Battle between Continental Ship Bonhomme Richard and HMS Serapis 23 September 1779 by Thomas Mitchell This post is a synopsis of an article I wrote which appeared in the MAGAZINE OF VIRGINIA GENEALOGY, Volume 59, Number 2, a publication of the Virginia Genealogical Society.
Much has been written of the important role that black soldiers played in the Revolutionary War; comparatively little has been published about the role of black men in the naval service. Prior to the Revolution, the service of people of color in the military forces of Virginia was limited by an Act passed by the General Assembly to non-armed, servile roles; “Be it further enacted . . . that all such mulattos, negroes and Indians . . . shall appear without arms, and may be employed as drummers, trumpeters or pioneers, or in such other servile labor as they shall be directed to perform.” It is against this backdrop of oppression that a handful of Black men rose to take on the roles and responsibilities of officers within the Virginia State Navy, albeit without receiving commissions or the formal recognition of their counterparts. By the time the peace was declared in 1783, Virginia had seen at least 420 free Black men and an undocumented number of slaves join its military forces and fight in the Revolutionary War. More than 100 served in the Virginia State Navy. As December 1775 drew to a close, General Washington took a stance against the exclusionary rules set out by Congress. In his General Orders of December 30th, Washington gave his generals explicit permission to enlist free black men; “As the General is informed, that Numbers of Free Negroes are desirous of inlisting, he gives leave to the recruiting Officers, to entertain them, and promises to lay the matter before the Congress, who he doubts not will approve of it.” The very next day, in his letter to the President of Congress, John Hancock, Washington threw his full support behind the policy of enlisting free blacks. In his own words; “It has been represented to me, that the free negroes, who have served in this army, are very much dissatisfied at being discarded. As it is to be apprehended, that they may seek employ in the ministerial army, I have presumed to depart from the resolution respecting them, and have given license for their being enlisted.” Congress agreed to compromise on the issue, resolving on January 16th “that the free negroes who have served faithfully in the army at Cambridge, may be re-inlisted therein, but no others.” The Virginia Navy recognized both commissioned and non-commissioned officers among their ranks. In October 1780, the Virginia General Assembly defined the pay of each of the officers within her state navy; naming each officer’s rank together with the pay that rank was to receive. The officer ranks in the Virginia State Navy - amongst others - included boatswain, boatswain’s mate, gunner, gunner’s mate, and pilot. Each of these officers received higher pay, larger rations of sugar and tea, and significantly larger land warrants than the enlisted men. The Virginia navy eventually grew to well over a hundred officers and more than sixty vessels, barges, brigs, galleys, pilot boats, schooners, and sloops, each of which was armed, the largest carrying thirty-two guns. The crews of these ships fluctuated greatly in number; from only a handful of men on a small barge to more than a hundred seamen manning a large galley. Notwithstanding the prohibition against enslaved men serving in the military, slaves did find their way aboard many of the ships of the State Navy. As many of Virginia’s slaves and free Black men had valuable experience navigating the Chesapeake Bay and inland waterways, they were ideal candidates for service on the vessels of the Virginia Navy. General Washington himself was cognisant of the important role that Black pilots played in Virginia, even going so far as to arrange payment for them at a time when government funding was critically short. In his July 1779 letter to Major Henry Lee Jr., Washington confirmed “I have granted a Warrant for the 1000 Dolls. promised the negro pilote . . .”. Although personally recognized by General Washington, these pilots and other Black men filling the roles of officers in the Virginia Navy often did so without commissions or other official recognition of rank. In total, at least 140 Black men served in the Virginia Navy during the Revolutionary War. Of these, a handful of men are known to have taken on the responsibilities and executed the duties of naval officers. Among others, these officers include: James Thomas, Boatswains’ Mate James Thomas of Norfolk County served in the Virginia Navy throughout the Revolutionary War. In March 1777 he was recorded aboard the galley Safeguard serving as a boatswain’s mate. John Laws, Boatswain’s Mate John Laws was one of three bothers, all free black men of Northumberland County. He entered the Virginia Navy prior to 16 July 1776, when he was listed on the payroll of the ship Liberty. Timothy Laws, Gunner Timothy Laws, a brother of the John Laws above, was a free Black man of Northumberland County. Timothy served two enlistments in the Virginia State Navy; one prior to 1779 and again when he was recorded as a gunner about the ship Tempest. James Sorrell, Gunner’s Mate James Sorrell was a free black man from Northumberland County who enlisted and served as a gunner’s mate aboard the galley ship Hero, and later aboard the Galley Protector. Despite his role and responsibilities as an officer, upon discharge he was treated as an enlisted man. Caesar Terrant/Tarrant, Pilot Caesar Tarrant piloted armed vessels throughout the conflict. He may have been the slave named Caesar who in 1775 was on board the Molly; he later served as a pilot on the Patriot. He is one of the few Black men who was rewarded by the Virginia General Assembly for his service. Cuffee (Cuffy), Pilot Cuffee lived in bondage and died in 1781 of injuries received in the line of duty. During the Revolution, Cuffee was a pilot on the Row Galley commanded by Capt. Richard Barron and later possibly aboard the Patriot and/or the Jefferson. Minny, Pilot A slave working in the Tidewater basin, Minny was an early casualty of the war. On 21 April 1776 an enemy ship came up river and captured a schooner. Patriots “engaged her at close quarters for at least 15 or 20 minutes, with small-arms, during which a valuable negro man, a pilot on board Mr. Walker’s vessel, was shot through the head…”. In November 1783, Virginia did take steps to emancipate some of its black veterans, however the General Assembly addressed only slaves who were enlisted into the army as substitutes for free men, and not those who served in the navy. It would not be until the War of 1812 that Commodore Isaac Chauncy took a more formal stand against racism in the navy, writing of his nearly fifty African-American shipmates: “To my knowledge a part of them are not surpassed by any seamen we have in the fleet; and I have yet to learn that the color of the skin, or the cut and trimmings of the coat, can affect a man's qualifications or usefulness.”
