“He said to his friend, “If the British march By land or sea from the town to-night, Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch Of the North Church tower as a signal light,– One, if by land, and two, if by sea;”
These famous words from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem about Paul Revere’s ride recount the important role the Old North Church played in the events leading up to the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Join us just a few weeks before the 250th anniversary as we sit down with Emily Spence, Director of Education at Old North Church in Boston. We’ll discuss the history of the church, what occurred on April 18, 1775 and what happened during the war. We’ll also discuss the exciting events the Old North Church will be doing on the 250th anniversary. This will be a pre-recorded video and you will be able to watch it when we post it at 7 p.m. on our Facebook page.
Patrick Henry’s famous speech, delivered on March 23, 1775, before the Virginia Convention at St. John’s Church in Richmond, has become one of the most iconic calls to action in American history. His fiery declaration—“Give me liberty, or give me death!”—was a passionate plea for resistance against British tyranny and a rallying cry for colonial unity in the face of increasing oppression. While Patrick Henry’s speech electrified the American colonies and inspired many to embrace the revolutionary cause, Great Britain’s response to such sentiments, and to the broader colonial rebellion, was both dismissive and aggressive. The British government’s approach to colonial dissent during this period sheds light on their underestimation of the revolutionary movement and the rigidity of their imperial policies.
At the time of Henry’s speech, tensions between Great Britain and its American colonies had been escalating for over a decade. Following the French and Indian War (1754–1763), Britain sought to tighten its control over its colonies and recover war debts by imposing taxes such as the Stamp Act (1765) and the Townshend Acts (1767). These measures were deeply unpopular among colonists, who argued that taxation without representation was a violation of their rights. The colonies’ resistance to British authority—through boycotts, protests, and the formation of groups like the Sons of Liberty—was met with increasing hostility from Britain. By 1775, the situation had deteriorated to the brink of open conflict.
From the British perspective, Patrick Henry’s speech, and similar revolutionary rhetoric, would have been seen as treasonous and inflammatory. The British government viewed the colonies not as equal partners in the empire but as subordinate territories meant to serve the interests of the Crown. Henry’s call to arms was a direct challenge to this hierarchical structure, and British officials were likely to dismiss it as the rantings of a radical minority. However, the speech also highlighted the growing unity and resolve among the colonists, which British leaders largely failed to grasp. This underestimation of colonial sentiment was one of the key reasons why Britain’s response to the American Revolution was ultimately ineffective. Loyalist James Parker wrote ““You never heard anything more infamously insolent than P. Henry’s speech: he called the K—— a Tyrant, a fool, a puppet, and a tool to the ministry,”
The British response to colonial dissent, including the sentiments expressed in Henry’s speech, was characterized by a combination of punitive measures and military force. In the years leading up to the speech, Britain had already implemented harsh policies, such as the Coercive Acts (1774), known in the colonies as the Intolerable Acts. These laws were designed to punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party and to reassert British authority over the colonies. Instead of quelling dissent, these measures only served to galvanize colonial resistance and unify the colonies against British rule.
St. John’s Church, ca 1865 – courtesy Library of Congress
After Henry’s speech, Britain’s strategy remained focused on suppressing the rebellion through force rather than addressing the colonies’ grievances. By April 1775, just weeks after Henry’s address, British troops marched to Lexington and Concord to seize colonial military supplies, leading to the first battles of the Revolutionary War. This military action demonstrated Britain’s refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue with the colonies and its commitment to maintaining control through coercion. Though considered by many as a spark of revolution, Henry’s motion and speech did not reach Great Britain until after the fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord. Though combined, hearing Virginia’s martial push with rebellion in New England proved this was not a localized issue.
One of the reasons Britain failed to adequately respond to the ideological challenge posed by Henry’s speech was its inability to understand the depth of colonial dissatisfaction. British officials often dismissed colonial leaders as self-interested agitators and underestimated the widespread support for revolutionary ideas. This miscalculation led to a reliance on military solutions, which further alienated the colonies and made reconciliation increasingly unlikely.
In addition to military measures, Britain attempted to divide the colonies and weaken their resolve. Propaganda campaigns and offers of pardons were used to sway public opinion and encourage loyalty to the Crown. However, these efforts were largely unsuccessful, as revolutionary leaders like Patrick Henry were able to inspire unity and resilience among the colonists.
Ultimately, Britain’s response to the sentiments expressed in Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty, or give me death” speech reflected a broader pattern of misjudgment and inflexibility. By dismissing the legitimate grievances of the colonies and relying on punitive measures and military force, Britain failed to address the underlying causes of the American Revolution. Henry’s speech symbolized the growing determination of the American colonies to fight for their independence, and Britain’s inability to adapt to this reality ensured that conflict was inevitable. In the end, Henry’s passionate plea for liberty became a rallying cry for a new nation, while Britain’s response marked the beginning of its eventual loss of the American colonies.
Next week on February 26, 2025, Salem, MA will mark the 250th anniversary of the Salem Alarm, or more commonly known today as “Leslie’s Retreat.” As British Gen. Gage received word from his spies that the local towns around Boston were securing various cannon for a possible war, he sent out Col. Leslie from Boston with several hundred British Regulars to Salem. Here Gage believed several of these cannon were we being refit and stored. Gage believed these cannon were to be used against him in a possible rebellion and were above and beyond a militia’s regular armament. After a tense stand off at the draw bridge across North River Bridge, Leslie returned to Boston without finding any cannon (which were removed during the stand off). This event was a critical step towards the open revolution that would take place on April 19 in Lexington. Though violence was avoided, the situation intensified the apprehension between Gage and the colonial leaders and militia of the towns around Boston. Below are two newspaper accounts of the events on February 26, 1775. One from Essex, Massachusetts and the other from London.
Essex Gazette, Feb. 28, 1775; an 1856 history of Leslie’s Retreat by Charles Endicott references the account was written by Col. Timothy Pickering.
” Last Sabbath the peace of the town was disturbed by the coming of a regiment of the King’s troops, the particulars relative to which are as follows. A transport arrived at Marblehead apparently manned as usual. Eetween 2 and o o’clock (as soon as the people had gone to meeting) the decks -were covered with soldiers, who having loaded and fixed their bayonets, landed with great dispatch, and instantly marched off. Some of the inhabitants suspecting they were bound to Salem to seize some materials there preparing for an artillery, dispatched several messengers to inform us of it. These materials were at the north side of the North River, and to come at them it was necessary to cross a bridge, one part of which was made to draw up for the convenience of letting vessels pass through. The inhabitants kept a look out for the appearance of the troops. The van-guard arrived, and took their route down in town as far as the Long-wharf; perhaps to decoy the inhabitants thither, away from the place to which the main body were destined. The main body arrived soon after and halted a few minutes by the Town-House. It is said inquiry was immediately made by some of the officers for a half brother of Col. Brown- the mandamus counsellor. Be this as it may, he was very soon whispering in the Colonel’s ear, in the front of the regiment and when he parted from the Colonel, the regiment marched off with a quick pace, in a direct course for the North Bridge ; just before their entrance upon which the draw-bridge was pulled up. The regiment however rushed forward till they came to the draw-bridge, not observing (as it seemed) that it was drawn up. The Colonel who led them expressed some surprise : and then turning about, ordered an officer to face his company to a body of men standing on a wharf on the other side the draw-bridge, and lire. One of our townsmen! (who had kept along side the Colonel from the time he marched from the Town House) instantly told him he had better not fire, that he had no right to fire without further orders, ” and if you do fire (said he) you will be all dead men.” The company neither faced nor fired.
Salem Alarm Monument at North River Bridge. Photo by Author
The Colonel then retired to the centre of his regiment, assembled his officers, and held a consultation ; At which being ended the Colonel advanced a little, and declared he would maintain his ground, and go over the bridge before he returned, if it were a month first. The same townsman replied, he might stay there as long as he pleased, no body cared for that. The half brother before mentioned (it is said) made towards the bridge, but seeing the draw-bridge up, says ” it is all over with us.” He has since disappeared. Meanwhile two large gondolas that lay aground (for it was low water were scuttled, lest they should cross the channel in them. But whilst one gentleman with his assistants was scuttling his own gondola, a party of about twenty soldiers jumped into it, and with their bayonets charged against our unarmed townsmen (some of whom they pricked) compelled them to quit it ; but before this a sufficient hole had been made in the bottom. This attack of the soldiers, and some other occurrences, occasioned a little bickering, but by the interposition of some of the inhabitants the disputes subsided.
