Have you ever heard of the popular saying, “No good deed goes unpunished?”
I wonder if there is a reverse to that, especially when it comes to stumbling into history?
Earlier in June, my uncle needed to go out of town and wanted someone to watch his house and two cats. He resides outside of Wilmington, Delaware. Thinking mid-June would be a good time to catch some of the historical sites in Philadelphia on the brink of the 250th in July, and with World Cup soccer games being played in the same city, even better.
I planned to go into the “City of Brotherly Love” one day, but thought the other day I would just drive around Wilmington and New Castle and see what I could discover. A day with no set plans. And that is when I stumbled into “Separation Day” in New Castle.
The United States Army traces its birthday back to June 14, 1775—the date the Second Congressional Congress voted to adopt the New England army then encircling the British in Boston.
Almost a year later to the day—June 12, 1776—the Congress voted to establish the Board of war and Ordnance, the precursor to today’s Department of Defense.[1] One could therefore make the argument that June 12, 2026, is the 250th birthday of the department. At the very least, one could directly trace the department’s ancestry back that far.
Congress voted to establish the board in response to pressure from Gen. George Washington, who desperately needed help managing the logistics of feeding, clothing, arming, equipping, and otherwise supplying the army. He spent at least as much time begging (in a dignified but humble way) various colonies for support as he did planning and executing military strategy and tactics. Supply worries were never far from his mind. “The reflection upon my Situation, & that of this Army, produces many an uneasy hour when all around me are wrapped in Sleep . . .” he wrote a confidant.[2]
But because everything about the Continental government was voluntary, that meant colonies—soon to be states—did not have to comply with Washington’s requests, let alone any Congressional resolutions. Colonies chronically undershot troop quotas and financial contributions.
Naivety ran high in those heady, early days of the war. Colonies believed militia, rather than a trained professional army, could somehow win the war. Their “patriotic spirit” would be enough to overcome the discipline and experience of the British army and its hired mercenaries. Even members of Congress, tied more regularly to military affairs through Washington’s correspondence, bought into the idea.
“You think the present army assisted by the militia is sufficient to oppose the force of Great Britain, formidable as it appears on paper,” one of Washington’s key confidents, Gen. Nathaniel Greene, told Congress in early June. He assured them they were “greatly deceived.”[3]
The creation of the Board of War did much to make the scales fall from Congressional eyes. It did so by bringing key members of Congress more directly into the management of the war.
On June 12, 1776 in Williamsburg, Virginia, the Fifth Virginia Convention took a momentous step in defining new American liberty. The Virginia Declaration of Rights stands as one of the most influential political documents in American history. Adopted on June 12, 1776, it established a comprehensive statement of individual liberties and principles of government at a pivotal moment in the struggle for independence from Great Britain. Written primarily by George Mason, the Declaration articulated ideas about natural rights, popular sovereignty, freedom of the press, religious liberty, and the limits of governmental power. Its impact extended far beyond Virginia, influencing the United States Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights emerged during a period of revolutionary change. Colonists increasingly believed that British policies violated their rights as Englishmen and threatened their political freedoms. In response, revolutionary leaders sought not only independence but also a clear statement of the principles upon which a new government would rest. The Virginia Declaration of Rights provided such a foundation, becoming a landmark in the development of democratic governance and constitutional liberty.
Virginia played a leading role in this revolutionary process. The colony possessed many influential political thinkers who believed that government existed to serve the people and protect their rights. When Virginia’s Fifth Convention met in Williamsburg in the spring of 1776, delegates recognized the need to define the principles that would guide the formation of a new state government. Before drafting a constitution, they decided to establish a declaration of rights that would set limits on governmental authority and affirm the liberties of citizens.
George Mason, a respected Virginia planter and political philosopher, was tasked with preparing the document. Drawing upon Enlightenment ideas, English constitutional traditions, and colonial experiences, Mason produced a draft that would become the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Born in 1725, Mason was a wealthy landowner and self-educated scholar who developed strong views regarding individual liberty and responsible government.
