Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Evan Portman
Overlooking the Grand Parade at Valley Forge National Historical Park is a statue almost as solid as the man it portrays. Baron von Steuben helped transform the American army into an effective and efficient fighting force in the winter of 1777-1778, but he also aided the country nearly a century and a half later. Yes, Baron von Steuben helped the United States through World War I—or at least the social turmoil on the home front.
Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand Steuben was born in Prussia (modern day Germany) in 1730 and served in the Prussian army through the Seven Years’ War. By 1775, Steuben had accrued a considerable amount of debt (despite his stature within the aristocracy), so he sought a foreign military appointment. Failing to catch the eye of the British, French, or Austrians, the Baron set his sights on the fledgling American government. Congress arranged for Steuben to be paid, depending on the outcome of the war, and sent him to the winter encampment at Valley Forge. There, he began drilling the Continental army and instituted better hygiene and sanitation practices. He also wrote a drill manual, which he published in 1779 as Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States. After the encampment at Valley Forge, Steuben participated in the Southern Campaign of the Revolutionary War. After the Siege of Yorktown, Congress awarded the Baron a tract of land in New York where he died in 1794.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Nicholas Benevento.
“The Line of Splendor: A Novel of Nathanael Greene and the American Revolution” is a historical novel written by Salina Baker. In her novel, she brings to life a figure who deserves more fame and recognition for his pivotal role in the Revolution. Nathanael Greene was a selfless general and leader who fought valiantly to defend his country and provide for his troops. He was a man who defied the odds and was placed in a position of power and leadership, a favorite of General George Washington. He was a man willing to put everything on the line for the independence and freedom of the United States.
Baker’s book picks up with Nathanael Greene’s life early in the 1770s when Nathanael is about the age of thirty. At this time, there were growing tensions in the American Colonies with Mother England. Shortly before the war broke out, Nathanael married his wife Caty in 1774, and Baker does a masterful job weaving their relationship into the story of his time in the war.
Baker’s work is a fascinating depiction of Nathanael Greene and the American Revolution. Readers of history often read facts and descriptions of events, which Baker provides. But she also takes the reader into the thoughts and conversations of Nathanael Greene, as well as other key figures in his life. Therefore, while this is a fiction novel, enthusiasts of this time period in American history would love this novel. Baker weaves in the history of the war, while also providing us with dialogue and feelings of Nathanael. Baker’s novel is a reminder to the reader that the generals and soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War were not mythical figures who fought a war that would inevitably end in an American victory. These were real men with real emotions carrying their insecurities and flaws, while experiencing the highs and many lows of the war. Greene was central to many of the key battles early in the war, from the siege of Boston, to the debacle of New York, to the triumph of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, to the trying times at Valley Forge. Greene held a tremendous weight on his shoulders throughout the war, especially when he led the Southern Army late in the war during the Southern Campaign.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian, Nathaniel Parry, a brief bio follows this post.
The American Revolution was a victory of liberty over tyranny made possible by a mixture of courage, grit, and virtue. It was also, however, a morally ambiguous affair with some of the main participants motivated as much by ambition as they were by idealism. While many of the founding generation prided themselves on their virtue, vice also played an important role in their rebellion against the British, and to fully appreciate this reality, it is useful to examine the role of alcohol, which turns up at many of the revolution’s key moments.
In ways sometimes subtle and often quite important, alcohol provided the impetus for the nation’s founding, belying the pristine image of an honorable rebellion of virtuous patriots against liberty-hating tyrants. From John Hancock celebrating the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 by “treat[ing] the Populace with a Pipe of Madeira Wine,” as one newspaper reported,[i] to militiamen wetting their whistles at Buckman Tavern before the Battle of Lexington and Concord,[ii] to General George Washington ordering “an extra ration of liquor to be issued to every man”[iii] in celebration of Britain’s recognition of America’s independence in 1783, alcohol pops up again and again during the revolutionary era. This was a reflection of the fact that drinking was an integral part of daily life in early America.