At length some gentlemen asked the Colonel what was his design in making this movement and why he would cross the bridge? He said he had orders to cross it, and he would cross it if he lost his life, with the lives of all his men. And now (or before) asked why the King’s highway was obstructed? He was told it was not the King’s road, but the property of the inhabitants, who had a right to do what they pleased with it. Finally the Colonel said he must go over; and if the drawbridge were let down so that he might pass, he pledged his honor he would march not above thirty rods beyond it, and then immediately return. The regiment had now; been on the bridge about an hour and an half ; and every thing being secured, the inhabitants directed the drawbridge to be let down. The regiment immediately passed over, marched a few rods, returned, and with great expedition went back again to Marblehead, where they embarked on board the transport without delay. The regiment brought with them, lanthorns, hatchets, pickaxes, spades, hand-spikes, and several coils of rope.
When all the circumstances are considered, there can remain no doubt that the sole purpose of the menoeuvre was to steal away the artillery materials before mentioned. In the first place the regiment was taken from the Castle, so that the inhabitants of Boston might be prevented giving us any intelligence: The transport arrived at Marblehead a considerable time before the regiment was landed, but the men were kept snug under hatches: As soon as the inhabitants of Marblehead had got to meeting, the troops landed, and pushed on their march to Salem, and proceeded to the very spot where the materials for the artillery were lodged. But meeting with this sad rebuff and finding their plot was discovered, they then made a retreat. ‘Tis regretted that an officer of Colonel Leslie’s acknowledged worth, should be obliged, in obedience to orders to come upon so pitiful an errand.
Various reports were spread abroad respecting the troops —the country was alarmed ; and one company arrived in arms from Danvers just as the troops left the town. We immediately dispatched messengers to the neighboring towns to save them the trouble of coming in; but the alarm flew like lightning (and fame doubtless magnified the first simple reports) so that great numbers were in arms, and soon on the march before our messengers arrived.”
Little could the residents of London know that two days after the news of Salem was received in London, their American colonies would be in open rebellion.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Paul F. Soltis
250 years ago in 1775 John Wallace of Philadelphia was preparing to move. Born in Scotland in 1718, John was the youngest son of the minister of the Church of Scotland at Drumelizer in the Scottish Lowlands south of Glasgow and Edinburgh. While his eldest brother William would take over the ministry in the Kirk following their father’s death, John emigrated from Scotland to the colonies of British North America. Like many Scottish emigrants, Mr. Wallace entered the merchant trade, first in Newport, Rhode Island and eventually in Philadelphia where he met and married Mary Maddox of an established Philadelphia family.
At the opening of the Revolutionary War in 1775, John Wallace purchased 95 acres on the Raritan River in Somerset County, New Jersey from the Rev. Jacob Rutsen Hardenbergh, minister to the Dutch Reformed Churches of the upper Raritan River Valley. At this country estate he called “Hope Farm” Mr. Wallace built the largest home constructed in New Jersey during the Revolutionary War, perhaps “hoping” to escape the revolutionary ferment of Philadelphia. Midway between the British garrison at New York and the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, John Wallace instead found himself at the Crossroads of the American Revolution.
In the fall of 1778, the Continental Army arrived to this region of Somerset County where the Middle Brook flows into the Raritan River for the Middlebrook Cantonment of 1778-79. Nathanael Greene, Quartermaster General of the Continental Army, wrote on October 18, “Middle Brook is situate in a plentyful Country, naturally strong and difficult of access and surrounded with a great plenty of Wood. Great security will also be given to this Camp by the militia of the Country.” Col. Sidney Berry, a deputy quartermaster to Gen. Nathanael Greene, arranged with Mr. Wallace for use of the Wallace House at Hope Farm, a few miles west of the village of Middlebrook, as headquarters for George Washington.
We reshare a post from 2018 about the Salem Alarm also known as “Leslie’s Retreat.” As we approach the 250th anniversary of this important event (February 26, 1775), we will share primary source accounts of the event. This event set the kindling for the spark that lit a war in Lexington a month later.
As events quickly spiraled out of control in the winter and spring of 1774-1775 around Massachusetts, several armed confrontations between local “Patriots” and the British army heightened tensions. On many occasions, both sides adverted open confrontation and were able to diffuse the situation. Understanding these events and how they made an impression on both sides helps explain what happened on the Lexington Common on April 19, 1775.