0 Comments
“Damn you, Fire, be the consequence what it will” These infamous words were attributed by eyewitnesses to Captain Thomas Preston of the British Army 29th Regiment of Foot just before the slaughter in Boston.[i] Whether or not historically correct, these words accurately reflected the anger, fear and loathing felt by the inhabitants of Boston in the spring of 1770. The Townshend Acts and increasingly violent tensions leading up to that fateful day in March are familiar to us all who have studied our Revolutionary ancestors. Washington himself, when reflecting on the Boston Massacre in a letter to Lt. Col. Joseph Reed some six years later, wrote that the people of Boston were fully expecting to engage the British troops; “It was the 5th of March which I recalled to their remembrance as a day never to be forgotten—an Ingagement was fully expected—& I never saw spirits higher, or more ardour prevailing”.[ii] Emotions in Boston were running hot on March 5, 1770. Just that very morning, local newspapers had reported on the funeral of 11-year old Christopher Snider (Seider), a boy shot dead by a British customs officer, Ebenezer Richardson, in his efforts to disperse a crowd which was demonstrating in front of a Loyalist’s shop in the North End of the city. The Remains of young Snider, the unfortunate Boy who was barbarously Murdered the 22d of February last, were decently interred on the Monday following – His tragical Death & the peculiar Circumstances attending it had touch'd the Breasts of all with the tenderest Sympathy, a few only excepted, who have long shewn themselves to be void of the Feelings of Humanity.[iii] The funeral procession, some 2000 strong, began at the Liberty Tree, where the Sons of Liberty had “ordered a Board to be affix'd to Libery Tree, inscrib'd with the following Quotations from the sacred Writings, which perhaps can not easily be misapply'd;Thou shall take no Satisfaction for the Life of a MURDERER; -- He shall surely be put to Death. Though Hand join in Hand, the Wicked shall not pass unpunish'd. The Memory of the Just is Blessed.”[iv] What can sometimes be lost, through the polished lens of history, is the brutality of the military occupation and the important yet tragic role which young people played in opposing the British army. Before the day was out 11 people would be shot, four of them teenagers. In retelling of the story of the Boston Massacre, too little can be read about the role that young apprentices, angry and willing to fight, played in the resistance. History books, especially those written for students, often whitewash the violence and refer to the massacre as a “brawl” or “skirmish”, “where workers and sailors clashed with British soldiers who were enforcing British Parliament’s laws in the town”.[v] Such educational materials simply do not do justice to the truth, nor honor those who risked everything to protest the military occupation of Boston. Neither of the two men who were shot in the back by cowardly soldiers, nor family of Samuel Gray, who was “killed on the spot, the ball entering his head and beating off a large portion of his skull” would consider this turning point in the American Revolution to have been just a brawl.[vi] The Zeitgeist of March 5th, 1770 can best be captured and retold, vividly and as experienced firsthand by the inhabitants of Boston, through the graphic, eyewitness accounts of the murders published in the Boston-Gazette directly after the incident.[vii] “On the Evening of Monday, being the 5th Current, several Soldiers of the 29th Regiment were seen parading the Streets with their drawn Cutlasses and Bayonets, abusing and wounding Numbers of the Inhabitants. A few minutes after nine o’clock, four youths, named Edward Archbald, William Merchant, Francis Archbald, and John Leech, jun. came down Cornhill together, and separating at Doctor Loring’s corner, the two former were passing the narrow alley leading to Murray’s barrack, in which was a soldier brandishing a broad sword of uncommon size against the walls, out of which he struck fire plentifully. A person of mean countenance, armed with a large cudgel bore him company. Edward Archbald admonished Mr. Merchant to take care of the sword, on which the soldier turned round and struck Archbald on the arm, then pushed at Merchant and pierced thro’ his cloaths inside the arm close to the arm-pit and grazed the skin. Merchant than struck the solider with a short stick he had, & the other Person ran to the barrack & bro’t with him two soldiers, one armed with a pair of tongs the other with a shovel: he with the tongs pursued Archbald back thro’ the alley, collar’s and laid him over the head with the tongs. The noise bro’t people together, and John Hicks, a young lad, coming up, knock’d the soldier down, but let him get up again; and more lads gathering drove them back to the barrack, where the boys stood some time as it were to keep them in. In less than a minute 10 or 12 of them came out with drawn cutlasses, clubs and bayonets, and set upon the unarmed boys and young folks, who stood them a little while, but finding the inequality of their