Semiquincentennial of the American Revolution

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
9,132
13,208
287
74
Charleston, South Carolina
I neglected to post this earlier, but the King and Parliament responded to the events in Massachusetts in November and December 1774.

The King's Speech

To both Houses of Parliament, on the 30th of November, 1774,

… a most daring spirit of resistance, and disobedience to the law still unhappily prevails in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, and has in divers parts of it broke forth in violences of a very criminal nature. … I have taken such measures, … most proper and effectual for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the last session of the late Parliaments the protection and security of the commerce of Subjects, and for the restoring and preserving order and good government, in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay; and you may depend upon my firm and stedfast resolution to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of this Legislature over all the dominions of my Crown; …


December 8. The HOUSE of COMMONS ADDRESS of THANKS to his MAJESTY, …

… we receive [gratefully]… the early information … of the state of the of the Massachusetts Bay.

“We feel the most sincere concern, that a spirit of disobedience and resistance to the law should still unhappily prevail in that province, and that it has broke forth in of a most criminal nature and we cannot that such proceedings should have been countenanced and encouraged in any other of your Majesty's Colonies; and that any of your subjects should have been so far deluded and misled, as to make rash and unwarrantable attempts to obstruct the commerce of your Majesty's kingdoms by unlawful combinations.

“We beg leave to present … thanks to your Majesty, for having taken such measures as your Majesty judged most proper and effectual, for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the last session of the late Parliament, for the protection and security of the commerce of your Majesty's subjects and for restoring and preserving peace, order, and good government, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay.

“Your faithful Commons, … will use every means in their powerful your Majesty in maintaining and inviolate the supreme authority of this over all the dominions of your crowns … we … give our most zealous support to those great constitutional principles which govern your Majesty's conduct in this important business, and which is for essential to the dignity, safety and welfare of the British empire.


In other words, the colonial petitions were conciliatory, and the British response was a giant middle finger.
I guarantee that the Crown had no idea that they would lose this conflict...it wasn''t on their radar until it was a reality. That's the problem with being a monarch....you can lack a true perspective as most people will only tell you what you wish to hear.

Quite frankly a peaceful split would have helped both parties immensely...think Canada.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
86,587
44,791
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I neglected to post this earlier, but the King and Parliament responded to the events in Massachusetts in November and December 1774.

The King's Speech

To both Houses of Parliament, on the 30th of November, 1774,

… a most daring spirit of resistance, and disobedience to the law still unhappily prevails in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, and has in divers parts of it broke forth in violences of a very criminal nature. … I have taken such measures, … most proper and effectual for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the last session of the late Parliaments the protection and security of the commerce of Subjects, and for the restoring and preserving order and good government, in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay; and you may depend upon my firm and stedfast resolution to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of this Legislature over all the dominions of my Crown; …


December 8. The HOUSE of COMMONS ADDRESS of THANKS to his MAJESTY, …

… we receive [gratefully]… the early information … of the state of the of the Massachusetts Bay.

“We feel the most sincere concern, that a spirit of disobedience and resistance to the law should still unhappily prevail in that province, and that it has broke forth in of a most criminal nature and we cannot that such proceedings should have been countenanced and encouraged in any other of your Majesty's Colonies; and that any of your subjects should have been so far deluded and misled, as to make rash and unwarrantable attempts to obstruct the commerce of your Majesty's kingdoms by unlawful combinations.

“We beg leave to present … thanks to your Majesty, for having taken such measures as your Majesty judged most proper and effectual, for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the last session of the late Parliament, for the protection and security of the commerce of your Majesty's subjects and for restoring and preserving peace, order, and good government, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay.

“Your faithful Commons, … will use every means in their powerful your Majesty in maintaining and inviolate the supreme authority of this over all the dominions of your crowns … we … give our most zealous support to those great constitutional principles which govern your Majesty's conduct in this important business, and which is for essential to the dignity, safety and welfare of the British empire.


In other words, the colonial petitions were conciliatory, and the British response was a giant middle finger.
It was not only Britain which was defeated. King George felt the defeat deeply and personally. It probably contributed to his later decline, physically and mentally, leading to his being called "The Mad King"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
39,186
34,771
287
55
I missed the semiquincentennial of the Boston Tea Party (16 December 1773),
as someone who in recent years has begun reading a number of works on the revolution, I will thoroughly enjoy this series, but this struck a nerve with me. I, too, “missed” the 250th anniversary of the Boston tea party. I had full plans to attend as it was on a Saturday in December 2023 when l was working just north of there.

