Category: Personalities

“Democracy is too prevalent in America” Thomas Gage Arrives in Boston

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1774, Boston Tea Party, British Leadership, Civilian, Personalities1 Comment

On May 13, 1774, the newly Royally appointed Governor of Massachusetts arrived in Boston. General (and now Governor) Thomas Gage was well known to the American colonists. Gage served as a Major in the 44th Regiment of Foot in the French and Indian War, most notably in the Battle of the Monongahela. When several of Gage’s officers fell, he took up temporary command of the 44th during the battle. During that time Gage got to know George Washington and both men respected each other. After the war, Gage received a promotion to Brigadier General and was appointed the military governor of Montreal.

Portrait of Thomas Gage by John Singleton Copley

Soon after, Gage became the commander in chief of all British forces in North America. He moved to New York city to administer the King’s forces in the American colonies. Gage’s popularity increased as he focused on creating peace with the Indian population along the new western border of the colonies through various treaties. Gage and his American born wife, Margaret, were well accepted into New York society. Gage always believed that the democratic spirit that pervaded the colonies were a threat to British rule. With many of the colonists accustomed to electing their own representation, he believed this created more division with the home country than making them British citizens. Gage had long believed that democracy was too rooted in colonial society. In 1772 he wrote “democracy is too prevalent in America.”

As tensions began to increase within the American colonies, Gage’s response exasperated the situation. He contracted many of the British military posts back to the colonial cities along the eastern seaboard (which in part led to the Boston Massacre in 1770). He believed a show of military strength would help put out the fires of discontent. Further, he concluded that the unrest was mostly pushed by a very small minority, not the vast majority of colonials. He underestimated how the masses would respond to his hard hand. Now Gage, who was in Great Britain when the news of the Boston Tea Party arrived, was seen as a great fit to handle the crisis in Boston. His military back ground and experience as a civil leader (and liked by many in the colonies) made him on paper an ideal candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in this unsettled time.

Many in Boston welcomed Gage when he arrived that May. Mostly because they had become so disenchanted with former Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was completely not up to the task that faced him in 1773. The recently passed Boston Port Act (passed in March 1774, this act closed the port of Boston until the loss of the tea was paid for) grew tensions in Boston, but large segments of the population believed that those that destroyed the tea should pay for it. Soon, it was the next piece of news from Great Britain that shook the foundation of something the majority of Bay Staters took pride in, self-rule.

“The able doctor, or America swallowing the bitter draught,” 1774. This illustration depicts the British forcing a Native American woman (a symbol of the American colonies) to drink tea.

Word arrived of two new laws recently passed on May 20, 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act and Impartial Administration of Justice Act. These two acts were punitive in measure and sought to bring the colony under direct Royal control. The Government Act stated “Parliament passes this act turning the Massachusetts Council into a body of crown appointees“ (similar to other Royal colonies like Virginia) when up to then they were elected. Also, it restricted the traditional “town meeting” to just one a year. Town meetings were an essential local governing tool to not just govern localities but also to provide open communication across the colony. The Justice Act gave the governor the power to a trial to another colony or to Great Britain if he determined “that an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said province.” Judgment by one’s peers was a long-standing tradition in Massachusetts and in British law dating back to the Magna Carta. These measures essentially dissolved important aspects of the Massachusetts Charter of 1691.

Furthermore, Gage inflamed the situation more in Boston by bringing with him more British Regular troops. By the end of 1774, Gage had more than 4,000 soldiers in and around Boston.  Gage could see the situation worsening but was unable to determine how to best deal with what confronted him. Whig leaders such as Dr. Joseph Warren, Paul Revere and Samuel Adams used these newly passed acts as proof that Great Britain was infringing on their rights and liberties. Using groups like the Sons of Liberty, Whig leaders began to gain great influence as many of the colonists began to turn against Great Britian. Soon many of these community organizations began to arm themselves and coordinate with the other colonies via committees of correspondence. Gage, feeling the situation was becoming dangerous wrote back to authorities in Great Britain “Affairs here are worse than even in the Time of the Stamp Act, I don’t mean in Boston, for throughout the Country. The New England Provinces…are I may say in Arms.” Events were beginning to build towards armed revolution, not just in Massachusetts, but across a more unified American colonies.