John Hancock and the Liberty Affair
With heavy drinking habits widespread among all classes and regions, the rum distillery industry flourished in the colonies, made possible by cheap imports of molasses from the West Indies. By one count, there were more than 150 rum distilleries in New England before the revolution, and throughout the colonies some five million gallons of rum were being produced.[iv] In order to ensure access to the cheapest molasses available and to bypass restrictive English regulations such as the Navigation Acts and 1733 Molasses Act, smuggling became rampant in the colonies, a problem that Parliament sought to address with the adoption of the Sugar Act in 1764. An attempt to crack down on smuggling and increase revenue, the Sugar Act had the effect of increasing the price of manufacturing rum and negatively affected the exporting capacity of New England distillers, leading to consternation among merchants. It also heavily taxed the formerly duty-free wine from Madeira, Portugal, which was popular throughout the colonies. This angered both merchants and consumers.[v]
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest author Jim Bish as he describes the important events that happened in Williamsburg in May of 1774:
News of the Boston Tea Party reached London in January 1774 and Parliament reacted decisively passing the Boston Port Act on March 31, 1774, calling for the closing the port of Boston on June 1, 1774. News of the Boston Port Act reached Virginia before May 19th severely disrupting Virginia’s House of Burgesses planned business. After hearing the news about Boston, the Burgesses primary focus and action was a response to the Boston Port Act. Virginia Burgess Richard Henry Lee described his response to the news of the Port Bill to his brother, Arthur Lee, who resided in London, “We had been sitting in Assembly near three weeks, when a quick arrival from London brought us the Tyrannic Boston Port Bill, no shock of Electricity could more suddenly and universally move— Astonishment, indignation, and concern seized on all. The shallow Ministerial device was seen thro instantly, and every one declared it the commencement of a most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America, and that it demanded a firm and determined union of all the Colonies to repel the common danger.”
The Virginia capitol building as it appeared in 1774. (Wikipedia)
By May 24th the burgesses had drafted their response. According to Thomas Jefferson, “We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention . . . we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the Port bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, to implore heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and parliament to moderation and justice.”
On May 26th, Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette published the House of Burgesses resolution and as ordered. Broadsides of the resolution were also published and probably preceded the newspapers printing. Governor Dunmore referred to the broadside printing when, on 26 May, he summoned the burgesses to the council room and thus addressed them: “I have in my hand a Paper published by Order of your House, conceived in such Terms as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain; which makes it necessary for me to dissolve you; and you are dissolved accordingly.”
Royal Governor Lord Dunmore. While politically at odds with many of the Burgesses, they remained personally cordial. The morning of the 26th, he ate breakfast with George Washington. On the evening of May 27th, the Burgesses attended a ball at the Governor’s Palace for Lady Dunmore.
Having been dissolved by the royal governor had certainly occurred before when there were grievances by Virginia’s House of Burgesses to either Parliament or the Crown. In 1765, Governor Fauquier dissolved the House of Burgesses when it passed a resolution against the Stamp Act. In May 1769 the Virginia House of Burgesses passed several resolutions condemning Britain’s stationing troops in Boston following the Massachusetts Circular Letter of the previous year. As a result, Governor Botetourt abruptly dissolved the General Assembly after the House of Burgesses adopted those measures. This time, the dissolution of the House seemed more worrisome. When the House of Burgesses were dissolved in 1769 much of the disagreement was about sending royal troops to Massachusetts. By 1774, troops had been in the Boston area for five years and now there was the deeper threat of using those troops to cease the livelihood of all Bostonians by closing down their means of trade, the harbor. It became clearly evident to the Virginia burgesses that if the Crown could take actions like this against Bostonians, they could also be used against Virginians.
To many of the burgesses, the dissolution of the House was surprising. This sentiment is revealed in a letter by George Washington to George William Fairfax on June 10, 1774 in which Washington states, “this Dissolution was as sudden as unexpected for there were other resolves of a much more spirited nature ready to be offered to the House wch. would have been unanimously adopted respecting the Boston Port Bill as it is calld but were withheld till the Important business of the Country could be gone through” Like earlier burgesses had done after being dissolved, most of the then, former-burgesses, agreed to meet at Raleigh Tavern. At least 89 of the previously assembled 120 Burgesses reconvened their extra-legal session in the Apollo Room at Raleigh Tavern a few blocks away as it was the largest facility to hold such a group.
