4)

For the English, there was nothing worse than facing the possibility of a New World being ruled by the Pope.

On the French side, religious passions were every bit as hot as their English foes. Sydney Ahlstrom has pointed out in his book A Religious History of the American People:

"During the century in which France's colonial aspirations awakened, there also occurred a remarkable resurgence of Catholic piety...In New France the faith and institutions of the Roman church gained a centrality and importance that was equaled in no other empire, not even New Spain." (59-61).

Faced with such religious enthusiasm on the part of the English and the French, it comes as no surprise that this "holy war" would go unresolved for almost a century.

By choosing to look at these various conflicts through the lens of religious enthusiasm, we can clearly see that these wars were not separate quarrels but were, in fact, linked through a chain of religious intolerance. English Protestants, still burning with the fires of the Reformation, saw the New World as an additional arena where Catholic supremacy threatened to destroy God's TRUE work. French Catholics, inspired by the resurgence of Catholic piety, sought to spread the Pope's dominion across the seas and choke out the rebellion of the Protestant heretics.

Relic of the Revolution

A bit of history was rediscovered this past week as divers who were exploring Lake Ontario stumbled upon a priceless piece of the past. A 22-gun British warship that sank during the American Revolution -- in 1780 to be exact -- was found resting at the bottom of this Great Lake, where it has been residing for the past 228 years.

The ship is in remarkably good condition, according to the divers, archaeologists and historians involved in the discovery. Not only is the 80-foot ship entirely intact, but its main mast and some of the original rigging still remain. Ironically enough, this British vessel of War, which was named the HMS Ontario, met its final demise in the very lake that shares its name.

In an article from the Associated Press, Jim Kennard and Dan Scoville -- the two men who discovered the Ontario -- stated that this boat has been considered as a "holy Grail" of sorts by shipwreck and treasure enthusiasts. In addition, the article went on to state the following information regarding this historic find:

"To have a Revolutionary War vessel that's practically intact is unbelievable. It's an archaeological miracle," said Canadian author Arthur Britton Smith, who chronicled the history of the HMS Ontario in a 1997 book, "The Legend of the Lake."

The finders of the wreck said they regard it as a war grave and have no plans to raise it or remove any of its artifacts. They said the ship is still considered the property of the British Admiralty.

Although the vessel sits in an area where the water is up to 500 feet deep and cannot be reached by anyone but the most experienced divers, Kennard and Scoville declined to give its exact location, saying only that it was found off the southern shore.

The sloop was discovered resting partially on its side, with two masts extending more than 70 feet above the lake bottom.

"Usually when ships go down in big storms, they get beat up quite a bit. They don't sink nice and square. This went down in a huge storm, and it still managed to stay intact," Scoville said. "There are even two windows that aren't broken. Just going down, the pressure difference, can break the windows. It's a beautiful ship."

Smith, who was shown underwater video of the find, said: "If it wasn't for the zebra mussels, she looks like she only sunk last week."

Washington and the Newburgh Conspiracy

After roughly eight years of bloddy warfare, the United States looked as though their dream of independence might come true after all. The American victory at Yorktown in 1781 had severely damaged England's desire for any further war, and the Fench involvement signified that the American cause for independence had propelled Britain into a virtual world war. Faced with such a predicament, the British were forced to consider a peace with their former colonies.

Before that peace could be negotiated, another two years would pass before both Britain and America sat down at the bargaining table. During this time, the Continental Congress faced a severe financial crisis, in which they were unable (or possibly not fully willing) to supply the army under Washington. Though the fighing had all but stopped, Washington was still forced to maintain the Continental Army until the final peace treaty was signed. As a result, the Continental Army suffered greatly in terms of hunger, lack of equiptment, fatigue and cold.

In response to these justifiable grievances, several officers withing the Continental Army formed an anonymous pact to overthrow the Continental Congress and extablish a new government. This coup was backed by several of Washington's most trusted men, who felt that the cause of liberty was being threatened by the politicians at home.

In the end, Washington was able to put down the rebellion, but it was far from easy. Here is an excellent article from the History Channel Website on how Washington handled the Newburgh Conspiracy, which was, in my opinion, Washington's finest hour:

When word of the letter and its call for an unsanctioned meeting of officers reached him, Washington issued a general order forbidding any unsanctioned meetings and called for a general assembly of officers for March 15. At the meeting, Washington began his speech to the officers by saying, “Gentlemen: By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety! How unmilitary! And how subversive of all order and discipline...”

Washington continued by pledging, “to exert whatever ability I am possessed of, in your favor.” He added, “Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress.”

When he finished, Washington removed a letter from his breast pocket that he had received from a member of the Continental Congress. He hesitated for a moment as he looked down at the letter before fumbling to retrieve a pair of spectacles from his pocket. Before reading the letter, Washington, in an almost apologetic tone said, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.” The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.

In a letter to the Continental Congress dated March 18, 1783, Washington wrote to assure the body that the unrest of officers was over, writing, “The result of the proceedings of the grand convention of the officers, which I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency for the inspection of Congress, will, I flatter myself, be considered as the last glorious proof of patriotism which could have been given by men who aspired to the distinction of a Patriot army; and will not only confirm their claim to the justice, but will increase their title to the gratitude of their country.”

A Trip Through Jamestown

I wanted to pass along some exciting information about the Virtual Jamestown project. Ever since its 400th anniversary celebration, interest in the first successful English colony has been growing by leaps and bounds. Thankfully, additional funding has helped to enhance the public's perception and interest in colonial America's historical roots.

One of the many projects to improve the public's knowledge of and interest in colonial America is the Virtual Jamestown Project. The initial 3-D experience (which is in its infancy) can be seen by clicking here. Enjoy a virtual tour of the Jamestown fortifications, not to mention a few of its surroundings. Again, this virtual tour is only a prototype of what is to come. The completed virtual Jamestown tour will be an intimate and in-depth view of the colony. But for now, take a look at the prototype. Also, check out the Virtual Jameston Project website for additional resources.