William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan is now digitizing Gate’s papers with help from a grant of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Over the next year or so, this great resource on the colonial America will become accessible via the library’s website.

The Great Butter Rebellion

On By Phill GreenwaltIn Civilian, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Yes, this was a protest in Massachusetts in 1766.

No, “butter” is not a typo in the title.

Yes, this may be the first college student protest recorded in what became the United States of America.

No, this was not just about butter or butter substitutes.

At Harvard College, in 1766, three students, all seniors at the institution, Asa Dunbar, Daniel Johnson, and Thomas Hodgson had had enough of the lack of fresh food being served to the student body. Dunbar, who may be best known as the grandfather of Henry David Thoreau, led the protest, stating that the butter served by the college was “stinketh” and he incited the student body to reject this rancid fare by jumping onto his chair and yelling

“Behold our butter stinketh! Give us therefore butter that stinketh not!”

Dunbar faced disciplinary action, being punished for insubordination and instigating a potential riot. After he received his punishment, the student body enacted another protest, by walking out of the hall, cheering loudly in Harvard Yard, and continuing into Cambridge to dine instead. To give some credit to the college, the adminstration acknowledged the butter ws rancid. With restrictions due to economic difficulties the availability of fresh food was limited however.

As Massachusetts moved closer to open rebellion in their remonstrances against British Parliament and the British crown their example was mirrored by the student body of Harvard. After a month of impassed including “insulting proceedings” the royal governor of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard personally addressed the student body in the chapel on campus and the protests and insubordination of the student body concluded.

A depiction of a student protest
courtesy of The Harvard Gazette

Concluding, with a Butter Rebellion, a Tea Party, what food or drink would the colonists focus on next? For me, I think I will sip my Samuel Adams brew. Leave the butter and tea to the Massachusettans.

(Yes, I know that Samuel Adams beer was not around at the time of the American Revolution but I thought it was fitting. And beer and history go together anyways right?)

Sources:

Butter rebellion

Harvard’s long-ago student risings

Spread The Word: Butter Has An Epic Backstory

Reverend John Gano and the battle for Forts Montgomery and Clinton

On By Eric SternerIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Campaigns, Northern Theater, PersonalitiesLeave a comment
Attack on Fort Montgomery (NYPL)

Reverend John Gano served as a pastor of a Baptist Church in New York City before the Revolution.  When the British occupied the city, his congregation split and dispersed.  Although he resisted attempts to recruit him as a chaplain, the minister accepted an invitation to preach to a Continental regiment on Sundays until the Royal Navy cut him off from Manhattan.  Recalled Gano, “I was obliged therefore, to retire, precipitately, to our camp.”[1]   The preacher would become a chaplain after all.  Gano joined Colonel Charles Webb’s Connecticut Regiment and followed it.

                  Gano stayed with the army, was there during the battles in New York and mistakenly found himself in front of his regiment at White Plains.  He remained with the unit until enlistments expired at the beginning of 1777.  The minister pledged to rejoin if Webb and his officers raised a new regiment, but instead found himself at Fort Montgomery on the Hudson, eventually succumbing to arguments from General James Clinton and Colonel “Dubosque” to join the men stationed there as a chaplain.  (This was probably Colonel Lewis Dubois of the 5th New York.)  He remained there until Sir Henry Clinton launched his autumn attack into the Hudson Highlands to support General Burgoyne’s campaign to Albany.  Allowing for the uncertainties and errors of first-hand experiences and perspectives, the happenstance-chaplain provided an excellent first-hand account of the battles for Fort Montgomery and Fort Clinton on October 6, 1777.

“We had, both in Fort Montgomery, and Fort Clinton, but about seven hundred men.  We had been taught to believe, that we should be reinforced, in time of danger, from the neighbouring militia; but they were, at this time, very inactive.  We head of the approach of the enemy, and that they were about a mile and a half from Fort Clinton.  That fort sent out a small detachment, which was immediately driven back.  The British army surrounded both our forts, and commenced universal firing.  I was walking on the breastwork, viewing their approach, but was obliged to quit this station, as the musquet balls frequently passed me.  I observed the enemy, marching up a little hollow, that the might be secured from our firing, till they came within eighty yards of us.  Our breast-work, immediately before them, was not more than waist-band high, and we had but a few men.  The enemy, kept up a heavy firing, till our men gave them a well directed fire, which affected them very sensibly.   Just at this time, we had a reinforcement from a redoubt, next to us, which obliged the enemy to withdraw.  I walked to an eminence, where I had a good prospect, and saw the enemy advancing toward our gate.  This gate, faced Fort Clinton, and Captain Moody, who commanded a piece of artillery at that fort, seeing our desperate situation, gave the enemy a charge of grape-shot, which threw them into great confusion.  Moody repeated his charge, which entirely dispersed them for that time.