equipment dispersed. On hearing the noise, one Samuel Atwood, came up to see what was the matter, and entering the alley from dock-square, heard the latter part of the combat, and when the boys had dispersed he met the 10 or 12 soldiers aforesaid rushing down the alley towards the square, and asked them if they intended to murder people? They answered Yes, by G-d, root and branch! With that one of them struck Mr. Atwood with a club, which was repeated by another, and being unarmed he turned to go off, and received a wound on the left shoulder which reached the bone and gave him much pain. Retreating a few steps, Mr. Atwood met two officers and said, Gentlemen, what is the matter? They answered, you’ll see by and by. Immediately after, those heroes appeared in the square, asking where were the boogers ? where were the cowards? But notwithstanding their fierceness to naked men, one of them advanced towards a youth who had a split of raw stave in his hand, and said damn them here is one of them; but the young man seeing a person near him with a drawn sword and good cane reads to support him, help up his stave in defiance, and they quietly passed by him up the little alley by Mr. Silsby’s to Kingstreet, where they attacked single and unarmed persons till they raised much clamor, and them turned down Cornhill street, insulting all they met in like manner, and pursuing some to their very doors. Thirty or forty person, mostly lads, being by this means gathered in Kingstreet, Capt. Preston, with a party of men with charged bayonets, crying, Make way! They took place by the custom-house, and continuing to push to drive people off, pricked some in several places; on which they were clamorous, and, it is said, threw snow-balls. On this, the Captain commanded them to fire, and more snow-balls coming, he again said, Damn you, Fire, be the consequence what it will! One soldier then fired, and a townsman with a cudgel struck him over the hands with such force that he dropped his firelock; and rushing forward aimed a blow at the Captain’s head, which graz’d his hat and fell pretty heavy upon his arm: However, the soldiers continued the fire, successively, till 7 or 8, or as some say 11 guns were discharged. By this fatal manœuvre, three men were laid dead on the spot, and two more struggling for life; but what shewed a degree of cruelty unknown to British troops, at least since the house of Hanover had directed their operations, was an attempt to fire upon or push with their bayonets the persons who undertook to remove the slain and wounded! Mr. Benjamin Leigh, now undertaker in the Delph Manufactory, came up, and after some conversation with Capt. Preston, relative to his conduct in this affair, advised him to draw off his men, with which he complied. The dead are Samuel Gray, killed on the spot, the ball entering his head and beating off a large portion of his skull. A mulatto man, name Crispus Attucks, who was born in Framingham, but lately belonged to New Providence and was here in order to go for North Carolina, also killed instantly; two balls entering his breast, one of them in special goring the right lobe of the lung, and a great part of the liver most horribly. Mr. James Caldwell, mate of Capt. Morton’s vessel, in like manner killed by two balls entering his back. Mr. Samuel Maverick, a promising youth of 17 years of age, son of the widow Maverick, and an apprentice to Mr. Greenwood, Ivory-Turner, mortally wounded, a ball went through his belly, & was cut out at his back: He died the next morning. A lad named Christopher Monk, about 17 years of age, an apprentice to Mr. Walker, Shipwright; wounded, a ball entered his back about 4 inches above his left kidney, near the spine, and was cut out of the breast on the same side; apprehended he will die. A lad named John Clark, about 17 years of age, whose parents live at Medford, and an apprentice to Capt. Samuel Howard of this town; wounded, a ball entered just about his groin and came out at his hip, on the opposite side, apprehended he will die. Mr. Edward Payne, of this town, Merchant, standing at his entry-door, received a ball in his arm which shattered some of the bones. Mr. John Green, Taylor, coming up Leveretts’s Lane, received a ball just under his hip, and lodged in the under part of his thigh, which was extracted. Mr. Robert Patterson, a seafaring man, who was the person that had his trowsers shot through in Richardson’s affair, wounded,: a ball went through his right arms, and he suffered great loss of blood. Mr. Patrick Carr, about 30 years of age, who work’d with Mr. Field, Leather Breeches-maker in Queen-street, wounded, a ball enter’d near his hip and went out at his side. (Author’s note, Patrick Carr later died of his wounds) A lad named David Parker, an apprentice to Mr. Eddy the Wheelwright, wounded, a ball entered in his thigh. The people were immediately alarmed with the Report of this horrid Massacre, the Bells were set a Ringing, and great numbers soon assembled at the Place where this tragical Scene had been acted; their Feeling may be better conceived than express’d; and while some were taking Care of the Dead and Wounded, the Rest were in Consultation what to do in those dreadful Circumstances. But so little intimidated were they, notwithstanding their being within a few Yards of the Main-Guard, and seeing the 29th Regiment under Arms, and drawn up in King-Street; that they kept their Station and appear’d as an Officer of Rank express’d it, ready to run upon the very Muzzles of their Muskets.” Those immediately killed on King Street were buried in succession on Thursday, March 8, 1770.