George Mason, Courtesy Encyclopedia of Virginia
Unlike some of his contemporaries, Mason was deeply concerned about the concentration of political power. He believed that governments derived their authority from the consent of the governed and that citizens possessed inherent rights that no government could legitimately violate. His ideas reflected the influence of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, who argued that individuals possessed natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Mason’s draft underwent revisions by the Convention, but its essential principles remained intact. His work established a model for future declarations and constitutional protections. Although Mason later refused to sign the United States Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, his ideas eventually shaped the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights contains sixteen sections, each addressing specific political and civil principles. Together, they create a coherent philosophy of government centered on liberty and popular sovereignty.
The first article is perhaps the most famous. It declares that all men are by nature equally free and independent and possess inherent rights that cannot be surrendered when entering society. These rights include the enjoyment of life and liberty, the means of acquiring property, and the pursuit of happiness and safety.
This statement represented a significant departure from traditional notions of government based on inherited privilege or monarchy. Instead, it asserted that rights existed before government and that government existed primarily to protect those rights.
The concept of natural rights became a cornerstone of American political thought. Thomas Jefferson echoed these ideas in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights.
Another fundamental principle is the idea that political power originates with the people. The Declaration states that government is instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community.
This concept, known as popular sovereignty, rejects the doctrine of divine-right monarchy. According to the Declaration, rulers derive their authority from the consent of the governed rather than from hereditary privilege or divine appointment. If a government becomes destructive of the public welfare, the people have the right to reform, alter, or abolish it.
These ideas helped justify the American Revolution and became essential features of democratic government. The Declaration emphasizes the importance of dividing governmental authority among different branches. It argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be separate and distinct.
The purpose of this separation is to prevent tyranny and protect liberty. By ensuring that no single branch accumulates excessive power, the government can maintain accountability and preserve individual rights. This principle later became a central feature of both state constitutions and the United States Constitution.
The Declaration asserts that elections should be free and that citizens who have a permanent interest in and attachment to the community possess the right to vote and participate in government. Free elections are essential to representative government because they enable citizens to hold leaders accountable and ensure that governmental authority reflects the will of the people.
Several sections of the Declaration protect individuals against arbitrary government action. These provisions guarantee due process of law, prohibit excessive bail and cruel punishments, and affirm the right to a fair and impartial trial. Such protections reflect concerns about abuses of power by government officials. By requiring legal procedures and impartial justice, the Declaration seeks to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary authority.
These principles later influenced the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Declaration proclaims that freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained except by despotic governments. This provision recognizes the importance of an independent press in informing citizens, exposing abuses of power, and promoting public debate. The protection of press freedom became an essential component of democratic society and influenced the First Amendment.
George Mason’s hand written copy of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Courtesy Library of Virginia
The final section of the Declaration addresses religion and conscience. It states that religion can be directed only by reason and conviction rather than force or violence and that all individuals are entitled to the free exercise of religion.
Although the original language was somewhat limited, it represented a major step toward religious freedom. James Madison later strengthened these principles in Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom and in the First Amendment’s protections for religious liberty.
Thomas Jefferson drew heavily from Mason’s language and ideas when drafting the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration’s assertion that all men are by nature free and possess inherent rights closely parallels Jefferson’s statement that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration’s emphasis on government deriving its authority from the people and the right of citizens to alter or abolish oppressive governments appears prominently in the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps the Declaration’s greatest legacy lies in its influence on the United States Bill of Rights. When delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they created a new federal government but did not initially include a bill of rights. This omission concerned many Americans, including George Mason, who feared that the new government might threaten individual liberties.
The ensuing debate led to the adoption of the first ten amendments in 1791. James Madison, drawing heavily upon Virginia’s constitutional traditions, proposed amendments that reflected many principles found in Mason’s Declaration.
Examples include:
Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly.
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Guarantees of due process.
Rights to fair and speedy trials.
Prohibitions against excessive bail and cruel punishments.
The parallels between the Virginia Declaration and the Bill of Rights are unmistakable. Many of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be traced directly to Mason’s work.
Despite its significance, the Virginia Declaration of Rights contained important limitations and contradictions. Political participation was largely restricted to property-owning white males. Women, slaves, Native Americans, and many others were excluded from the political community envisioned by the document. These contradictions highlight the gap between revolutionary ideals and social realities. Over time, however, reformers and civil rights advocates invoked the Declaration’s principles to challenge inequality and expand the scope of liberty.