That morning, I awakened with Covid and was isolated at home for the next 10 days.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: crimsonaudio

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
39,186
34,771
287
55
I guarantee that the Crown had no idea that they would lose this conflict...it wasn''t on their radar until it was a reality. That's the problem with being a monarch....you can lack a true perspective as most people will only tell you what you wish to hear.
I think part of the problem, and I’m certain Tidewater will cover this, is the fact that much like our uncertainty in Vietnam, the colonists understood what exactly they were fighting for and the British attempt to retain the colonies was splintered into different interpretations of what the colonists wanted. A number of the members of the British parliament thought it might be wise to just let America go and fend for themselves, others persuaded themselves that the colonists didn’t really want to be separate from Britain (“deep down they still like us”), and for some it was just a “strong man respect” complex (“how dare you!”).

America really had no business winning the war, and it is a lot like Coach Bryant said about football - that nobody actually wins the game, somebody loses it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
I think part of the problem, and I’m certain Tidewater will cover this, is the fact that much like our uncertainty in Vietnam, the colonists understood what exactly they were fighting for and the British attempt to retain the colonies was splintered into different interpretations of what the colonists wanted. A number of the members of the British parliament thought it might be wise to just let America go and fend for themselves, others persuaded themselves that the colonists didn’t really want to be separate from Britain (“deep down they still like us”), and for some it was just a “strong man respect” complex (“how dare you!”).

America really had no business winning the war, and it is a lot like Coach Bryant said about football - that nobody actually wins the game, somebody loses it.
I am not sure how unified the Americans were in their political objectives.
Look at the prose they used in addressing Parliament and the King: very conciliatory and acknowledging the subordination of the colonies to the King-in-Parliament.

The most recent political sea-change event in British history had been the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which James II left the throne and the Crown offered to William of Orange (whose wife Mary had a Stuart blood line).
After the Glorious Revolution, the King had avoided direct confrontation with Parl;iament, but had purchased MPs through bribes and favoritism. The English Commonwealthmen wrote pamphlets about this corruption and the Colonist read those pamphlets. (Caroline Robbins wrote an excellent book about these men) and "augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuffed the approach of tyranny on every tainted breeze."
A considerable number of the colonist merely sought to have Parliament respect the colonies (or return to a policy of "benign neglect" that characterized British imperial policy before the Seven Years' War.) A number just did not want to pay taxes.
Not many were advocating for independence. That would take Lexington and Concord and Lord Dunmore's Declaration to make independence a majority policy.
And when a majority favored independence, some of the more conservative colonist who had supported the colonies to that point, jumped ship and went over to the Crown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
39,186
34,771
287
55
I am not sure how unified the Americans were in their political objectives.
Look at the prose they used in addressing Parliament and the King: very conciliatory and acknowledging the subordination of the colonies to the King-in-Parliament.

The most recent political sea-change event in British history had been the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which James II left the throne and the Crown offered to William of Orange (whose wife Mary had a Stuart blood line).
After the Glorious Revolution, the King had avoided direct confrontation with Parl;iament, but had purchased MPs through bribes and favoritism. The English Commonwealthmen wrote pamphlets about this corruption and the Colonist read those pamphlets. (Caroline Robbins wrote an excellent book about these men) and "augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuffed the approach of tyranny on every tainted breeze."
A considerable number of the colonist merely sought to have Parliament respect the colonies (or return to a policy of "benign neglect" that characterized British imperial policy before the Seven Years' War.) A number just did not want to pay taxes.
Not many were advocating for independence. That would take Lexington and Concord and Lord Dunmore's Declaration to make independence a majority policy.
And when a majority favored independence, some of the more conservative colonist who had supported the colonies to that point, jumped ship and went over to the Crown.
II was half awake when I wrote and probably overstated the point. A lot of what I've been reading on it essentially says what you're saying above - and the musings in Charleston and Virginia that "Boston is going to get us into a war with the Crown."

To be clear - it wasn't one unifying whole for independence, although it went more in that direction once the war actually started. My bad for the poor verbiage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
II was half awake when I wrote and probably overstated the point. A lot of what I've been reading on it essentially says what you're saying above - and the musings in Charleston and Virginia that "Boston is going to get us into a war with the Crown."

To be clear - it wasn't one unifying whole for independence, although it went more in that direction once the war actually started. My bad for the poor verbiage.
I think the series John Adams portrays that well. Some delegates were ready to secede from the empire and others were saying, "Hang on, Hold your horses. We just want to be left alone by Parliament, not to strike out on our own."
That is why the Crown and Parliament's raised middle finger was such a profound political miscalculation. A diplomatic response might have calmed the waters.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Nice piece from local news in Boston. Light-hearted, but informative to the layman.
250 years ago this coming Saturday, British gun-grabbers came to get the guns and the powder at Concord.
Here is a decent (and fair) retelling of the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Just a bump for the semiquincentennial of Lexington and Concord.