[viii] Samuel Adams organized a public funeral and portrayed those killed as martyrs. In the aftermath of the massacre, Patrick Carr would succumb to his wounds on the 14th; Christopher Monk, who was only 17 at the time of the shooting, would survive only another 10 years, his life surely shortened by his disabling wounds received at Boston on that fateful evening. In subsequent days the leading men of Boston met at Faneuil Hall to discuss their course of action. A committee selected by the council presented Lt. Governor Thomas Hutchinson with their demand for nothing less than a total and immediate removal of all the troops from the city. Although the soldiers had returned to their barracks on Castle Island, and Capt. Preston and seven of his men had been arrested (he would later be tried and found not-guilty), Hutchinson answered that those in command had their orders from the General at New York and that he was not in a position to countermand those orders. This tepid response was highly unsatisfactory to the people of Boston. British troops remained in the city, and pamphleteers continued to call for Revolution. Copied and republished by Paul Revere, Boston-born Henry Pelham engraved and published his Fruits of Arbitrary Power, or the Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street Boston, on March 5th, 1770, helping to fan the flames Revolution.[ix] When Paul Reveve published his engraving of the Boston Massacre, he included a poem; being both a tribute to those who died and a warning of what was yet to come.[x] While Britons view this scene with conscious dread, And pay the last sad tribute to the dead; What through the shafts of justice faintly gleam, And ermin’d miscreants ridicule the scene; Ne’er let one breast the generous sigh disclaim, Or cease to bow at FREEDOM’s hallow’d sane; Still with the thought let Fame’s loud Clarion swell, And Fate to distant time the MURDER tell. The events that occurred in that spring of 1770 would in fact be a turning point in public sentiment, rousing many who had been tolerant of British rule to support the call for independence. In the words of George Washington, "It was the 5th of March, which I recalled to their remembrance as a day never to be forgotten..." [i] The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, March 12, 1770, (Boston, Printed by Edes & Gill, 1770), p2 [ii] From George Washington to Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Reed, 26 February–9 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed September 29, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-03-02-0274 [iii] The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal, March 5, 1770 (Boston, Printed by Edes & Gill, 1770), p2 [iv] IBID [v] Britannica Kids, Boston Massacre, (Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2020), kids.britannica.com/students/article/Boston-Massacre/317845, last accessed February 2020. [vi] The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, March 12, 1770, (Boston, Printed by Edes & Gill, 1770), p2 [vii] IBID [viii] The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, March 12, 1770, (Boston, Printed by Edes & Gill, 1770), p3 [ix] Clarence S. Brigham, Paul Revere's Engravings, (American Antiquarian Society, Massachusetts, 1954) pp 52-78 [x] Paul Revere, "The Boston Massacre Perpetrated on March 5, 1770", The Massachusetts Calendar, or an almanac for the Year of our Lord, 1772. (Boston: Printed and Sold by Isaiah Thomas, et al, 1771). July 2, 1776 is the day that the Continental Congress actually voted for American independence, adopting the resolution “...that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States... and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
As our nation celebrates its independence from Great Britain it is important to remember that although that inspired declaration proclaimed “all men are created equal” we still struggle today to ensure that the vision of the Founding Fathers applies equally to all people. A poignant reminder of that fact appears next to the first public announcement of the Declaration of Independence in the evening edition of a Philadelphia newspaper on July 2, 1776. News from the Continental Congress appeared on page 4, directly opposite an advertisement offering a “Three Dollars Reward” to whoever secures the capture of a runaway slave named ISHMAEL, “so as his master may have him again”. We have made much progress, but still have a long way to go. As our nation approaches the 250th anniversary of our independence, many Americans are showing an increased interest in honoring those ancestors who fought to gain our liberty.