More than two centuries after its adoption, the Virginia Declaration of Rights remains a landmark in constitutional history. It was among the first modern documents to articulate a comprehensive set of individual rights and establish the principle that government exists to serve the people.
Its influence can be seen not only in American constitutional law but also in international human rights traditions. Documents such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and later human rights instruments reflect similar commitments to liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty.
The Declaration’s enduring significance lies in its assertion that rights are inherent to human beings and that governments must respect and protect those rights. These principles continue to shape democratic societies around the world 250 years later.
Depicted in various paintings, still standing watch over Breed’s Hill, his name is synonymous with the heroic American defense of the earthen redoubt that graced the aforementioned hill. Although forced to evacuate the work when overwhelmed by the third British advance and out of ammunition, Prescott had shown his value as a competent battlefield leader. Especially of the militia.
Yet, as America approached the 250th anniversary of the country, there had not been a single dedicated biography that covered his entire life. Prescott is mentioned in plenty of great historical works on the battle, the region, and the lives of other patriots who fought that day. But the Massachusetts native deserved more. Entered Donald R. Ryan.
Ryan, a volunteer historian and guide for Boston National Historical Park, took on the task of researching, locating, and even contacting living descendants of Prescott. You can now hold in your hands and read his excellent work on this great military figure, best known for his role in one of the most iconic battles of the American Revolution.
Before you do get your copy and settle in to read, tune in on Sunday evening, as Ryan will appear on our popular “Rev War Revelry” to discuss his book. Emerging Revolutionary War will go live at 7 p.m. EDT. and stream to our Facebook page.
Cannot make the live program on Sunday evening? Don’t fret, the program will be posted to our podcast and YouTube channels in the days after. Either way, hope you tune in to learn about Col. Prescot!
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Bjorn Bruckshaw
On a chilly but sunlit afternoon in Providence, smoke began to rise over Market Square—not from hearth fires meant to warm the town, but from a blaze built in defiance. As the smell of burning tar and tea drifted through the streets, cheers and shouts of defiance echoed through the square. Nearby, a man moved quickly from shop to shop, brush and lampblack in hand. One by one, he painted over a single word on storefront signs: TEA. This was no act carried out in secret. According to the Providence Gazette, he was “a spirited Son of Liberty,” and he worked in full view of the town as a crowd gathered around the growing fire.¹
Just beyond him, the protest had already begun.
Earlier that day, a town crier had moved through Providence announcing that a quantity of India tea would be burned in the Market Square that afternoon, calling upon “all true friends of their country, lovers of freedom, and haters of shackles and hand-cuffs” to assemble and cast the tea into the flames.² By the appointed hour, the square was filled. This was no spontaneous outburst. It was organized, deliberate, and intended to be seen.
At the center of the gathering, flames climbed upward as a barrel of tar was placed upon the fire. Into it were thrown not only tea—hundreds of pounds of it—but also printed copies of Lord North’s speech and other “obnoxious English papers.” ³ the destruction was more than economic protest. It was a public repudiation of British authority itself. And then came the moment that set Providence apart.
These were not men disguised as Mohawk Indians, shrouded in secrecy under the cover of night as in Boston. This was something different—an open, public act carried out in daylight. At its center stood the women of Providence, dressed in everyday clothing, without disguise, stepping forward with the same patriotism and candor to cast the tea into the flames before the gathered town.⁴
In that moment, the Providence Gazette captured one of the most remarkable features of the event, noting that the tea was “fed to the fire by the women of the town.”⁵ Women, long central to colonial resistance through boycotts and the management of household consumption, now stood in the public square, actively participating in the destruction itself. This was not quiet resistance confined to the home. It was visible, communal, and unmistakable.
The prominence of women in the Providence protest did not go unnoticed beyond Rhode Island. In Virginia, the event was reported in the Virginia Gazette, where the destruction of tea was described in strikingly gendered and satirical terms. The article referred to the event as the “funeral of Madam Souchong,” personifying the tea as a female figure while simultaneously reinforcing contemporary stereotypes about women.⁶ In doing so, the report transformed the protest into a symbolic spectacle, revealing how acts of resistance in one colony could be interpreted—and reshaped—by observers in another.
