Opportunity knocked for Horatio Gates with the fall of Charleston, South Carlina in May 1780. A devastating loss for the Americans, with nearly 6,000 men of the Southern Army under Benjamin Lincoln surrendered to Sir Henry Clinton. Unless something wasn’t done soon, the entire southern colonies could fall and the revolution along with it. Congress needed someone who could inspire men to join the war effort and a trusted leader with a positive record. Washington put Nathaniel Greene’s name forward, but Congress in a rare move went against Washington’s wishes and appointed Horatio Gates as commander of the Southern Department on June 13th.
Major General Horatio Gates, ca. 1794 by Gilbert Stuart
The road from his victory at Saratoga to the Southern Department wasn’t an easy one for Gates. He sought independent field command and many believe he wanted Washington’s position as commander in chief. His allies in Congress and the Continental Army lobbied heavily on Gates’ behalf and were able to have Gates appointed to the powerful Board of War (the defacto Department of Defense). Though an important role (and serving as Washington’s civilian superior), Gates believed he belonged in the field. Though his role in the famous “Conway Cabal” is still debated today, he was implicated via letters in criticizing Washington’s leadership. Whether his involvement was real or not, the relationship between him and Washington (and Washington’s inner circle) was seriously damaged. Due to the situation, Gates resigned from the Board of War and accepted appointment as department commander of the Northern Department. In this role he was responsible to look after the New York Highlands and watch from British incursions from Canada or New York city. Gates was unhappy in this role and proposed another American invasion of Canada. Washington and Congress disagreed and rejected his plans. He disliked his task of dealing with enemy native tribes in the region and dragged his feet in following orders. Finally, that fall, Gates took command of American forces in New England with his headquarters in Boston. Though excited by this appointment, he quickly realized that this post was not where the action would be. The British left Boston in 1776 and since the city was peaceful and not a welcome place for a man seeking glory and military action. Finally, after much frustration, Gates asked to return to his farm in Virginia and arrived there by December 1779. Gates found himself a hero without an army and continued to brood over his situation.
The link to register for the Third annual Emerging Revolutionary War Symposium on September 24, 2022 is now live! To register for this year’s symposium visit: https://shop.alexandriava.gov/EventPurchase.aspx
The Lyceum in historic Alexandria, VA
Emerging Revolutionary War is excited to continue our partnership with Gadsby’s Tavern Museum and The Lyceum of Alexandria, VA to bring to you a day-long Symposium focusing on the American Revolution. The theme for 2022 is “The World Turned Upside: The American Revolution’s Impact on a Global Scale.” The American Revolution created waves across the world with its lasting impacts felt even today. This symposium will study the effects of this revolution that transformed governments and the governed across the globe.
King Louis XVI
Our speakers and topics include:
Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky: “Peace and Inviolable Faith with All Nations”: John Adams, Independence, and the Quest for Neutrality.
Dr. Norman Desmarais: “Reevaluating Our French Allies”
Kate Gruber: “A Retrospective Revolution: England’s Long 17th Century and the Coming of Revolution in Virginia”
Scott Stroh: “George Mason and the Global Impact of the Virginia Declaration of Rights”
Eric Sterner: “Britain, Russia, and the American War”
We will be highlighting each speaker and their topics in the coming weeks. Registration fee is only $60 per person and $50 for Office of Historic Alexandria members and students. If you feel more comfortable attending virtually, the fee is $30. Again, to register visit: https://shop.alexandriava.gov/EventPurchase.aspx
It is that time again, for another Emerging Revolutionary War Sunday Night Happy Hour! This will be our 50th Sunday Night Happy Hour! There is no better way to celebrate than to talk about New Jersey in the American Revolution.
Robert M. Dunkerly
New Jersey was one of the most fought over areas during the American Revolution. Most know of the battles of Trenton, Princeton and Monmouth, but central New Jersey witnessed many small battles and important events during the Revolution. This area saw it all: from spies and espionage, to military encampments like Morristown and Middlebrook, to mutinies, raids, and full blown engagements like Bound Brook and Springfield. This part of New Jersey saw more action during the Revolution than anywhere else in the young nation. A full understanding of the war demands a study of these events and places.