The reconstructed Raleigh Tavern. The original burned in 1859. (Colonial Williamsburg)
On the following day of May 27, those “former burgesses” agreed to an association. They condemned Great Britain in that it had taken away their just, antient, and constitutional rights stating that the Boston Harbor bill is a most dangerous attempt to destroy the constitutional liberty and rights of all North Americans. The former burgesses charged that parliament was at fault for the purpose of raising a revenue, without the consent of the people and particular blamed the East India Company of attempting to ruin of America, by setting a precedent in favor of arbitrary taxation and as a result Virginia called for a boycott of the East India Company. They concluded by instructing the committee of correspondence to propose to the corresponding committees of the other colonies to appoint deputies to meet in Congress at such place, annually, as should be convenient to direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general interest. They declared that an attack on one colony should be considered as an attack on the whole. This “Former Burgesses Association” document was signed by the 89 former burgesses and printed in Williamsburg for all Virginians to read. There was rarely a more unified effort by deprived lawmakers in colonial Virginia. Before heading home to their respective counties, Virginia’s former burgesses were moving in a singular direction ignited by the Boston Port Act and now brought to a strong flame by the actions of Governor Dunmore.
On May 30th, three days after issuing the Association document, Peyton Randolph received correspondence from three different committees, Boston, New York, and Annapolis concerning their request for action. Randolph decided to locate former Burgess members who had not yet returned to their home counties and he located twenty-five. Out of necessity, those twenty-five former burgesses served as members of the Committee of Correspondence for Virginia.
The Peyton Randolph House
The following day, those 25 former burgesses were much more detailed and stronger in their messaging from that which appeared in the 89 former-burgesses association document. After hearing the sentiments from Boston, Philadelphia, and Maryland the 25 former burgesses thought that “we ought to adopt the scheme of Nonimportation to a very large extent.” They also defined a date and place, August 1, 1774 in Williamsburg, for the former burgesses to meet as a legislative body. They stated, “We fixed this distant Day in Hopes of accommodating the Meeting to every Gentleman’s private Affairs, and that they might, in the mean Time, have an Opportunity of collecting the Sense of their respective Counties.”
Virginia was headed quickly towards Revolution . . .
Follow our Facebook page this Sunday and Monday as Emerging Revolutionary War historians and guests will be in Colonial Williamsburg on the 250th anniversary of the dissolution of the House of Burgesses and the gathering of the former Burgesses at the Apollo Room in the Raleigh Tavern.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest author Michael Aubrecht
At the time of the Revolutionary War it is estimated that there were over a half million African-Americans living in the thirteen colonies. As the rebellion’s patriotic call to fight for liberty grew, the British government sought to undermine the expanding Continental Army by soliciting slaves who ran away from their masters. By promising to grant them their freedom and security, the Redcoat ranks were able to boost their manpower on the battlefield instead of constantly relying on the importation of additional troops who took months to travel to the Americas from England. Some of these all-black units even flourished as in the example of the Royal Ethiopian Regiment and later, the Black Pioneers.
According to the Atlantic Canada Virtual Archives Website Black Loyalists in New Brunswick: “In November 1775, Virginia Governor Lord Dunmore, hoping to bolster the British war effort, encouraged slaves and indentured servants of the Patriots to join His Majesty’s army. Many did so. When the British evacuated their army from Boston to Halifax in 1776, a “Company of Negroes” was part of the entourage. British Commander-in-Chief Sir Henry Clinton extended the policy of appealing to African Americans in his Phillipsburg Proclamation of 1779 in which he offered security behind British lines to ‘every negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard.'”