A military historian (and sadly, I cannot remember who just now) examined the ammunition the Massachusetts militia expended and then looked at the number of British casualties they inflicted and determined that something like 30,000 rounds were fired for each casualty the British suffered
.
His conclusion: Massachusetts men were poor marksmen.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
39,186
34,771
287
55
Just a bump for the semiquincentennial of Lexington and Concord.

A military historian (and sadly, I cannot remember who just now) examined the ammunition the Massachusetts militia expended and then looked at the number of British casualties they inflicted and determined that something like 30,000 rounds were fired for each casualty the British suffered
.
His conclusion: Massachusetts men were poor marksmen.
They were lousy lovers as well.
That’s why they called them Minutemen.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
On April 20, 1775, just after Lexington and Concord, Virginia Governor Dunmore sent marines to Williamsburg and seized the city's gunpowder. This caused a near riot. Colonial leaders sent Governor Dunmore a message asking what was going on. Dunmore replied (verbally) that he had heard about a rebellion in a neighboring county and had acted to secure the powder and that he would return it when it was safe to do so.
This quieted the mob.
That noight a false report circulated that British marines had landed and were going to plunder the city. Another mob formed. It too was quieted and dispersed.
Then Governor Dunmore, ever the diplomat, sent a message that if his officers faced any violence, he would "set the slaves free and reduce Williamsburg to ashes."
In early May 1775, Patrick Henry heard of these proceedings and formed the Hanover County militia and marched towards Williamsburg,
On this date, Gov. Dunmore sent away his family members to HMS Fowey on the james River for safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
This is probably a good moment to point out that the tweo most poulaous colonies (Massachusetts and Virginia), the central authorities began by attempting to remove the people's means of self-defence.

I believe the Founders had this in mind when drafting the Bill of Rights fourteen years later.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
I cannot believe I missed this.
March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry spoke to the Virginia Convention.
A delegate spoke in favor of continuing to pursue reconciliation with Parliament and the Crown. Henry spoke next:


No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!



Obviously, there were two camps: those desiring to continue to work to reconcile with Britain and those willing to fight. Henry was obviously in the latter camp.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
250 years ago toay, the 2nd Continental Congress met.
"Congress" in this sense does not mean what it means today. This congress was a recommendatory body. It could ask the states to do things. It could not enforce
The Articles of Confederation were not proposed until 1777 and not ratified until 1781.
At this point, the "Continenantal" government was very weak.
But it was a start.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Also, on May 10, 1775, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys and American officer Benedict Arnold took Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain. There had been no declaration of war. No legal process. Ethan Allen just did what he felt was necessary.
~160 defeated ~80 British troops. All the British were captured.
The Americans seized a bunch of cannons and some much-needed powder,
Later, Knox would move the cannon overland to Boston to chase the British out.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Not everybody on either side of the Atlantic was in favor of fighting this out.

'The Assembly of New York had, in February, discountenanced the measures of the first Continental Congress, and refused to send delegates to the second Congress. It prepared a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and a Representation and Remonstrance to the Commons of Great-Britain in Parliament assembled. ...

May 15th, 1775. Mr [Edmund] Burke produced and read in his place a Remonstrance to the Parliament of Great Britain from the General Assembly of New York; he then moved for Leave to bring it up to the Table, and the Question being put by the Speaker, that this Remonstrance be now brought up, Lord North paved the way for getting rid of the main Question by moving an amendment; that the Words 'which is derogatory to the Supreme Authority of the British Parliament' be added, "Upon which a short Debate ensued, the House divided, for the Amendment 186, against it 67. Of course the main Question was lost."

The Duke of Manchester presented the Memorial in the House of Lords, where after a long debate, it was rejected.

No answer to the Petition was given by the King.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,795
19,152
337
Hooterville, Vir.
May 16, 1775, New Yorks asks the Continental Congress to advise them as to "posts are necessary to be occupied and by what number of forces it will be proper they should be guarded."

Obviously, the Royal Navy could move the British Army around pretty much as it pleased and New York City and environs would be vulnerable to sea-mobile forces.
My cynical political analysis is that, once Congress decided Long Island needed to be garrisoned with 2,000 troops (for example), then the colony of New York's legislature would then ask Congress to provide the 2,000 troops to do the garrisoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry