Embattled Farmers or Continentals?

On By Ben PowersIn Armies, Common Soldier, Emerging Revolutionary War, Minute MenLeave a comment
The First Blow for Liberty. Battle of Lexington, April 1775. Copy of print by A. H. Ritchie after F.O.C. Darley (Library of Congress)

There is a sense in the American military tradition that the Republic has relied on citizen-soldiers in times of crisis to bolster its army rather than maintain a large standing force. While the modern American military, post-1945, has increased in size and power to accommodate the global commitments incurred in the wake of World War II, for the bulk of American history, the United States sought to make do with a small professional force, bolstered with militias called to arms and volunteers when war threatened. While this arrangement for national defense was in part driven by fiscal concerns, as a large standing army incurs a cost to the treasury, another aspect concerned how the United States perceived itself. The early Republic, and before its establishment, the thirteen original colonies, inherited from England a distrust of standing armies and a faith in community militias. Historian John Galvin’s The Minutemen posits that the colonial militia, especially in New England, had a long tradition of active training participation, evolving organization, and combat experience prior to the commencement of hostilities on 19 April 1775, and that it was the progenitor of the American citizen-soldier who won the American Revolution.[1] In contrast, James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender argue in A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789 that commitment to militia duty was honored largely in the breach in the American colonies prior to the revolution, that the militia performed unevenly during the War for Independence, and that ultimately the Continental Army achieved the victory that cemented America’s freedom.[2] Martin and Lender conclude that the American tradition of a sturdy yeoman militiaman is more legend than fact and used to justify maintaining a small regular army during the early days of the republic.

    The notion of the American militiaman responding to an alarm to defend his own appears repeatedly in the literature on the Revolutionary War. John Shy, in his 1962 paper on colonial military systems, described the notion underlying the efficacy of the militia system as “only when free men must themselves fight to maintain their liberty are they likely to remain free.”[3] According to Fred Anderson Berg in his encyclopedia of Continental Army forces, the militia systems of the American colonies evolved from English tradition, and were geographically organized around townships and counties, and were designed to serve for short periods, without pay, and in proximity to their homes. The intent was for them to be an “in extremis” force designed to protect their own neighborhoods. Anderson’s entry on the militia in the American Revolution paints their performance in a favorable light and does nothing to contradict the idea that militia units contributed significantly to securing American Independence.[4] David Hackett Fischer reinforces these points in his analysis of the events of April 1775, providing a brief summary of the martial qualities of the men of Massachusetts Bay Colony, specifically noting that at least once a generation between 1689 and 1763, the militia answered the call to arms in operations against indigenous peoples or French colonial opponents, either separately or in combination.[5] Despite these descriptions of militia origins, motivations, or performance, none of the writers delved into what made militia troops effective, as John Galvin did in his book The Minutemen, The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution.    Galvin first appears as an unlikely proponent of the militia tradition. He spent his career as a professional soldier, having graduated from the United States Military Academy, served multiple tours in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a General Officer as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe.[6] Upon closer examination, his motivation for doing so becomes apparent. Galvin was a native of Massachusetts and keenly interested in the military history of his home state. He grew up learning the myth that when the King’s troops departed Boston to collect military supplies stored in Concord, every day farmers left their homesteads, banded together against the invaders, and chased them back to whence they came. The take did not make sense to Galvin precisely because of his military training and combat experience. Such a performance in battle suggested organization, command & control, and logistical forethought rather than a spontaneous response to a threat.[7]

     Galvin set out to learn the facts behind the myth and discovered that the Massachusetts troops that responded to the alarm of 19 April 1775 enjoyed substantial advantages. He learned, contrary to legend, that the colonists benefited from significant logistical and preparation and training, political support, and a highly organized administrative structure that turned the colony’s country structure into a regimental system capable of rapidly assembling combat power when required. Gavin found that this level of sophistication was the product of an evolving system of alarm companies and other community-based defensive systems dating back to the late 17th century, combined with a renewed emphasis on readiness dating from the fall of 1774, when Massachusetts Committees of Safety began preparing in earnest for what they felt was an inevitable clash with the British troops occupying the colony.[8] This combination of tradition, commitment, and anticipation resulted in a system that could be activated as required, with each participant trained and equipped for action, knowledgeable of their leadership, with an overarching command structure prepared to lead once the men took the field.[9]