Following the British Army’s surrender, it is estimated that nearly 35,000 loyalists fled the United States to settle north in the provinces of Canada including the maritime regions of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Nearly 3,500 free black loyalists were among them including many who had fought alongside the Redcoats on behalf of the English crown. New Brunswick saw thousands of African-Americans settle in as new citizens and many went on to fight again for Britain in the War of 1812. Despite their service to the king, many black loyalists and their families still faced racial discrimination, although it paled in comparison to the institution of slavery that continued to thrive in the southern United States.
Michael Aubrecht is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Faith & Liberty in Fredericksburg.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Eric Wiser to the blog.
This is a brief story of my first and memorable visit to the Camden Battlefield in South Carolina this September past. I am a husband and father living in the suburbs of Chicago. I make my living as an accountant. As rewarding as my career has been, it’s my strong interest in early American history that stirs my imagination. My pilgrimage to Camden was part of a visit to my friend Phil Kondos who moved to eastern Georgia with his family over a decade ago. Phil is a gifted musician and wonderful father and happens to share a mutual love of history. This narrative of our visit will hopefully inspire others to place Camden Battlefield on their bucket list.
My interest in the Battle of Camden mostly derives from having a Patriot ancestor who fought there. Pvt. Michael Wiser, a 23-year-old grist miller from Frederick County, Maryland, was with the First Maryland Brigade and captured by the British at Camden.[i]
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Al Dickenson
Within the first few pages of his book, Brooklyn College professor Benjamin Carp illustrates all the key points about the 1776 burning of New York City. The points include how vital the city was to the war effort to both the rebels and Loyalists, a discussion on how the fire started (questioning if it was accidental or intentional, and if the latter, whose intention was it?), and furthermore, why has there never been a full investigation into the fire and its causes (Carp’s book is the first full-length work on the topic). In quick succession, readers understand what they will gain by reading this book, why the event in question is important for understanding the American Revolution, and Carp’s own thoughts on the matter.
Carp’s argument in The Great New York Fire of 1776 is that the rebels started the fire, and that the cause of the blaze was indeed arson, which previously had been in question (254). What Carp does not speak to, at least not without some speculation, is who precisely started the fire. While not totally disregarding George Washington’s potential involvement, Carp suggests the more likely culprits would be soldiers in Washington’s army. These men, and in many cases, boys, had yet to receive the disciple so desperately needed from Baron von Stueben’s efforts at Valley Forge, so it seems plausible they could start the inferno, which scorched up to a fifth of the city (244-245). As such, Carp puts his research skills to good use in this volume, sharing his thoughts on the possible origins of the fire and providing readers with a map of more than ten ignition points, illustrating how expansive the blaze was (104). Carp’s thesis is well supported by the primary material, which included letters, sermons, diaries, and other sources from the time.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes a guest post from historian Keith J. Muchowski. Keith is a librarian and professor at New York City College of Technology (CUNY) in Brooklyn. He blogs at thestrawfoot.com.
The plaque dedicated King Juan Carlos I in June 1976 today tucked in a corner of the visitor center. Courtesy Author
King Juan Carlos I arrived in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene Park on Saturday June 5, 1976 to great fanfare. The thirty-eight-year-old monarch had ascended to the Spanish throne just seven months previously, two days after the death of Francisco Franco. The new leader was determined to reform his nation after three and a half decades of strongman rule. Juan Carlos I’s ancestor, King Carlos III, had helped the colonists achieved their independence nearly two centuries previously with his supply of money, matériel, and men. Many of those Spaniards made the ultimate sacrifice; well over one hundred of them alone perished in British prison ships moored off Brooklyn Wallabout Bay during the war.[i] Now King Juan Carlos I was in the outer borough to recognize them, dedicate a tablet to his fallen countrymen, and help his American hosts celebrate the bicentennial of their independence. The entombed Spaniards were among the over 11,500 men commemorated by the Prison Ship Martyrs Monument. The king’s visit in the mid-1970s was the latest in a series of public commemorations of the prison ship dead dating back over a century and a half. Some of the institutions that did so much to recognize the martyrs, such as the Society of St. Tammany, are today long gone. Others however very much remain. The Society of Old Brooklynites, a civic organization founded in 1880 when Brooklyn was still an independent municipality, has been holding events since the late nineteenth century.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Kate Bitely.