As soon as British General Thomas Gage arrived in Boston in the spring of 1774, he set about enforcing the newly passed “Coercive Acts.” In response to these new laws that restricted many of the rights the people of Massachusetts had grown accustomed too, local groups began to arm themselves in opposition to British authority. Even though Gage was once popular in the colonies, he soon became an enemy to those around Boston who believed the Coercive Acts were an overstep of British authority. Continue reading ““If you Fire, You’ll all be dead men” The Salem Alarm”→
We are excited to welcome historian and author J.L. Bell. Few know more about the events around Boston in 1775 than Bell. His blog, Boston 1775 (https://boston1775.blogspot.com/ ) is the most detailed and researched source on everything Boston 1775 (and before and after 1775). As we approach the 250th anniversary of Lexington and Concord, we will continue our on going discussion about the events leading up to the first shots at Lexington. Topics will include the military build up in Massachusetts including cannon (especially four stolen cannon), creation of minute companies and Gage’s military response. Leslie’s expedition to Salem in February as well as the newly created Provincial Congress and Dartmouth’s orders for Gage.
We have a lot to cover, so grab a drink and join us LIVE on our Facebook page on Sunday, February 2nd at 7pm. This will not be one you want to miss!
Situated along East Monument Street is a stone monument surrounded by a black iron fence. A wayside informational marker is placed right outside the fence. Underneath this monument rests the remains of Daniel Wells and Henry McComas. On September 12, 1814, one of their firearms changed the entire scope of the Battle of North Point, part of the Chesapeake Bay Campaign during the War of 1812.
Both young militia members, sent to the frontlines to skirmish and harass the approaching British infantry, fired a musket round that slammed through the left elbow and into the chest of Major General Robert Ross, British land commander, mortally wounding him. Both Wells and McComas, aged 19 and 18 respectively, would be killed during the day’s fighting. A third soldier, Aquila Randall, also slain that day, has his own small monument and crediting him with firing the fateful shot.
Although most historians credit either Wells or McComas. Both soldiers were reinterred here, the second time their remains had been moved, in 1858 when the monument was completed and a funeral song and dramatic play rounded out the day’s commemoration.
The site is part of the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. To learn more about the trail, click here.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Eric Olsen. Eric is a historian with the National Park Service at Morristown National Historical Park. Click here to learn more about this site.
Visitors always want to know, “How much did “that” cost back then?” We used to tell them because of inflation and the conversion from pounds to dollars it was really hard to give a definitive answer. It is even harder to figure during the American Revolution when the value of the dollars changed dramatically just over the course of a few months. There are all sorts of fancy conversion sites on the internet today but since math was not my strong point, I don’t know how accurate they are.
One book tried another approach to explain 18th century vs. modern prices. “A person today, purchasing the same product made the same way out of materials made the same way, will pay roughly the same percentage of their wages for the product as a person of equal economic status in the past would have. For comparison, at the present time [1997 book] an average shop rate runs thirty-five dollars an hour for labor. If you make ten dollars an hour, this costs you three and a half hours of work, and the same ratio applied to a craftsman making thirty pounds a year or two pence per hour.” Makes sense but seems a bit too complicated.
However, I did find one primary source that can give a clue to the relative value of items. It comes from Theophile Cazenove, a Dutchman who traveled through New Jersey and Pennsylvania in 1794 looking for investment opportunities for Dutch bankers. At his various stops in Morris County, Cazenove recorded the prices of farms, livestock, and even labor.
Sometimes the prices were in pounds, other times they were in dollars. When he included both prices for one item, I did some very simple math and found that it took eight shillings to make one dollar, and that $2.50 equaled one pound. According to the online conversion applications, one pound in 1790 equaled 167.58 pounds today. One dollar in 1790 equaled 32.20 dollars in today’s money.
But without doing any math or conversions if we look at the prices Cazenove listed we can see what items were more expense than other ones. From that we can also assume the more expensive items were more highly valued.
Keep in mind, on the local level in 18th century America, it was not a cash driven economy. Specie, Hard Money or coins, made of valuable metals such as silver and gold were in short supply in North America and used infrequently. Paper Money was rarely used, appearing briefly during periods of war when armies needed a large source of money to buy goods and services.
Everyone has heard of the “shot heard round the world” at the North Bridge, or the first shots of the war on the early morning of April 19, 1775 at the Lexington Green. But few people know about events that transpired in New Hampshire four months before Lexington and Concord. The events at Fort William and Mary on December 13 and 14 1774 were just as critical to the step toward war as the September Powder Alarm or the later Salem Alarm in February 1775.