We strongly believe that every citizen should make the conscious effort to remember and honor those who struggled to secure the freedoms that we enjoy today. Our patriot ancestors, and the sacrifices they made for us, must never be forgotten. One way to honor these ancestors is to join a hereditary society. There are several hereditary societies in the U.S. which promote educational, historical and patriotic activities. The following are some of the most respected organizations which focus on patriot ancestors of the American Revolution, listed in the order of their founding: 1783 Society of the Cincinnati The Society of the Cincinnati is the nation's oldest patriotic organization, founded in 1783 by officers of the Continental Army and their French counterparts who served together in the American Revolution. Their mission is to promote knowledge and appreciation of the achievement of American independence and to foster fellowship among its members. Hereditary members are qualified male descendants of commissioned officers who served in the Continental Army or Navy and their French counterparts who had either served until the end of the war or had resigned with honor after a minimum of three years' service. Most constituent societies limit hereditary membership to one current member for each eligible officer. 1876 Sons of the Revolution The Sons of the Revolution was founded in 1876 by John Austin Stevens. He was a patriotic historian who descended from Ebenezer Stevens, who did not meet all of the strict requirements for membership in the Society of Cincinnati at that time. The society founders wished to broaden participation in preserving American Heritage of the Revolutionary War on the eve of the centennial of the Declaration of Independence. The society’s mission is to promote knowledge and appreciation of the achievement of American independence, and to foster fellowship amongst its members. Members are male lineal descendants of a military, naval or marine officer or enlisted person, who was in military service, or who otherwise actually assisted in the establishment of American Independence by services rendered during the War of the Revolution. Both Senior and Junior (under eighteen years) memberships are available. 1889 Sons of the American Revolution Founded in 1889, the SAR is a congressionally chartered male lineage society with sixteen U.S. Presidents and more than two-dozen Medal of Honor recipient Compatriots on their member rolls. Members are devoted to serving their communities, supporting educational outreach initiatives, and generally promote American patriotism. Members are male lineal descendants of an ancestor who, in the cause of American Independence, rendered service in the period between 19 April 1775 and 26 November 1783. Membership requires documented, acceptable evidence. 1890 Daughters of the American Revolution The DAR, founded in 1890 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a non-profit, non-political volunteer women's service organization dedicated to promoting patriotism, preserving American history, and securing America's future through better education for children. Members are female lineal descendants of an ancestor who helped contribute to securing the independence of the United States of America. Any adult woman who can prove lineal descent from a patriot of the American Revolution is eligible to join. 1896 Founders and Patriots of America Founded in 1896, members trace their ancestry back to those first colonists and who have forefathers in the same male ancestral line who served in the American Revolution. Today, as in the past, it is comprised of a wide range of individuals, all linked by a common heritage and dedicated to American ideals. Members are descendants of an ancestor who settled in any of the U.S. colonies prior to May 13, 1657 and who adhered as patriots to the cause of the American Revolution between 1775 and 1783. 1907 Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence The Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence was founded in 1907 “to strengthen in American life the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and to perpetuate the memory of those men who, in signing that Declaration, mutually pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor in the cause of Liberty.” Members are direct lineal descendants of the men who inscribed their names upon the first page of the history of the United States of America should form an association devoted to the promotion of the ideas expressed in the Declaration. Although many would argue that the American Revolution began in earnest with the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, blood was spilled two months earlier at Golden Hill in New York City.
Massachusetts born Isaac Sears was approaching his fortieth birthday. He was a successful merchant living in New York City, and an outspoken opponent of the taxes and trade restraints being imposed by the British. During the Stamp Act troubles Sears became an original member of the Sons of Liberty in New York, and a year later formed a Committee of Correspondence to coordinate resistance against the British. The establishment considered Sears one of the most active leaders and agitators of the rebellion. Not one to hide his political position, it is said that Sears issued an open death threat to anyone violating the non-importation agreement. Although it never came to such, he and the Sons of Liberty actively protested British rule, both publicly and through clandestine acts of intimidation. The group raised Liberty Poles, and posted numerous broadsides, all the while encouraging townspeople to assemble and vent their anger against the British government. In what would later, with some dramatic flair, be called the ‘Battle of Golden Hill’, on January 19, 1770 Sears took it upon himself to prevent several British soldiers from posting broadsides near the East River seaport. It is said that Sears seized the soldier posting the broadside by the neck and demanded to know what business he had to put up ‘Libels against the inhabitants’. Sears and his men took the soldiers hostage, and forced them to march towards the Mayor’s office. As the crowd grew, one of the soldiers broke away and sounded the alarm for reinforcements. In the most contemporary report of the fighting, the New York Gazette reported “a considerable number of had gathered in front of the Mayor’s, when about twenty Soldiers with Cutlasses and Bayonets from the lower Barracks made their Appearance”. The soldiers were greatly outnumbered and quickly surrounded, but nevertheless tried to rescue their comrades being held captive in the mayor’s office. The soldiers drew their weapons and demanded the release of the soldiers held in custody. Some of the British drew their swords and tried to enter the house by force. Upon seeing the British soldiers draw their weapons, the townsmen quickly retreated and armed themselves. Despite attempts by local officials to defuse the crowd, violence ensued. In the fighting, several soldiers received bruises and one suffered a “bad cut on the shoulder”. A citizen was wounded in the face and had “two of his Teeth broke by a Stroke of a Bayonet”. Another was stabbed and later died of his wounds. Although the claim that one man died in the skirmish has been questioned by some historians, in addition to the above report from the New York Gazette, a letter dated 22 January was published in the St. James Chronicle which claimed that “One sailor got run through the body who has since died, &c.” In either case, it now it had become clear to most that personal sacrifice and bloodshed would be the price of liberty. Six weeks later more violence would erupt on the streets of Boston. On May 16, 1771, in what some consider a major catalyst of the Revolutionary War, Royal Governor William Tryon led more than 1,000 British troops in the violent quelling of a taxpayer rebellion in Alamance County, North Carolina.