We welcome historian and author Robert Dunkerly who has authored the latest ERW book titled “Unhappy Catastrophes: The American Revolution in Central New Jersey, 1776-1782” due out later this year. This talk coincides with our bus tour this November of Trenton and Princeton and will provide a good backdrop on the situation in New Jersey in 1776.
This Sunday, August 22nd at 7pm we will go live on our Facebook page. We look forward to this lively discussion and we encourage questions and comments via the chat box. “See” you this Sunday!
Over the next few months, we will be highlighting the speakers and topics for our 2021 Symposium, Hindsight is 2020: Revisiting Misconceptions of the Revolution, taking place on May 22nd. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Symposium will be virtual. Today we highlight historian and author Michael Harris, who will be covering the misconceptions around the role of John Sullivan at the Battle of Brandywine.
Michael C. Harris is a graduate of the University of Mary Washington and the American Military University. He has worked for the National Park Service in Fredericksburg, Virginia, Fort Mott State Park in New Jersey, and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission at Brandywine Battlefield. He has conducted tours and staff rides of many east coast battlefields. Michael is certified in secondary education and currently teaches in the Philadelphia region. He lives in Pennsylvania with his wife Michelle and son Nathanael. He is the author of two books on the Philadelphia Campaign (Brandywine: A Military History of the Battle that Lost Philadelphia but Saved America, September 11, 1777 & Germantown: A Military History of the Battle for Philadelphia, October 4, 1777) and is currently working on a third volume to cover the final months of the campaign. He will be presenting his talk “John Sullivan and the Battle of Brandywine” at the May symposium.
Doyou believe the study of Loyalists in the American Revolution has been overlooked and why?
I think at one time that was true, but over the last couple of decades historians have been digging deeper into the role the Loyalist population played in the Revolution and I feel that pattern of neglect has been corrected. I think Loyalists were often overlooked because historians of the “Struggling to Overcome” theme of American Revolution historiography were more focused on the patriot struggle than the complicated role the non-patriot population played.
What first attracted you to the study of early American history? What keeps you involved in the study of this history? Do you find these things are the same or different?
While I always had an interest in early American history, my professional career began as a Civil War historian at Fredericksburg Battlefield. The shift to took place when I was hired to work at Daniel Boone’s birthplace and then later the Brandywine Battlefield. While I currently teach at the high school level, my study of history continues due to my love of wanting to tell the military story of the Revolution and striving to dispel the many myths out there about the battles of the Philadelphia region.
What is the biggest myth about the role Loyalists played in the war, and how did it come about?
While this is not my area of expertise, I would say that there is some thought that thousands of Loyalists flocked to the British standard to help put down the rebellion. At least that is what British leadership hoped would happen. That myth, then and now, drove British decision making. While a limited number of Loyalists did support the British cause militarily, it was never in the numbers believed now or in the numbers the British hoped for then.
Do you think there are common misconceptions of the era of the American Revolution among the American people? If so, what are they and have they ever affected your work?
I think a lot of us were taught bad history growing up. You know, the George Washington chopped down a cherry tree stuff. We grew up believing those things and trusting the “traditional” histories of the Revolution. Then, you get a job at one of these sites, and you starting digging into the primary documents yourself. All of sudden, you realize this was a lie and that was a myth. That is when I realized I had to write the Brandywine book and that effort continued with my Germantown book.
Why do you think it is important for us to study the Revolutionary Era?
There was a real struggle by the patriot population during the years of the American Revolution. There is no denying that. But that story cannot be told in a vacuum. That story is interwoven with the story of the British Crown to put down the rebellion and the story of the Loyalist & Neutral populations of North America. I don’t think that interconnected story has been told well and needs to continue to be explored.