Rhode Island had already established itself as one of the most defiant colonies in British North America. Its long-standing resistance to imperial regulation, fueled by its maritime economy and frequent clashes with customs enforcement, made it a persistent source of frustration for British authorities. Loyalist observers took note. Writing during the conflict, Peter Oliver described resistance in New England as the work of “lawless men” driven by mob influence, portraying their actions as rooted in disorder rather than lawful opposition.⁷ British officials expressed similar concerns in the aftermath of the Gaspee Affair, viewing the destruction of the customs schooner as a “daring insult to the authority of the Crown” and evidence that resistance in Rhode Island had reached a dangerous level.⁸ In June 1772, that defiance became unmistakable when local patriots burned the Gaspee, a British vessel sent to enforce imperial law.
The British response only deepened colonial fears. Officials threatened to transport suspected participants to England for trial, raising concerns about the erosion of traditional rights and legal protections.⁹ In Rhode Island, the lesson was clear: British authority was not only intrusive but increasingly dangerous.
Nothing marked Friday, June 7, 1776, as an unusual day in Philadelphia. Residents of the city would not have taken much notice of Richard Henry Lee walking the three blocks from his temporary quarters in the home of Dr. William Shippen to the Pennsylvania State House, as he had done for several weeks prior as a member of Virginia’s delegation in the Second Continental Congress.
There was little in Lee’s manners or features that stood out, save his tall and lanky frame and the vanishing hair of a 44-year-old man in 18th-century America. Passers by might have noted the black silk glove covering Lee’s mangled, one-finger left hand, the stark reminder of a hunting accident he suffered years ago.
Richard Henry Lee, 1794.
One document in a stack of papers Lee carried looked like any other about the mundane business of the Congress trying to come to grips with fielding an army against Great Britain while also remaining loosely tied to the mother country. It was a document to sever that tie and declare Britain’s American colonies “free and independent states.”
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historians Lori Amos Doss & Jarred A. Marlowe, bios follow part one.
Part 1: From Charlotte County to Washington’s Guard
James Johnston was born in Charlotte County, Virginia, around 1756, though no exact record of his birth has survived. Like many Revolutionary War soldiers, much of his early life remains in shadow. Even the identities of his parents are uncertain, despite Johnston referring to them in later accounts. What we do know begins in November 1776, when he made the decision to leave home and enlist in the Continental Army for a three-year term.
He joined the 14th Virginia Regiment under Colonel Charles Lewis and soon marched north to join George Washington’s army at Morristown, New Jersey. At that stage of the war, the Continental Army was still finding its footing. Enlistments were short, supplies were inconsistent, and discipline varied widely from unit to unit. Yet within a matter of months, Johnston distinguished himself.
On May 1, 1777, he was selected for the Commander in Chief’s Guard, an elite corps formed to protect Washington personally, as well as the army’s funds and official documents. This was one of the most trusted assignments in the army. Officers were instructed to select men known for their honesty, sobriety, and reliability. Washington also had a preference for appearance, requesting soldiers who were well built, neat, and presentable. Johnston’s selection tells us a great deal about how he was viewed by those who knew him. He was not simply capable. He was dependable.
Halifax in northeastern North Carolina is one of the state’s most significant historic sites. This small town in rural Halifax County can rightly claim to be North Carolina’s Independence Hall.
Royal Governor Josiah Martin had fled the capital at New Bern in 1775. Relocating to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River, he fled again to a warship and tried to run the colony from offshore. With the departure of the Royal Governor, legislators met in Halifax to run the colony. Following the battle of Moores Creek in February, 1776, their efforts took on new urgency. While they had survived a failed Loyalist uprising and an aborted British invasion, they knew war would return.
At Halifax in April, delegates from across North Carolina met to take part in the Fourth Provincial Congress. Previous Provincial Congresses had met to take on the role of running the state with the Royal Governor’s departure. Some of the prisoners captured at Moores Creek arrived and placed in the jail, tangible proof that war had come to North Carolina.