Between 1765 and 1771, farmers in particular became increasingly frustrated at their perceived rife corruption among wealthy government officials. Burdensome taxes and high fees were being imposed on the farmers, many of whom were already suffering from economic hardship. The farmers believed that sheriffs and local court officials were corrupt, and worked outside the law for their own personal gain. Despite public protests, petitioning the General Assembly for relief, and the filing of multiple suits in the courts, little was done to address the farmers concerns, and anger grew. In September 1769, Herman Husband enflamed public opinion with his pamphlet “An Impartial Relation of the First and Causes of the Recent Differences in Public Affairs”. His words resonated with those who felt betrayed by their government; “Are you not sensible, Brethren that we have too long groaned in Secret under the Weight of these crushing Mischiefs? How long will ye in this servile Manner subject yourselves to Slavery? Now shew yourselves to be Freemen, and for once assert your Liberty and maintain your Rights…”. In early 1770 the tipping point was reached. The North Carolina legislature had authorized £5,000 for the building of an "Edifice" to house the Governor, however Tryon argued successfully that the sum was not substantial enough for his plans, and building it "in the plainest manner" would cost no less than £10,000. Extra taxation was levied to fund the project, further enraging the citizenry. When the Governor moved into the lavish building, dubbed “Tryon’s Palace”, resistance began to boil. One organizer, William Butler, was quoted as saying "We are determined not to pay the Tax for the next three years, for the Edifice or Governor's House, nor will we pay for it”. In the ensuing weeks, one gang stormed the house the corrupt official Edmund Fanning and dragged him by his feet down the steps. The home of another official was raided and his belongings thrown out the windows. The movement to regulate government over-reach and corruption reached a zenith in 1771 when more than 2,000 members of the ‘Regulator Movement’ took up arms against colonial officials in Alamance County. Hoping that this show of force would intimidate the government into offering concessions, the group marched to a spot west of Hillsborough and set up camp. Governor William Tryon reacted by mustering more than 1,000 troops and marching them from New Bern to address the growing rebellion in the west, arriving at Hillsborough on 9 May 1771. Within a week his troops were camped but six miles from the protesters, setting the stage was set for the Battle of Alamance. The ‘Regulators’ remained disorganized, with little military leadership and few supplies, and in light of the large number of protesters were not anticipating of an attack. In the early morning of the sixteenth, Tryon formed two lines of troops and divided his artillery between the wings and the center of the first line. He then sent his aide-de-camp to the protesters with a proclamation: "Alamance Camp, Thursday, May 16, 1771. To Those Who Style Themselves "Regulators": In reply to your petition of yesterday, I am to acquaint you that I have ever been attentive to the interests of your County and to every individual residing therein. I lament the fatal necessity to which you have now reduced me by withdrawing yourselves from the mercy of the crown and from the laws of your country. To require you who are now assembled as Regulators, to quietly lay down your arms, to surrender up your leaders, to the laws of your country and rest on the leniency of the Government. By accepting these terms within one hour from the delivery of this dispatch, you will prevent an effusion of blood, as you are at this time in a state of rebellion against your King, your country, and your laws. William Tryon". The protesters underestimated the severity of the situation and ignored Tryon’s warning to turn over their leaders. Two men did try to negotiate a peace, one of them being Robert Thompson. Thompson was detained as a prisoner, and in a moment of anger, Tryon took a musket from a militiaman and personally shot Thompson dead. Tryon sent an officer to say that unless the protesters promptly disbanded he would open fire upon them. A pitched battle quickly ensued, with some witnesses claiming shouts by the protesters of "Fire and be damned". Lacking sufficient ammunition the ‘Regulators’ resistance quickly faded and the battle ended. In the aftermath, Gov. Tryon reported nine dead and 61 wounded among the militia., however some historians estimate his actual losses as high as 27 killed. Both sides counted nine dead among the protesters, with several dozen wounded. Tryon took 13 prisoners. One of them, James Few, was summarily executed at camp. Twelve of the protesters were found guilty of treason; six were pardoned and six were executed later in Hillsborough. Tryon's militia troops traveled through the territory, forcing sympathizers to sign loyalty oaths and destroying the properties of the most active of the ‘Regulators’. Tryon left North Carolina on 30 June 1771, taking on the governorship of New York. Josiah Martin succeeded as Governor and unsuccessfully attempted to implement reforms; the problems left by Tryon being apparently too much to overcome. Less than a week after the battles of Lexington and Concord, Martin’s home was attacked and he was forced to take refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, never to reestablish himself in office. Although the Stamp Act was repealed on 18 March 1766, it was not long before the British Parliament began looking for new sources of revenue to support their activities in North America. A new group of taxes, collectively called The Townshend Acts passed during 1767 and 1768. These are named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townshend, who was instrumental in implementing the new tax programs. There are varying opinions as to exactly which acts should be included in Townshend, but these five acts are most often mentioned: The New York Restraining - adopted June 5, 1767 The Revenue Act - adopted June 26, 1767 The Indemnity Act - adopted June 29, 1767 The Commissioners of Customs Act - adopted June 29, 1767 The Vice Admiralty Court Act - adopted July 6, 1768 Most scholars agree that collectively these acts were intended to achieve four goals; to raise revenue to pay for governors, judges and other officers loyal to the crown, to support enforcement of existing trade regulations, to reaffirm the precedent