In the heart of Fredericksburg, Virginia, you will find a well-preserved, Georgian-style home that once belonged to Betty Washington Lewis, the sister of George Washington. Historic Kenmore, as the home is known today, was constructed in the 1770s and originally sat on 861 acres near downtown Fredericksburg. Today, the historic house museum is open for daily tours where guests can explore the gardens, the main living floor of the home, several historic structures on the priority, and a visitor center filled with riveting artifacts and information.
Nearly 290 years ago, Betty Washington was born at Pope’s Creek in Westmoreland County, Virginia. As a young child, she lived in a few properties owned by the Washington family before relocating to Ferry Farm, located in Stafford County, Virginia, where Betty, George and their siblings grew up. On February 22, 1750, Betty married Fielding Lewis, a widowed distant cousin, and a father of two young children. In 1752, the family purchased 1300 acres in the Fredericksburg area and allocated a portion of the land as the future site for their home Millbrook, which was eventually renamed to Kenmore in the 1800’s. In total, Betty and Fielding welcomed eleven children, but only six survived to adulthood.
Fielding Lewis was a well-known member of his community. He built his wealth initially as a merchant, but was later elected as a member of the House of Burgesses and served as a colonel in the Revolutionary War. During the war, however, Lewis used his finances to personally pay for munitions and supplies for Patriot troops which ultimately drained much of the family’s resources.
The Lewis family were staunch Patriots. In 1775, when the Lewis’s were moving into their home, the spirit of independence was strong throughout the colonies. Given the Washington’s status, heritage and devotion to service, Betty and her family would become one of the biggest supporters for the Patriot cause, willing to risk their home, finances, reputation, and their safety in favor of breaking away from England. The impressive residence served as a visual representation of their wealth, which became significantly more important during the Revolutionary War.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes the contribution of Eric Olsen, Park Ranger/Historian at Morristown National Historical Park
Military history tends to be a lot of “so and so’s” brigade advanced on the left wing, while “what’s his face’s” division withdrew.” Lots of movements of large faceless masses of soldiers. Personally, I prefer the little personal stories of individuals in the face of battle. Here is one such story from the battle of Monmouth in June 1778.
Sir Henry Clinton
I recently ran across this little tidbit in a July 7, 1778, letter written by the Adjutant General of the Hessian forces in America, Major Carl Leopold Baumeister. He described an incident during the battle of Monmouth involving the British commander in chief, Sir Henry Clinton. “General Clinton in the thickest fire, was saved by one of his adjutants, Captain Sutherland, when a rebel colonel aimed at him, but missed. Captain Sutherland’s horse was wounded. Another adjutant, Lloyd, stabbed the colonel.”
The story sounded vaguely familiar. Then I recalled something I’d read written by a British officer named Thomas Anbury. He was a prisoner of war, part of Burgoyne’s captured “Convention Army.” Anbury and the other prisoners were being held near Charlottesville, Virginia. At a place called Jones’s Plantation, Anbury related the following story on May 12, 1779,
“A very singular circumstance took place in that battle [Monmouth], which fully marks the coolness and deliberation, though in the heat of action, of Sir Henry Clinton: As he was reconnoitering, with two of his Aide de Camps, at the short turning of two roads, they met with an American officer, exceedingly well mounted upon a black horse, who, upon discerning them, made a stop, and looked as if he wished to advance to speak to them, when one of Sir Henry Clinton’s Aid de Camps fired a pistol at him, and he instantly rode off. Sir Henry was much displeased at his Aide de Camp, and censured him for being so hasty, adding, he was confident that the man wished to speak to him, and perhaps, might have given intelligence that would have been very essential, remarking, that when he was in Germany last war, and reconnoitering with Prince Ferdinand, a man rode up in a familiar manner, and gave such intelligence as decided the fate of the day.”
To read more about the Battle of Monmouth, check out “A Handsome Flogging, the Battle of Monmouth, June 28, 1778 by William Griffith, part of the Emerging Revolutionary War Series.
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 