     Galvin paints a picture of a highly prepared and motivated militia force and documents how the Massachusetts colonists achieved this level of readiness. In contrast, James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Leander postulate that the militia tradition had to be modified to enable the Americans to field a long-service professional force capable of meeting the British Army in sustained combat.[10]

Surrender of Cornwallis. Painting by John Trumbull. (Library of Congress)

  In A Respectable Army, The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789, Lender and Martin do not seek to contradict Galvin, but to show that the Massachusetts militia structure was not replicated throughout all thirteen colonies in the spring of 1775, nor were even the Massachusetts militia inclined to remain in the field for prolonged operations.[11] The authors make an effective case that the militia earned an uneven reputation throughout the war, with experienced officers such as Nathaniel Greene arguing that men “coming from home with all the tender feelings of domestic life were not sufficiently fortified with natural courage to withstand the shocking scenes of war.”[12] Greene’s point is that long service in the field, under discipline and consistent training, molded men into effective combat soldiers. Lender and Martin argue that this is precisely the hardening that the Continental Army provided. The authors point out that after the opening battles of the war, the militia’s performance against British regulars was uneven at best. Militia forces provided the bulk of Washington’s troops during the ill-fated battles around New York City in the summer and fall of 1776, in which the British and Hessian troops under Howe forced Washington to evacuate the city and retreat across New Jersey to Pennsylvania by the end of the year. Despite retrieving his fortunes with lightning strikes at Trenton and Princeton in December 1776 and January 1777, Washington’s fortunes were at a low ebb, and he sought to rebuild his Army into a more professional force capable of holding its own in the field. Lender and Martin document that he was able to do just that, relying more on long-service volunteers than short-service militia to achieve his ends. The reality of Continental Army service clashed with the myth of the virtuous citizen-soldier: Washington’s troops were not yeomen protecting home and hearth, but men on the margins of society hoping to improve their fortunes through military service. They were available to serve precisely because they did not have a large stake in the day-to-day running of their home communities.[13]

      Galvin presents a contrasting argument to Martin and Lender regarding the militia’s contribution to victory in the American Revolution. While Galvin’s arguments are well-documented, his focus is narrowly oriented toward the Massachusetts colony and the events of April 1775. He does not extrapolate his conclusions to the militia’s overall contribution throughout the war, whereas Martin and Lender demonstrate that militia quality was uneven, combat performance was lacking, and that the military leaders of the United States sought to create a more professional force to achieve military success.

Bibliography

Berg, Fred Anderson. Encyclopedia of Continental Army Units: Battalions,
     Regiments and Independent Corps. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books,
     1972.

Fischer, David Hackett. Paul Revere’s Ride. New York: Oxford University
     Press, 1994.

Galvin, John R. The Minute Men: A Compact History of the Defenders of the
     American Colonies, 1645–1775. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1967.

Martin, James Kirby, and Mark Edward Lender. A Respectable Army: The
     Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789. Arlington Heights, IL:
     Harlan Davidson, 1982.

Shy, John. A People Numerous and Armed: Reflections on the Military
     Struggle for American Independence. New York: Oxford University
     Press, 1976.

[1] John R. Galvin, The Minute Men: A Compact History of the Defenders of the American Colonies, 1645–1775 (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1967), 59-67.

[2] James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender, A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789 (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982), 45.

[3] John Shy, A People Numerous and Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 31.

[4] Fred Anderson Berg, Encyclopedia of Continental Army Units: Battalions, Regiments, and Independent Corps(Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1972), 76-77.

[5] David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 151.

[6] Galvin, The Minute Men, vii.

[7] Galvin, The Minute Men, 3-5.

[8] Galvin, The Minute Men, 73.

[9] Galvin, The Minute Men, 206.

[10] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army,

[11] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 46.

[12] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 45.