Join us for our SECOND annual Emerging Revolutionary War Symposium, co-hosted by Gadsby’s Tavern Museum, speakers and topics include:
Michael Harris on Misconceptions of Battle of Brandywine Vanessa Smiley on Myths of the Southern Campaigns Travis Shaw on American Loyalists John U Rees on African American Continental Soldiers Mark Maloy on myths of the Battle of Trenton
Our registration fee is now only $40 per person and $20 for students. This will allow us to broaden our audience with the virtual program. We hope that 2022 will allow us to come together again in Alexandria for our third annual symposium. To register, visit: https://shop.alexandriava.gov/Events.aspx
Over the next few months, we will be highlighting the speakers and topics for our 2021 Symposium, Hindsight is 2020: Revisiting Misconceptions of the Revolution, taking place on May 22nd. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Symposium will be virtual. Today we highlight historian Travis Shaw who will be covering the role of American Loyalists during the Revolution. Not all Americans supported the “patriot” and many sided with the British.
Travis Shaw is currently the Public Programs Coordinator for the Virginia Piedmont Heritage Area. He brings nearly two decades of experience in the fields of historic preservation, archaeology, and museum education, working with both private and public institutions. Prior to joining VPHA he spent time at Historic St. Mary’s City, The Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab, Mount Vernon, and Oatlands Historic House and Gardens. He holds a BA in history from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and an MA in history with a concentration in public history from American University. His areas of research include the material culture of colonial America, the American Revolution, and maritime history. In his free time, Travis enjoys exploring historic sites with his family and participating in 18th and early 19th century living history events.
He will be presenting his talk “Disaffected and Dangerous Persons”: Loyalist Resistance in the Mid-Atlantic at the May symposium.
Doyou believe the study of Loyalists in the American Revolution has been overlooked and why?
It absolutely has been overlooked for most of the post-Revolutionary era. As the saying goes, history is written by the winners, and loyalists have largely been written out of the national narrative. If they get mentioned at all they are portrayed as a small and unimportant group of weak and cowardly traitors. In reality loyalists hailed from nearly every background and every colony and represented a sizable minority in the colonies. They played an important role in the political and military conduct of the revolution. Following the war tens of thousands would flee the newly independent states, while many more remained behind and had to reintegrate into society. In the interest of post-revolutionary unity their story was suppressed, ignored, and villainized and it’s only been in the last few decades that academics have given their stories serious study.
What first attracted you to the study of early American history? What keeps you involved in the study of this history? Do you find these things are the same or different?
For me, the study of history has always been intensely personal. I grew up near Frederick, Maryland, and so history was all around me. I used to spend countless hours wandering Civil War battlefields or exploring colonial cemeteries. It grounded me in the past and made history a very tangible thing for me. I could immerse my self in the landscape and literally touch it. This led me to archaeology. Uncovering artifacts and knowing that you are the first person to have touched that object in hundreds or even thousands of years is an incredibly powerful feeling.
One of the big missions of the Virginia Piedmont Heritage Area is the preservation of the historic landscape in northern Virginia. Being able to share this passion with others makes it easy to stay involved.
What is the biggest myth about the role Loyalists played in the war, and how did it come about?
I think that the biggest myth about loyalists is that they were all wealthy, deeply conservative people who adhered to the British cause to protect their financial and social status. There were certainly were some who fit this description, such as the influential New Yorker James De Lancy, but the vast majority of loyalists during the revolution came from the middle and lower classes of society, representing a full cross-section of the population. Their reasons for choosing loyalty were just as varied. For some it was driven by a real respect for the British constitution and way of government, which at the time represented the freest and most prosperous government on earth. For many ethnic and religious minorities there was a real fear of oppression at the hands of the local majority if British legal protections disappeared. As the war raged many enslaved people saw an opportunity for freedom with the British, while Native Americans saw British rule as the best bulwark against expanding colonists. For many loyalists, however, their decision was a deeply personal one, based on family and community ties and personal ideas of patriotism and honor. Many others were forced into loyalist after suffering at the hands of their patriot neighbors. There were as many motivations for loyalism as there were loyalists.
Do you think there are common misconceptions of the era of the American Revolution among the American people? If so, what are they and have they ever affected your work?