that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies, and as retaliation for the failure to comply with earlier acts. Needless to say, just as with the Stamp Act, these forms of taxation - albeit indirect - were still met with resistance in the colonies. Many commodities were not yet produced in the colonies and needed to be imported; these included glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea - all of which the The Townshend Acts taxed via a form of import duties. Resistance solidified when John Dickenson, a Pennsylvania lawyer published his "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", a series of twelve essays which were reprinted throughout the colonies. In these, he succinctly argued that although Parliament did hold power over matters concerning the whole British Empire, the colonies maintained sovereignty in all internal affairs. He argued that Parliament's taxing of the colonies for the purpose of raising revenue, rather than regulating trade, was in fact unconstitutional. The people rallied around Dickenson's arguments. In Boston a group of sixty merchants and traders drew up a non-importation agreement. This document, signed on August 1, 1768 was a boycott upon British goods imported to the city of Boston. The merchants and traders in the town of Boston having taken into consideration the deplorable situation of the trade, and the many difficulties it at present labours under on account of the scarcity of money, which is daily increasing for want of the other remittances to discharge our debts in Great Britain, and the large sums collected by the officers of the customs for duties on goods imported; the heavy taxes levied to discharge the debts contracted by the government in the late war; the embarrassments and restrictions laid on trade by several late acts of parliament; together with the bad success of our cod fishery, by which our principal sources of remittance are like to be greatly diminished, and we thereby rendered unable to pay the debts we owe the merchants in Great Britain and to continue the importation of goods from thence; We, the subscribers, in order to relieve the trade under those discouragements, to promote industry, frugality, and economy, and to discourage luxury, and every kind of extravagance, do promise and engage to and with each other as follows: First, that we will not send for or import from Great Britain, either upon our own account or upon a commission, this fall, any other goods than what are already ordered for the fall supply. Secondly, that we will not send for or import any kind of goods or merchandise from Great Britain, either on our own account, or on commissions, or any otherwise, from the 1st of January 1769, to the 1st of January 1770, except salt, coals, fish hooks and lines, hemp, and duck bar lead and shot, wool- cards and card wire. Thirdly, that we will not purchase any factor, or others, any kind of goods imported from Great Britain, from January 1769 to January 1770. Fourthly, that we will not import, on our own account, or on commissions or purchase of any who shall import from any other colony in America, from January 1769 to January 1770, any tea, glass, paper, or other goods commonly imported from Great Britain. Fifthly, that we will not, from and after the 1st of January 1769, import into this province any tea, paper, glass, or painters colours, until the act imposing duties on those articles shall be repealed. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, this first day of August 1768. In the months that followed some 650 citizens of Boston, both men and women alike, signed the pledge to boycott all but the most essential British goods. New York and Philadelphia soon followed suit. By 1769 street protests were becoming more visible, with those shops selling British goods being increasingly vandalized. With more than 2,000 British troops in Boston, skirmishes between Patriot colonists and British soldiers became increasingly common. It would not however be until March of 1770 that most of the taxes from the Townshend Acts were finally repealed by Parliament... but by then the first blood of the Revolution had already been shed. In March of 1765, Parliament and the King of Great Britain, George III, enacted the “Duties in American Colonies Act 1765”. The law required colonists to pay taxes on every page of printed paper they used, as well as playing cards and dice. The British Parliament created the act to impose a direct tax on the British colonies in America. The act required most printed material to carry a revenue stamp, thus tit became known as “The Stamp Act”. The act inflamed the passions of the American colonies, as the revenue generated was not only intended to pay for British military troops stationed in the colonies, but was also seen as a violation of the colonist’s basic rights. The act amounted to taxation without representation; many believing that the right to taxation was reserved to the colonial legislatures in which the citizens were represented. The colonist’s resentment at being taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no representatives was already reflected the earlier writings of James Otis, a Boston lawyer and political activist, who wrote in “Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved” that “the very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.” It is Otis to whom the anti-British rallying cry “Taxation without representation is tyranny” has been attributed. Protests, both formal legislative and informal disobedience of the act, grew quickly. Within weeks, in May of 1765, Patrick Henry introduced in the Virginia House of Burgesses seven resolutions condemning the Stamp Act, reasserting the belief that only local legislatures had the right to tax the colonists. Four of the resolutions were adopted by the House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765. 1Resolved That the first adventurers and settlers of this his Majesty’s Colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this his Majesty’s said colony, all the Liberties, Privileges, Franchises and Immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed and possessed by the people of Great Britain. 2Resolved That by two Royal Charters, granted by King James the First the colonists aforesd are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects to all intents & purposes, as if they had been abiding & born within the realm of England. 