[13] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 212.

“The people here are Liberty mad…” Nicholas Cresswell and the American Independence

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1775, 1776, 1777, Battlefields & Historic Places, British Leadership, Civilian, Common Soldier, Continental Leadership, Loyalist, Memory, Personalities, Politics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest writer, historian Kenneth Bancroft


Leesburg, Virginia. Tuesday, July 9, 1776. “…News that the Sanhedrim (1) had declared the
thirteen united Colonies Free and Independent States. That this was intended by the
Northern Colonies from the first, I am well convinced…” (2) These are not the words one
expects when talking about the Declaration of Independence, but to a 26-year-old
entrepreneurial Englishman caught in a revolution that he neither wanted nor supported,
this was the worst news ever. (3)

The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell is an informative source on the Revolutionary War from what could be considered a ‘Tory’ point of view. It is a personal account that shows that the struggle for freedom was not just on the battlefield but also in the streets and homes at the end of the colonial era. Nicholas Cresswell was an outsider from the moment he stepped on American soil in 1774 and heard news of the siege of Boston, noting that the colonists “talk as if they were determined to dispute the matter with the Sword.” (4) For two years, Cresswell observed the American colonies descend into rebellion, “The people here are Liberty mad, nothing but war is thought of.” (5)


When the colonies officially separated, Cresswell felt despair and anger instead of hope.
Cresswell’s intention was to set up life as a farmer, but misfortune and bad timing foiled his
plans. He blamed the “cursed Rebellion” for turning this “earthly paradise to a Hell upon
terra firma.” (6) Constantly under the suspicion of the local committees tasked with enforcing the
Continental Association as a suspected ‘Tory’ spy, he grew to despise the Continental
Congress as vile and hypocritical. “The Congress under the fallacious pretense of nursing
the tender plant, liberty, which was said to thrive so well in American soil, have actually
torn it up by the very root.” (7)

Cresswell could not help himself and always got into political discussions in the bars and
houses of Virginia. “At Dinner had a long dispute with Doctor Jacson about the origin of the
present proceedings…Most of the company agrees that I had the better of the argument.
But never so much embarrassed in my whole life.” (8) He even chided General Washington as a yeoman farmer “Negro-driver” (9) and a and was befuddled that he kept evading General Howe. Ultimately, he did decide that he was a decent General.


In the end, Cresswell decided that Virginia, for all of its bounty, was lost and returning to
England was his only option. After three years of surviving the storm of a revolution, he
made his slip to British lines. While technically not a Loyalist, (10) Cresswell provides critical
details on the otherwise missing narrative of Loyalism in the colonies, especially Virginia.
His last act dramatically involved him in a plot to free English sailors and soldiers from a jail
in Alexandria Virginia. Some of the conspirators were well known merchants in
Alexandria. (11) Thankfully Cresswell’s account exists to inform how a revolution hits the
home front and the profundity of independence at that time.

To learn more about Nicholas Cresswell, visit Kenneth Bancroft’s website at: https://nicholascresswell.wordpress.com/ and see his Rev War Revelry episode on Nicholas Cresswell on our You Tube Channel at: https://youtu.be/fyONRWmy6_I?si=-tIAEmJ69-GHv2BI