I come across a number of misconceptions in studying loyalism during the American Revolution. One of the biggest is the idea that the revolutionary movement was wildly popular during the period. Even by the best estimates, the patriot cause never held the majority in many regions during the war, and that the plurality of people just wanted to get by and survive. As with any conflict there are a lot of shades of gray, and an individual could move fluidly between categories of patriot, loyalist, and neutral. It’s also important to note that enthusiasm for the revolutionary cause waxed and waned dramatically depending on the fortunes of war. This is a topic that I’ll be examining at the symposium – how war weariness in communities led to resistance against the patriot government.
In a broader sense, I have always been irritated by the term “founding fathers,” as if all the founders were a monolithic block that all believed the same thing. It gets thrown around by modern people on both ends of the political spectrum as if their very invocation gives their argument indisputable weight. What this obscures is that the founders were individuals who held a wide range of sometimes conflicting political, religious, and cultural beliefs. Some were deeply conservative, others were radically progressive, but they managed to win a war and form a nation.
Join us for our SECOND annual Emerging Revolutionary War Symposium, co-hosted by Gadsby’s Tavern Museum, speakers and topics include:
Michael Harris on Misconceptions of Battle of Brandywine Vanessa Smiley on Myths of the Southern Campaigns Travis Shaw on American Loyalists John U Rees on African American Continental Soldiers Mark Maloy on myths of the Battle of Trenton
Our registration fee is now only $40 per person and $20 for students. This will allow us to broaden our audience with the virtual program. We hope that 2022 will allow us to come together again in Alexandria for our third annual symposium. To register, visit: https://shop.alexandriava.gov/Events.aspx
Stay tuned as we highlight our speakers and their topics in future blog posts.
Over the next few months, we will be highlighting the speakers and topic for our 2021 Symposium, Hindsight is 2020: Revisiting Misconceptions of the Revolution, taking place on May 22nd at The Lyceum in the City of Alexandria, VA. Today we start with historian and author Mark Maloy who will be covering the myths and misconceptions from the Battle of Trenton, 1776.
Historian Mark Maloy at Mount Vernon
Mark Maloy is a historian currently working for the National Park Service in Virginia. He holds an undergraduate degree in History from the College of William and Mary and a graduate degree in History from George Mason University. He has worked at numerous public historic sites and archaeological digs for the past ten years. He is an avid Revolutionary War reenactor and resides in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife, Lauren, and son, Samuel. He is a regular contributor to the blog Emerging Revolutionary War.
Mark’s first book, Victory or Death” The Battles of Trenton and Princeton, was released by Savas Beatie in 2018. His next book will be about Charleston, SC during the American Revolution and will be released late this year or early 2022. Both are part of Savas Beatie’s Emerging Revolutionary War series.
He will be presenting his talk: “Drunk Hessians and Other Myths of the Ten Crucial Days” at the May symposium.
Why do you believe the Battle of Trenton was a significant event in the American Revolution?
The Battle of Trenton was not just A significant event in the American Revolution, it was THE significant event of the American Revolution. This was because of the crisis the recently declared independent country was facing in December of 1776. The Americans had lost nearly every battle up until this point, confidence in General George Washington (and the United States) was at an all-time low, and the remnants of the Continental Army were evaporating. Thomas Paine declared “These are the times that try men’s souls.” The events at Trenton (and the following week at Assunpink Creek and Princeton) changed the entire course of the war and the new nation. This military campaign saved the Revolution. As one British historian aptly summed up the campaign: “it may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting results upon the history of the world.”
What first attracted you to the study of early American history? What keeps you involved in the study of this history? Do you find these things are the same or different?
Historic sites first attracted me to the study of history, and they continue to keep me involved. As a child growing up in northern Virginia, I first learned of early American history by visiting sites such as Mount Vernon and Gunston Hall. The power of visiting the places where history occurred was incredibly moving. It moved me to pursue a career in archaeology and public history, and I currently work for the National Park Service. Surprised at the lack of national recognition for the Trenton and Princeton battlefields, I worked to publish a book about the significant campaign in 2018 that offers readers a self-guided tour of the places where the history occurred.
What is the biggest myth about the Battle of Trenton, and how did it come about?
I think the biggest myth of the Battle of Trenton is the story that the Hessian soldiers were drunk and helpless when the patriots attacked on December 26, 1776. This is actually a very old myth that probably dates to the time period. Shortly after the embarrassing defeat, British officers began pedaling this story to denigrate the Hessian soldiers and the stories grew from there. While the story is fun to recount, it actually ends up belittling the actions of Washington and his soldiers. While the Hessians were surprised, they put up a tough fight, and the actual battle is often overlooked by the general public who probably think it was more an assault on a band of drunkards than the stand up fight it turned out to be.
Do you think there are common misconceptions of the era of the American Revolution among the American people? If so, what are they and have they ever affected your work?
There are plenty of misconceptions of the Revolution. Some would argue too many. The whole period is often awash in romantic hagiography. Stories of wooden teeth, cherry trees, and Betsy Ross flags surround the stories of the founding of the country. While these myths can make it difficult to learn what actually occurred, they serve as important touchstones to access the real history. While the image of Washington Crossing the Delaware is full of historical inaccuracies, it is an image many Americans have seen or can relate to, and the essence of the painting still displays the important themes of the event. So, while they can be burdensome, they can also play important roles in learning about the past.
Why do you think it is important for us to study the Revolutionary Era?
Our nation was born during the Revolution. It was during this time period we laid our highest ideals of self-government and liberty; ideals we still hold dear 250 years later. To better understand our country (the people, the institutions, the principles) we must study the Revolution. But in order for this nation to be born, a war had to be fought. Often times the military history of the Revolution is overlooked as the causes, ideals, and effects are studied more deeply. I think the military story of the war needs to be studied more, as there would be no country without the military victory, which was one of the most improbable triumphs in history.
Join us for our SECOND annual Emerging Revolutionary War Symposium. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, we postponed the 2020 Symposium to May 22, 2021 with the same topics and speakers. Co hosted by Gadsby’s Tavern Museum, speakers and topics include:
Michael Harris on Misconceptions of Battle of Brandywine Vanessa Smiley on Myths of the Southern Campaigns Travis Shaw on American Loyalists John U Rees on African American Continental Soldiers Mark Maloy on myths of the Battle of Trenton
Stay tuned as we highlight our speakers and their topics in future blog posts.
Registration is $60 per person, $50 for Office of Historic Alexandria members and students.
Every year the historians of Emerging Revolutionary War take a fall trip to research, visit Revolutionary War sites/battlefields and to promote our museum partners and preservation. The trip usually is a follow up to our Annual Symposium, but with the COVID-19 pandemic, that has been moved to May 22nd (you can get more information on speakers, topics and registration on our Symposium link from our main page).
The ERW Crew recreates the surrender scene at Saratoga last fall.
After much discussion, we have decided to keep our annual fall trip tradition, but a more scaled back version. Don’t worry there will still be revelry and Facebook lives! Our original plan was to head to North and South Carolina, as a follow up to our visit there in 2018. In lieu of COVID-19, we have decided to keep it more “local” by focusing on sites in and around Yorktown, VA (many of our contributors are based in Virginia and Maryland). We will visit sites such as Gloucester, Yorktown, Spencer’s Ordinary, Green Spring, Great Bridge and Williamsburg.
Memorial at Green Spring Battlefield
We will be posting FB Live videos the entire trip, bringing you some behind the scenes opportunities with our museum partners, some exclusive talks with historians and we will wrap up the trip with a special Sunday Night Rev War Revelry. Stay tuned to our blog and social media pages starting on November 6th and continuing on to our Sunday Night Rev War Revelry on November 8th.
Our goal is not just to share with you great information and encourage support for historic sites/museums but also to share with you the fun and passion we have for interpreting the events around the American Revolution. As a public history focused effort, we feel making history fun and accessible leads to a great appreciation for our shared history. We hope you join us virtually on our trip this November.