3Resolved That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist. 4Resolved That his Majesty’s liege people of this his most ancient and loyal colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws, respecting their internal polity and taxation, as are derived from their own consent, with the approbation of their Sovereign or his substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings & People of Great Britain. In Boston a group of men calling themselves “The Loyal Nine” met to organize their own response to the Stamp Act. These nine men; John Avery, Henry Bass, Thomas Chase, Stephen Cleverly, Thomas Crafts, Benjamin Edes, John Smith, George Trott and Henry Welles, planted the seeds of what would become the Sons of Liberty. On August 14th their efforts to intimidate the stamp agents, who collected Parliament's taxes, turned violent. As dawn broke, an effigy of Andrew Oliver, Distributor of Stamps, was found hanging on a tree on Newbury Street. On its arm was written “It’s a glorious to See a stamp-man hanging on a Tree”. A mob soon grew, and after burning the effigy proceeded to the home of Andrew Oliver, breaking down his fence and damaging his coach house. The mob wanted him to take an oath that he would not exercise the office or collect taxes from the Stamp Act. Within two weeks, another mob, this one armed with clubs, marched to the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, ransacking his home, stealing valuables and destroying public papers in his possession. On August 26, Andrew Oliver informed the Stamp Master of Connecticut, Jared Ingersoll, of his intention to resign from his office. Andrew Oliver was forced to publicly renounce his post in December of 1765. Meanwhile in the Massachusetts legislature, on the motion of James Otis, an invitation to address their mutual grievances against Great Britain was sent to each of the colonial legislatures calling upon them to send delegates to a congress to be held at the City Hall in New York in October, 1765. Representatives from nine of the thirteen colonies attended, with Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia not represented. Connecticut: Eliphalet Dyer, William Johnson, David Rowland Delaware: Thomas McKean, Caesar Rodney, William Murdock Maryland: Thomas Ringgold, Edward Tilghman Massachusetts: James Otis, Oliver Partridge, Timothy Ruggles New Jersey: Joseph Borden, Hendrick Fisher, Robert Ogden New York: William Bayard, John Cruger , Leonard Lispenard, Philip Livingston, Robert Livingston Pennsylvania: George Bryan John Dickinson, John Morton Rhode Island: Metcalf Bowler, Henry Ward South Carolina: Christopher Gadsden, Thomas Lynch, John Rutledge These men of the “Stamp Act Congress” produced a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" claiming that American colonists enjoyed the same rights as other British citizens, and argued that without colonial representation in Parliament, that body could not tax the colonists. This petition to King George III and Parliament was adopted on October 19th and signed by the delegates of six colonies; the others having been sent only as observers.
The members of this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His Majesty's person and government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered as maturely as time would permit, the circumstances of said colonies, esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations, of our humble opinions, respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labor, by reason of several late acts of Parliament. 1st. That His Majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the Parliament of Great Britain. 2d. That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 3d. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. 4th. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain. 5th. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein, by themselves; and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them but by their respective legislatures. 6th. That all supplies to the crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists. 7th. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies. 8th. That the late act of Parliament entitled, "An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc.," by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said act, and several other acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. 9th. That the duties imposed by several late acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous, and, from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable. 10th. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted there to the crown. 11th. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of Parliament on the trade of these colonies will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain. 12th. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse, with Great Britain, mutually affectionate and advantageous. 13th. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies to petition the king or either house of Parliament. Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies to the best of sovereigns, to the mother-country, and to themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to His Majesty, and humble application to both houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of Parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the restriction of the American commerce. Parliament refused to recognize these rights, instead passing the Declaratory Act in March of 1766, asserting the authority to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever". At the same time Parliament did repeal the Stamp Act, but by this time the seeds of Revolution had been firmly planted in the hearts and souls of the American colonists. The first blood of the Revolution was spilled well before Second Continental Congress declared the United States an independent nation in July of 1776.
The years leading up to the 2026 Semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the years of war which followed, will be marked with many Revolutionary War milestones which should be remembered and honored by lovers of liberty throughout the world. Golden Hill, the Boston Massacre, Lexington and Concord and the many battles on both land and sea which followed, led to the achievement of American independence and peace in 1783. This blog is dedicated to remembering the service and sacrifice of those who fought for and won American independence. |
Michael WoodHistorical milestones in our fight for liberty 1765-1783 Archives
February 2022
CategoriesCover image courtesy of
Jnn13 [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)] |