Many felt it was too late for compromise and the only recourse was independence. At the time the Continental Congress in Philadelphia was debating that very topic. On April 12, 1776, the 83 delegates of the Provincial Congress unanimously ratified the Halifax Resolves. It was the first official act by any of the thirteen colonies calling for independence from Great Britain. While Virginia’s delegates in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia proposed it, North Carolina was the first colony to authorize it.
The date of April 12, 1776 is one of two on the state flag, the other, May 20, 1775 refers to the Mecklenburg Declaration, another Revolutionary event (though one whose accuracy is debated).
Since the 1960s a state historic site has preserved and interpreted the events in Halifax. A new visitor center with expanded exhibits opened last month to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Resolves.
The exhibits cover a wide range of topics, including Halifax’s economy, Native American and African American perspectives on the Revolution, the village’s role in the war effort, and its early preservation and interpretation. A highlight is an original copy of the Halifax Resolves on display. Exhibits explore the document in detail, discussing what it calls for and how the delegates debated it.
The museum is outstanding, with a mixture of attractive panels, artifacts, and videos and sound. Outside, the site of the original courthouse, where the Resolves were discussed, is marked. Archaeologists verified the site and markers describe how it was located. The historic site also includes many other late eighteenth and early nineteenth century buildings. Guided tours are available.
Halifax State Historic Site is just five miles off Interstate 95, not far from the Virginia state line. The museum and grounds are well worth a visit if you’re passing by.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Mike Busovicki
If the majority of American Colonists were from the British Isles, Africa, and Germanic States, why was Spanish currency so prevalent and how did it get here?
L-R: Silver half of a 1-reales coin, silver 2 reales, copy of an 8-reales (“piece of eight”) and copy of 1/8 (piece, or “bit”) of the 8-reales. Like cutting a pizza in half and cutting the halves again twice, it was easier to create a system based on “eighths” rather than a decimal one. (Photo by Mike Busovicki)
By the late 1400s, The Spanish had joined the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile through the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabela, wrested control of the Iberian Peninsula from the Islamic Moors and utilized the Catholic Church to enforce royal authority and justify brutal domestic and foreign policies.But these endeavors were expensive. Though successful in removing political opponents, it drove out or suppressed long standing medical, financial, and trade centers, especially in population hubs like Granada, Seville, and Toledo. Heavily in debt, the Spanish crown had to generate income from outside of Spain. Consolidating wealth and power into the hands of a few was expedient, but it excluded large segments of the population and resulted in domestic economic stagnation.
Copies of 4-Escudo coins. Escudo, meaning shield, referred to the coat of arms that validated coins. New world mines accounted for over 80% of the world’s silver and 70% of the world’s gold – it also funded conquest by the Ming, Qing, Mugul, Ottoman, and Safavid empires. (Photo by Mike Busovicki)
While French intervention, British politics, and German mercenaries constitute most discussions regarding European power during the Revolution, centuries of Spanish control of vast areas cannot be overstated.By courtesy of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., copyright 2016; used with permission.
“Without the character of Samuel Adams, the true history of the American Revolution can never be written,” John Adams once said of his cousin.
Well, someone better tell the United States Postal Service!
On April 10, the USPS issued a new set of stamps, “Figures of the American Revolution,” as part of its ongoing initiative to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. (See the USPS’s full press release below.) The set features 25 of the most important people related to the American Founding.
Sam Adams, apparently, isn’t one of them.
Never mind Sam’s instrumental role as an organizer in Boston’s Sons of Liberty or his role in managing public opinion. Never mind the Committees of Correspondence he helped organize throughout Massachusetts and across the colonies. Never mind his masterful use of propaganda to implant events like the Boston Massacre or the Boston Tea Party in American imagination—let alone the effective use of those events as tools of protest. Never mind the central leadership role he played at the First Continental Congress. Never mind Boston’s centrality in the start of open hostilities with Great Britain.
And yet, somehow, Sam didn’t leave enough of a stamp on the American Revolution!
In fairness to the Postal Service, a collection like the Figures of the American Revolution is like a retrospective “greatest hits” collection from a band: decisions have to be made about what gets included and what gets left off.
So, if you were to add Sam Adams to the collection, who’s currently on the sheet that you would remove to make room for him?
The figures appear in alphabetical order. Here’s the full list:
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 