Today 240 years ago in the back country of South Carolina, General Horatio Gates and his “Grand Army” were encamped around Rugeleys Mills South Carolina. He had come a long way in a short amount of time with his army from Deep Creek, NC. The men were ill fed, mostly poorly trained militia but he needed to strike a win for the American cause in the South. What he planned that evening is still debated today.
Gates had only been in command of the re comprised Southern Continental Army for a few weeks. He was tasked with turning around a disastrous year for the Americans in South Carolina. Most of the Southern army was captured at Charleston in May 1780 and then a bloody defeat of Virginia forces on May 29th at Waxhaws. American partisans such as Moultrie and Sumter had found some success, but the Continental Congress worried that they were about to lose the southern colonies. Something had to be done and many believed (though Washington and his supporters wanted Nathaniel Greene) the hero of Saratoga was the man for the job.
Now that Gates had brought his army so close to the British post at Camden, SC he needed intelligence on his next move. There could be no misstep, he was only 12 miles from the British at Camden. At that time, Gates believed he outnumbered the British under Lord Rawdon, but what he was soon to find out is he over inflated his own numbers and now Lord Cornwallis was in command. Gates’ force was still slightly larger, but it was mostly made up for militia. The British army comprised of some of the best units in North American. A very different situation indeed.
Gates ordered his engineer Lt. Col. Johann Christian Senf and Virginian Lt. Col. Charles Porterfield southward towards Camden. Senf was to find a suitable location for the American army to march and set up a defensive position. Gates had no illusions to attacking the British at Camden, and most likely he hoped they would abandon Camden all together. Senf wrote “reconnoitering a deep creek 7 miles in front was found impassable 7 miles to the right and about the same distance to the left, only at the place of the Ford interjects the great road”. (1) This creek was Saunder’s Creek and it is where Gates decided to move his “Grand Army” and await developments from Thomas Sumter who he had sent on a mission along the Wateree River in the flank and rear of Camden.
There is much debate today about names of streets, buildings, and sports teams. One team that has been in the headlines for several years about their name is the Washington Redskins. Now, I have to be upfront…I have been a Redskins fan since I was a young child. I remember most of the glory years of John Riggins, Joe Gibbs and many other Hall of Famers. In the years of the 1980’s, not much was said about the name as a racist connotation. I am sure there were protests, but they were not mainstream and everyone in Virginia, Maryland and DC in those years followed the team. The name Redskins was not a racial connotation that their racially “challenged” owner George Preston Marshall (who had many issues with his own racism) came up with degrade Native Americans. It was a name that harked to a historical theme.
What we know today as the Washington Redskins began in 1932 as the Boston Braves. Now this new professional football team was not the only team in Boston named the Braves. At that time, the oldest baseball team in Boston were also called the Braves. This team began as the Boston Red Stockings and then the Boston Beaneaters, changing their name to the Boston Braves in 1912. Here is where the history gets murky. The owner of the Boston Braves, James Gaffney was a product of Tammany Hall, a powerful political machine out of New York City. Tammany Hall used as their moniker an American Indian Chief, with other Native American symbols in their imagery and media. With his connection to Tammany Hall, many believed Gaffney used the same imagery to rebrand his baseball team. Others in Boston believed Gaffney was playing to the local historical ties of the Boston Tea Party. During the Boston Tea Party, colonists dressed up as “Indians” (Mohawks to be more precise) to raid three tea ships at Griffin’s Wharf, destroying over 300 chests of East India Company tea. Most of them covered their skin in burnt ochre, which gave a dark reddish tint. We will never know if Gaffney chose the name “Braves” for Tammany Hall or the Boston Tea Party, but both were fitting historical ties.
Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773
So, how does this tie into the football team? As George Preston Marshall brought professional football to Boston, he wanted to tie into the local sports lexicon of the region. Picking the name “Braves” for his team fit well as it matched the popular baseball team in town and also the football team played in the same stadium as the baseball franchise. Also, the previous team that played professional football in Boston was a traveling franchise named the Cleveland Indians. Though not sure, I believe Marshall had all of these in his mind in naming the team the Braves. Native American imagery and mascots were well known in Boston at this time, it seems that Marshall was trying to set his new team up for success. That first season the Braves finished .500 and Marshall moved the team to play their games at Fenway Park. Fenway was a state-of-the-art stadium at the time, built in 1934 and was the home to Boston’s other professional baseball team, the Boston Red Sox (which, also claimed their lineage to the same team the Boston Braves did, the Boston Red Stockings).
Boston Redskins vs. New York Giants
In moving the team, Marshall tried to distance himself from the Braves baseball team and changed the name to Redskins. There were no other professional teams called the Redskins, though some minor league and local teams used the name. This move was more marketing than anything else, trying to establish their own professional sports team identity. Also, Marshall was known for being economical, and by using the name Redskins he wouldn’t have to change uniforms. The Boston Redskins would go on to play in Boston until 1936, moving to Washington, D.C. in 1937. Marshall, for all his faults, was a smart businessman and believed there was money to be made in bringing professional football to the south. By moving the Redskins to Washington, they were the first NFL team in the south (how many of us would consider Washington, D.C. the south today?). Even the original song “Hail to the Redskins” had the lines “fight for old Dixie” which have been changed to “fight for old D.C.”
Part of me believes the name is more contentious today mostly because the team on the field has not been very good since the 1990’s. If this was a perennial winner like they were in the 1980’s, would this be a hot topic? Maybe it would as we look at all of our names and mascots, but I think it is highlighted by the losing and the current unpopular owner, making the current pressure unbearable. We know the name will change (though I have my own personal opinions of why they should not change the name), but the original name is rooted in American history and is more complex than you see on ESPN or other news outlets. Through this brief synopsis of the team’s name, I hope the basis for the name is clearer. I know we all won’t agree on what is offensive and not offensive and we will never know if Gaffney and Marshall named their teams to honor the colonists at the Boston Tea Party. But for one young kid who grew up in Virginia who loved history and the Redskins, its was a great match of history and sports.
Battle of Lexington by Amos Doolittle, December, 1775
One of the most amazing parts of the events on April 19, 1775 is just how sophisticated the colonial information network was. As soon as Lt. Col. Francis Smith’s British Regulars began to move across the Charles River, riders fanned out from Boston and to neighboring towns. Each town then had more riders that spread out and soon dozens of men were riding through the New England countryside warning of the fighting that took place. Soon information spread to the mid-Atlantic colonies and Philadelphia on April 24th. In the age of no electricity, the complexities and speed that news traveled from Boston to the other colonies was pretty amazing. Stories grew from person to person and it would take months and even years to decipher truth from exaggeration. It was imperative for both the “Patriots” and General Thomas Gage to get their version of the events of April 19th out as fast as possible. Facts or not, the importance of the public relations was of utmost importance to both sides to win the hearts and minds of the other colonies.
As the news reached Virginia, the colony was already at a crossroads with their
Virginia Lt Governor, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore
Governor. The last House of Burgesses that met in Williamsburg was dissolved in August 1774 over their vocal support of the people of Massachusetts after the Boston Port Act. The once popular Governor, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore (Governor Dunmore), was angered over their overt support and ordered them dissolved and returned home. The legislature defied his orders and met soon after at the nearby Raleigh Tavern, thus constituting the “First Virginia Convention.” With questionable legal authority, the Convention called for solidarity and non-importation of British goods. They also agreed to meet again in the future. The “Second Virginia Convention” met in March of 1775 in Richmond, a safe distance from the Governor’s influence in Williamsburg. It was at this Convention that Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech on March 23. Though considered radical at the time, the speech energized the Convention and set the tone. When the Governor learned of the Convention and especially Henry’s speech, he made a fateful decision to remove the gunpowder stored in the magazine in Williamsburg. Continue reading ““The Sword is Now Drawn…” The Powder Incident, Lexington and Concord moves Virginia to Revolution”→
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 