1 Cresswell’s derisive term for the Continental Congress. It refers to the Sandedrim, or Jewish Supreme
Council. “Sanhedrim,”McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia, accessed June 2, 2026
https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/sanhedrim.html. 2 Nicholas Cresswell, The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1777, (North Charleston, South Carolina:
reprinted 2024, 117. Free online version at the Library of Congress https://tile.loc.gov/storageservices/service/gdc/lhbtn/30436/30436.pdf. 3 See: “An Englishman’s Journal of the Revolutionary War: The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell 1774-1777,”
Emerging Revolutionary War, October 20, 2025, https://emergingrevolutionarywar.org/2025/10/20/anenglishmans-journal-of-the-revolutionary-war-the-journals-of-nicholas-cresswell-1774-1777/. 4 Cresswell, 16. 5 Ibid, 77. 6 Ibid, 197.
7 Ibid, 198.
8 Ibid, 99.
9 Ibid, 193. It is interesting that that turn of phrase is famously used by Samuel Johnson, an avowed Tory who
despised what the American colonies were doing. See: Interview, “Gordon S. Wood: How the American
Revolution “infused into our culture our noblest ideals and highest aspirations,” Library of America, accessed
June 7, 2026 https://www.loa.org/news-and-views/639-gordon-s-wood-how-the-american-revolutioninfused-into-our-culture-our-noblest-ideals-and-highest-aspirations/. 10 McGill … Cresswell was more of an immigrant who still had cultural ties to his homeland. 11 William Buckner McGroarty, “Loyalism in Alexandria, Virginia, The Virginia Magazine of History and
Biuography, 52, no. 1 (January 1944), 42-43, accessed March 11, 2026 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4245269.

From Muster Roll to Lost Note: The Paper Trail of Edmund Fowler’s Revolutionary War Compensation

On By erwguestIn America 250, Common Soldier, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Marc Lee.

At first glance, it is an unremarkable accounting ledger filled with columns of figures and financial calculations. Yet hidden among its entries is the story of a Revolutionary War soldier whose compensation claim continued to circulate through Connecticut’s bureaucracy years after the fighting had ended. The surviving manuscript, together with wartime muster rolls and treasury records, allows us to follow Edmund Fowler’s claim from military service to a replacement for a lost note, revealing how the Revolution’s paperwork could outlive the war itself.[i]

The document at the center of this story is an Invoice of Officers’ and Soldiers’ Notes, Payable June 1783, a manuscript created as Connecticut settled the financial obligations left by the Revolutionary War. Rather than recording the service of a single soldier, the ledger summarizes military notes issued to officers and enlisted men, listing an aggregate amount exceeding £10,700 and bearing a notation that the account was “charged July 9, 1784.” At first glance, it appears to be little more than a routine accounting record.[ii]

Figure 1. Invoice of Officers’ and Soldiers’ Notes, Payable June 1783, showing the original heading and later accounting calculations.

A closer examination tells a different story. The manuscript remained in active use long after it was first prepared. While the principal heading and endorsements were written in one hand, later calculations were added in a different ink and by a different hand, indicating that officials returned to the account years after the notes first became payable.[iii]

Those physical clues reveal an important reality about the Revolution’s aftermath. Paying veterans was not accomplished through a single transaction. Military service had to be verified, financial obligations reconciled, and documentary evidence maintained as claims moved through the state’s accounting system. What appears to be an ordinary ledger therefore preserves part of the administrative machinery that transformed wartime service into recognized financial compensation.

Among the many entries associated with Connecticut’s officers’ and soldiers’ notes is one that allows this broader process to be examined on a human scale. Through a series of surviving military and treasury records, the documentary trail of Revolutionary War veteran Edmund Fowler can be followed from his wartime muster rolls to the postwar administration of his compensation claim, offering a rare glimpse into how one soldier’s service continued to generate paperwork long after the fighting had ended.[iv]

The ledger identifies many officers and enlisted soldiers, but one name stands out because his surviving records extend well beyond this single document. Edmund Fowler appears in a series of Connecticut military records that preserve different stages of his wartime service, allowing his postwar compensation to be traced across several distinct record groups.[v]

Continue reading “From Muster Roll to Lost Note: The Paper Trail of Edmund Fowler’s Revolutionary War Compensation” →

“In the Ranks of the Revolution: James Johnston’s War” Part II

On By erwguestIn America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Common Soldier, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary War, Southern TheaterLeave a comment

Part I

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historians Lori Amos Doss & Jarred Marlowe

Part 2: A Veteran in the Southern Campaign and the Road to Yorktown

In early 1781, after years of nearly continuous service, James Johnston finally set out for home on furlough. It must have been a long-awaited journey. Yet before he could reach his destination, events once again pulled him back into the war.