Fort William and Mary, ca. 1705 by Wolfgang William Romer
In response to the Massachusetts Powder Alarm in September 1774, colonial Whig leaders in nearby colonies began to make plans to “capture” local and colonial powder supplies. The crux was the issue of who really owned the gunpowder. Whig leaders believe they owned the power, the colonial militias. Royal leaders, Gen. Gage specifically, believe the powder was the “King’s Powder.” So any attempt to take the powder, was theft and treason. On December 3, 1774 the Rhode Island Assembly ordered the removal of cannons and powder from Fort George in Newport. On December 9, local militia carried out the order without any incident. Gage began to look at larger powder supplies that he believe were vulnerable. One large such supply was located at Fort William and Mary, located near Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This fort was isolated on the island of New Castle, at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. Located here was a small garrison of six men, guarding the fort and its supply of gunpowder.
Paul Revere and his other Patriot leaders in Boston became expert spies and soon received word that Gage was to send a contingent of British marines to Fort William and Mary. On December 13, Revere set out from Boston to Portsmouth to warn them of the coming expedition. Though the British navy was active in the area off of Portsmouth, Gage ironically made no plans to send an expedition to the fort. That would matter little in what happened next.
Surrender of Fort William and Mary by Howard Pyle
As Revere arrived in Portsmouth that afternoon, he gave the news of the supposed British expedition to the local Committee of Correspondence. Soon the local militia organized and, on the next day, nearly 400 militiamen assaulted the fort. The six-man British contingent inside the fort refused to surrender. They even fired three of their cannon at the attacking militiamen. For the first time, colonists were in open combat against British troops. The contingent eventually surrendered, having suffered a few injuries but no fatalities. That afternoon, the militia hauled away nearly 100 barrels of gunpowder. The next day nearly a thousand militiamen led by John Sullivan, arrived in Portsmouth due to the rider notification system. With no British to fight, these men assisted in going back to the fort to carry away muskets and cannon. Gage got word of Revere’s presence in Portsmouth and soon sent a small force from Boston to Portsmouth via the British navy. This force arrived the next week and at that point, there was nothing left of substance in Fort William and Mary.
The events at Portsmouth led Gage to be more aggressive in establishing a more coordinated spy network. As the new year began, Gage’s communications with England forced British officials to realize that this opposition was not like those in years past. The Patriots were arming themselves and establishing their own government in an affront to British authority. Former Prime Minister William Pitt, now sitting as a member of the House of Lords, knew the colonies well. He was well liked by the colonists, and he sought a compromise. He predicted the colonials would not back down and soon war would erupt between Great Britain and its colonies. Pitt proposed to remove British troops from Boston to lessen the tensions and to repeal the Coercive Acts. Both ideas were rejected overwhelmingly by Parliament.
In response to the news that the Continental Congress convened, Parliament on February 9, 1775, declared: “We find, that a part of your Majesty’s subjects in the province of the Massachusetts Bay have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said province.” Now there was no doubt how the “Patriots” were viewed by Parliament and the King; they were rebels.
The events at Fort William and Mary were part of a succession of tense encounters between British authorities and local Whig leaders. Each one built on the tension from the previous. It is amazing that the “attack” by the New Hampshire militia on the fort, attacking the King’s troops, did not lead directly to war then. It would take four more months before another armed conflict sparked a revolutionary war.
To read more about the events leading up to Lexington and Concord, visit the Savas Beatie website to purchase “A Single Blow: The Battles of Lexington and Concord and the Beginning of the American Revolution” by Phillip S. Greenwalt and Rob Orrison
Many have heard of Paul Revere’s ride to Lexington and the shot heard round the world at Concord (and Lexington) but few know about the December 1774 raid and skirmish at Fort William and Mary in New Castle, New Hampshire. Here, inspired by news from Paul Revere, local militia attacked and captured a small British garrison at Fort William and Mary. Join us as we welcome Dr. Dr. Cynthia Hatch to discuss this much over looked action leading up the American Revolution.
Dr. Hatch is an Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology instructor specializing in Revolutionary War history. With a PhD in History, she explores the intricate political, social, and cultural dynamics of the 18th century, with a particular focus on the colonial legal system and the pivotal role of local narratives in shaping historical interpretations during the Revolutionary Era.
Join us as we discuss the events leading up and during the raid of Fort William and Mary and learn, were these the FIRST shots of the American Revolution? This Rev War Revelry will be pre-recorded and posted to our Facebook page at 7pm on Sunday, December 8th.
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 