Congress Passes the Tory Act.

On this day in 1776, the Continental Congress passed the infamous (but often forgotten) Tory Act. The act was designed to reveal with citizens, particularly those of prominence, still remained loyal to Great Britain and King George III. The bill also called for the disarming of any and all citizens loyal to the British crown, and even suggested that individuals of "particular prominence" be imprisoned (which is what happened to Benjamin Franklin's son William).

The History Channel's website has an interesting article on the Tory Act. Here is a segment of some of the more important parts:

The act called on colonial committees to indoctrinate those "honest and well-meaning, but uninformed people" by enlightening them as to the "origin, nature and extent of the present controversy.” The Congress remained “fully persuaded that the more our right to the enjoyment of our ancient liberties and privileges is examined, the more just and necessary our present opposition to ministerial tyranny will appear.”

The lengths Congress and lesser colonial bodies would go to in order to repress Loyalists took a darker tone later in the act. Listing examples of the “execrable barbarity with which this unhappy war has been conducted on the part of our enemies,” Congress vowed to act “whenever retaliation may be necessary” although it might prove a “disagreeable task.”

In the face of such hostility, some Loyalists chose not to remain in the American colonies. During the war, between 60,000 and 70,000 free persons and 20,000 slaves abandoned the rebellious 13 colonies for other destinations within the British empire. The Revolution effectively created two countries: Patriots formed the new United States, while fleeing Loyalists populated Canada.

The hectic nature of the colonies in 1776 reveals just how polarizing the revolution had become. With thousands of colonials fleeing for "safer" ground, one can gain a sense of how the revolution created extreme apprehension and fear for the average citizen. After all, nobody was sure how this was going to turn out. It's only natural that some would seek to remain loyal or flee for safety.

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.

Movie: "Amazing Grace" Review

Normally I don't like to critique historical movies simply because it is problematic at best. Putting history and Hollywood together in the same sentence is almost like putting Hillary Clinton and John McCain together on the same ticket. Usually, it just doesn't mesh. I realize that viewing a movie for its historical value can be a futile effort (one that most Americans fall victim to). With all of that said, however, I want to give the highest praises I can for the movie "Amazing Grace." It is the story of the infamous William Wilberforce, who was the prominent anti-slavery voice in Parliament during the colonial era. The movie is from the perspective of the British (particularly the political participants in Parliament) and does a great job depicting the political struggles Wilberforce faced.

Of course the movie is not perfect. There is little depiction of slavery or of actual slaves. Again, the movie is from the perspective of Parliament primarily. There are also some historical mistakes in the story as well. Despite these errors, this movie gives a fantastic portrayal of colonial Britain and of the political struggle to outlaw the British slave trade.

I would reccomend this movie to anyone interested in the topic. It earns an A-.

Romans 13 and the American Revolution

Most historians would agree that our Founding Fathers (and a large majority of the colonial public) were very apprehensive about actually breaking from Britain. In reality, most of the protests during the early years of the Revolution (the Stamp Act protests, Boston Tea Party, etc.) were acts of protest not rebellion. The fact of the matter is that most people were reluctant to embrace independence until 1776, and even then, many still had reservations.

One of the interesting facts that allude to this comes from the debate over Romans chapter 13. Both the British and the colonists repeatedly read the words of this chapter, which states that rebelling or overthrowing a government was sinful in the eyes of god (or at least that is how it was interpreted back then). Countless numbers of preachers gave sermons on Romans 13, begging the people to keep with the laws of god and reject the idea of overthrowing government. As one historian put it, “under the Framers' understanding of Romans 13, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it was an act of resistance to a government that violated the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government.”

Several other preachers, however, suggested that since the king was the ultimate source of divine governmental power, then he should be embracing Romans 13 as well. American colonists were quick to realize the hypocrisy that existed in the King, since they felt he was denying the colonists their legal rights. By understanding scripture in this way, more and more colonists felt justified in embracing independence.

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?

The Long Term Legacy of the Jay Treaty

During Washington's two terms as president, nearly every American politician and citizen saw him as the only person capable of keeping the nation together during its infancy. In fact, many historians give Washington credit for preventing the destruction of the union. The early years of the American republic were extremely fragile, and most people didn't think the nation would last very long. It was Washington that acted as the glue that kept all rival fations intact and added legitimacy to the new Constitutional government. As one historian put it, Washington was "the palpable reality that clothed the revolutionary rhapsidies in flesh and blood...America's one and only indispensable character...America's Zeus, Moses and Cincinnatus all rolled into one."

Despite all of these wonderful accomplisments as president, Washington did not remain untouchable to scandal and smear tactics. During his second term, Washington sent U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, to England to draft a treaty that would give economic preference to England over France. To many American politicians (Jefferson and Madison amongst them) this was seen as a dirty conspiracy, designed to align American economic interests with its former nemesis. In the minds of Jefferson and others, how could the president do such a thing? It was seen as a slap in the face to all the revolution stood for, not to mention a huge insult to the French, whose aid was essential during the war.

If we see the Jay treaty from the eyes of its contemporaries, it is easy to see why it would cause such a stir. In hindsight, however, it is easy to see the Jay Treaty as an engenious economic move that allowed America to prosper. As one biographer of George Washington put it, "The Jay Treaty essentially bet on England, instead of France, as the economic superpower of the upcoming century, which proved prophetic."

Despite all the controversy and bad press that the Jay Treaty caused for Washington, it may also go down as one of his finest moments. One can only imagine how difficult it would have been to overcome the massive economic crisis that plagued early America without an economic allegiance with England.