While passing through Prince Edward County, Virginia, Johnston learned of the difficult situation facing General Nathanael Greene in the South. British forces under Lord Cornwallis were pressing hard, and Greene’s army was in poor condition. Supplies were scarce, clothing was inadequate, and many of the soldiers were inexperienced militia. Previous defeats at Charleston and Camden had weakened the Continental presence in the region, leaving Greene with a force that struggled to match the discipline of British regulars.

Johnston understood the danger. Rather than continue home, he took action. Drawing on his experience in the northern campaigns, he recruited twelve veteran soldiers who had completed their terms of service. Together, they traveled south to join Greene. Their arrival was timely. Greene assigned them as adjutants to officers commanding Virginia militia, where their role was to help bring order and discipline to units that often lacked both.

Time was short. Cornwallis was advancing, and a major confrontation was approaching. Johnston worked to train the militia as best he could, instilling in them the habits and expectations of seasoned soldiers. The results became clear at the Battle of Guilford Court House on March 15, 1781.

Greene arranged his army in three lines. The North Carolina militia formed the first, the Virginia militia the second, and Continental regulars the third. When the British advanced, the North Carolina militia broke quickly, some retreating without firing. The Virginia militia, however, held their ground. They fought with determination and inflicted significant casualties on the advancing British.

Although Greene eventually ordered a withdrawal, the battle came at a high cost for Cornwallis. His army suffered heavy losses, weakening his campaign in the South. Later observers noted the steadiness of the Virginia militia, and some accounts credited Johnston and his fellow veterans with helping prepare them for that moment.

After the battle, Johnston returned home at last, reuniting briefly with his family after years away. But the war was not yet finished, and his rest did not last long. Within days, he learned that Lafayette was now operating in Virginia and facing British forces under William Phillips and Benedict Arnold. Once again, Johnston chose to return to service.

Continue reading ““In the Ranks of the Revolution: James Johnston’s War” Part II” →

Virginia Expels Lord Dunmore, the 250th of Gwynn’s Island

On By Rob OrrisonIn Uncategorized, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Memory, Slavery, Militia (Loyalist) Leadership, African-American, 1776, LoyalistLeave a comment

July 9-10, 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the actions at Gwynn’s Island, Virginia. Located in Mathews County, Gwynn’s Island became the last post that Lord Dunmore and his small force of Loyalists and British Regulars could hold in Virginia. The battle marked the end of Lord Dunmore’s military campaign in Virginia and helped secure Patriot control of the colony. Lord Dunmore’s force consisted of Loyalists, British soldiers, and former slaves who had accepted his promise of freedom in exchange for military service.

Thomas Jefferson drew this sketch of Gwynn’s Island in July 1776, Library of Congress

After several raids along Virginia’s coastline, Dunmore established a base on Gwynn’s Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Patriot leaders viewed the island as a threat because it allowed British forces to launch attacks on nearby communities. Brigadier General Andrew Lewis led approximately 1,200 Virginia militia to confront Dunmore’s forces. Lewis positioned artillery on the mainland opposite the island and began a bombardment on July 9, 1776. The Patriot cannon fire damaged British defenses, destroyed supplies, and caused significant casualties.

Disease also weakened Dunmore’s camp. Smallpox had spread among his soldiers and supporters, reducing their ability to defend the island effectively. Facing continuous artillery fire and the effects of illness, Dunmore decided to abandon Gwynn’s Island. During the night of July 9–10, British ships evacuated the remaining troops, leaving the Patriots in control. Dunmore’s force suffered minimal casualties during the battle (including Lord Dunmore suffering a minor injury when his ship was struck), but they were decimated by the diseases that plagued his force. About 400 to 500 former slaves people in the Ethiopian Regiment and roughly 150 white loyalists died of disease. Many dying were left behind when Dunmore left the island. The reported conditions on the island were horrible.

The victory at Gwynn’s Island effectively ended organized British and Loyalist efforts to regain control of Virginia during the early years of the Revolution. Although British naval raids continued along the coast, Dunmore never returned to lead another campaign in the colony. The battle strengthened Patriot confidence, protected Virginia from an immediate British threat, and allowed the colony to focus on supporting the broader struggle for American independence. Today, the island is still a rural recreational retreat for many, recently interpretation about the battle and its history have been installed to tell the important story of what took place there in July 1776.

To learn more about Gwynn’s Island, check out our Rev War Revelry with Patrick Hannum here: https://youtu.be/e4JJgir65h8?si=i4RRrBF3FT9z4UqQ

Rev War Revelry: “this was intended by the Northern Colonies from the first…” The Story of Nicholas Cresswell with historian Ken Bancroft

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1776, America 250, Civilian, Loyalist, Memory, Personalities, Rev War Revelry, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday at 7pm on our Facebook page to view the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence through the eyes of an English traveler who visited Virginia from 1774-1777. Nicholas Cresswell’s daily diary is a researchers dream into daily life during the American Revolution and understanding an Englishmen’s point of view. We welcome historian and blogger Ken Bancroft as he talks about Cresswell’s life and his reaction to hearing about the Declaration of Independence. Ken Bancroft manages the website “The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell – Celebrating the 250th Anniversary Every Day” found at: https://nicholascresswell.wordpress.com/ . This Revelry is pre-recorded and will be posted to our Facebook page on Sunday, July 12th at 7pm and then to our You Tube Channel.

Adams and Jefferson and the 200th Anniversary of America’s 50th Birthday

On By Chris MackowskiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

July 4, 2026 is not only the 250th anniversary of America’s birth, it’s also the 200th anniversary of the near-simultaneous deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It’s one of the greatest coincidences in American history: the two Founders most responsible for independence died on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day.

John Adams, 1816

Jefferson was 83; Adams 90. 

Nearly toothless, nearly blind, Adams could hardly get around. He lacked the vigor that had once let him walk miles a day for exercise. Jefferson had been slowly wearing down from an aggravated prostate problem and, by 1826, was taking large daily doses of laudanum as treatment.

Both knew they were well into their twilights. When asked to appear at commemoration ceremonies for the 50th anniversary of the Declaration, both declined. Aware their respective conditions prohibited robust orations, let alone travel to get anywhere. Adams cited his “feeble state” while Jefferson his “ill health.”

Jefferson did muster a beautiful message to be read aloud in his absence. He knew it was likely his last public message and so summoned all his powers of eloquent penmanship. 

“[T]he mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favor, few booted and spurred, ready to ride the legitimately, by the grace of God.”
Adams, true to form, kept things blunt in his written message: “Independence forever. Not one word more.”

On July 4, 1826, Jefferson went first. He had been in declining health for days and by July 3, had been fading in and out of consciousness, barely hanging on. Late in the day, he woke to ask his granddaughter, “Is it the fourth yet?” Jefferson understood the symbolic power his death would have if it came on such an auspicious occasion. He had no way of knowing that his revolutionary partner/rival/friend in Quincy, Massachusetts was also on death’s door. Adams had collapsed quite suddenly on the morning of the fourth—apparently a heart attack—deteriorating throughout the day.

Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Jefferson lingered into July 4 and died at 12:50 p.m.—a bust of Adams watching over him from across his study. Adams died at 6:00 that evening, unaware that his old friend had preceded him by just a few hours. He was pleased to think that Jefferson, his junior, would outlast him. “Thomas Jefferson survives,” he said.

The statement had a powerful, dramatic flare, that makes such a perfect, tidy ending to the story. Although not literally accurate, Adams knew, even then, that Jefferson’s optimistic, aspirational vision of American history had triumphed over his own more realistic take on events. Adams hated the romanticized version of the American founding that had sprung up. How ironic that his death and Jefferson’s and the Declaration 50th anniversary all coincided—as romantic a flourish as possible for the end of the Revolutionary Era.

Chris Mackowski is the author of Atlas of Independence: John Adams and the American Revolution, part of the Emerging Revolutionary War Series from Savas Beatie.

Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1776

On By Rob OrrisonIn Revolutionary War, Battlefields & Historic Places, Continental Leadership, Continental Congress, 1776, America 250Leave a comment
The rebuilt Jacob Graff House

July 4, 1776 was not an unusual day when it began for Thomas Jefferson. It started off as any normal Thursday. Jefferson documented that he woke up around at dawn on the second floor of the Jacob Graff House at the corner of Market and 7th Streets. He spent the morning shopping in nearby Philadelphia stores. He documented the temperature that day at an ironic high of 76 degrees (much cooler than the expected 100+ degree heat on July 4, 2026). As he perused the stores on Philadelphia that morning, he purchased seven thermometers as well as women’s gloves. Jefferson also noted donating one shilling six pence to charity.

Jefferson was on hand as the Second Continental Congress convened at 9:00am in the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House. The day before, Jefferson sat through discussion on editing his draft of the Declaration of Independence. He would also spend this morning listening to others editing down his document by one-third. Jefferson took great offense to the edits and preserved his original draft for posterity.

Jefferson used this chair in the Graff House to write the declaration. Today the chair is on display at the American
Philosophical Society

After some time spent finishing the edits to Jefferson’s Declaration, the Congress approved the document later that morning. Congress then ordered local printer John Dunlap to print 200 copies of the Declaration now known as the “Dunlap Broadsides.” Dunlap worked quickly to set his printer’s type and began printing the copies the night of July 4th. For Jefferson and the other members of Congress, the rest of the day was spent on various items around defense, relations with native tribes and other committee work. No noted celebration of the occasion of passing the Declaration. Congress also directed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to design a new “Great Seal” for the new nation. [2]

It was not until later in life did men such as Adams and Jefferson give the day its prominence in American ethos. Though Adams called on Americans to celebrate July 2, today we celebrate the day that the Declaration was adopted. Both days are surely worth their own celebrations.

[1] – Jefferson the Virginian by Dumas Malone, pg. 229.

[2] – Letters of Delegate of the First and Second Continental Congresses,1774-1789. edited by Edmund C. Burnett

July 2, 1776: “the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America”

On By Kevin PawlakIn 1776, America 250, Continental Congress, PoliticsLeave a comment

At 11 a.m. on July 2, 1776, Second Continental Congress Secretary Charles Thomson called the roll of the colonies in the vote for independence from Great Britain. The debates were over (they lasted most of the legislative session on July 1). Now was the time to formalize Richard Henry Lee’s resolution, first introduced to the Congress on June 7, 1776, “That these United Colonies, are, and of right ought to be, free and Independent States …”

It only took perhaps a few minutes for Thomson to query each colony and record their vote. Before noon, 12 colonies unanimously voted for independence while New York abstained. They were no longer colonies, but states. All the men in the Pennsylvania State House knew the importance of the occasion. Abraham Clark, one of New Jersey’s delegates, wrote, “We are now … embarked on a most Tempestuous Sea. Life very uncertain. Seeming dangers Scattered thick around us …. Let us prepare for the worst, we can Die here but once. May all our Business, all our purposes & pursuits tend to fit us for that important event.”

John Adams, one of the champions of the independence movement, reflected on the importance of July 2 the next day in a letter to his wife Abigail:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

While the Declaration of Independence would still not be signed for several weeks, July 2, 1776, and the vote for independence marked a point of no return for the members of the Continental Congress.

The Anticipation of Late June 1776

On By Chris MackowskiIn 1776, Adams, John and Abigail, PoliticsLeave a comment

Do you remember those 1970s-era TV commercials for Heinz ketchup? A young boy, with his glass ketchup bottle turned upside down over a hamburger, waits for the ketchup to flow. In the background, Carly Simon sang, “Anticipation”: “It’s making me wait. It’s keeping me way-yay-yay-yay-yay-yay-yayting.”

Had Carly Simon been alive 250 years ago, I have no doubt her song would have been playing in the background for Thomas Jefferson on June 29, 1776. The day before, June 28, he and his four colleagues on the “Committee of Five” had formally submitted their draft of the Declaration of Independence. Congress accepted the draft, but delegates were not yet ready to take up the document as a piece of business. They would not do so until July 1.

What might those days of limbo have felt like?

Continue reading “The Anticipation of Late June 1776” →