About sun-set, the enemy sent a couple of flags, into each of our forts, demanding an immediate surrender, or we should all be put to the sword.  General George Clinton, who commanded Fort Montgomery, returned for answer, that the latter was preferable to the former, and that he should not surrender the fort.  General Hames Clinton, who commanded in Fort Clinton, answered the demand in the same manner.  A few minutes after the flags had returned, the enemy commenced a very heavy firing, which was answered by our army.  The dusk of the evening, together with the smoke, and the rushing in of the enemy, made it impossible for us to distinguish friend, from foe.  This confusion, have us an opportunity of escaping, through the enemy, over the breastwork.  Many escaped to the water’s side and got on board a scow, and pushed off.”[2]

In his recent history of the Saratoga Campaign, Kevin Weddle cites General Clinton’s estimate of 350 American casualties: 70 killed, 40 wounded, and 240 captured, roughly half of the combined garrison of both forts.  (Weddle estimates the American garrison at 700, not the 800 Gano believed).  British losses amounted to forty killed and 150 wounded out of 2,150 in the assaulting forces.[3]

Gano spent the remainder of his service in the northeast, accompanying the men during General Sullivan’s campaign against the Iroquois, but otherwise spending the time in encampents.  He finally returned to New York and reoccupied his house after war: “My house needed some repairs, and wanted some new furniture; for the enemy plundered a great many articles.”[4]  After the war, the minister rebuilt his congregation in New York before relocating to Kentucky, where he died in 1804.

[1]                 Biographical Memoirs of the Late Rev. John Gano (New York: Printed by Southwick and Hardcastle for John Tiebout, 1806), 93.

[2]                 Ibid., 98-100.

[3]                 Kevin Weddle, The Compleat Victory: Saratoga and the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 300, 302.

[4]                 Biographical Memoirs of the Late Rev. John Gano, 116.

The Nassau Cannon

On By Eric SternerIn 1776, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, Navy, Personalities, Uncategorized, WeaponsLeave a comment

In March, 1776 Commodore Esek Hopkins led the bulk of the Continental Navy on a raid to the Bahamas, where it occupied the town of New Providence on Nassau Island for two weeks.  Hopkins and his captains were drawn by a report of gunpowder stored in the town, which the patriot cause desperately needed.[1]  Unfortunately for Hopkins, the colony’s governor had spirited away some 150 barrels the night before the American flotilla’s arrival.  Not all was lost as the Marines quickly demanded and received the surrender of two small forts defending the town and its harbor.  With those in hand, Hopkins and his men quickly got to work removing artillery, military stores, and other useful supplies.

            While the American Marines and sailors managed to recover just 24 casks of powder, their haul in sizeable artillery pieces and mortars was impressive: 88 cannon ranging from 9- to 36-pounders; 15 mortars from 4-11 inches; 5,458 shells; 11,071 roundshot; 165 chain & double shot, plus fuses, rams, sponges, carriage trucks, mortar beds, copper hoops, and various stores not required for artillery.[2]  It was a boon to be sure.  The curious part of Hopkins’ inventory of captured war material, however, is that he sent it to Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull, not a representative of the Naval Committee that had issued his orders.  To John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, he sent a report of his mission, but only mentioned “I have taken all the Stores onboard the fleet.”[3]  Indeed, his report of the armaments aboard the British schooner Hawke, which the fleet captured on its return to American waters, was more complete.  It took another day, until April 9, for Hopkins to forward the inventory of seized cannon.  Congress merely resolved that an extract of his letter should be published for delegates to peruse.[4] Perhaps inadvertently, Hopkins exacerbated regional political conflicts and undermined his own command.

Continue reading “The Nassau Cannon” →

“Rev War Revelry” American Triumph with Tom Hand

On By erwpostIn Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Welcome to the first “Rev War Revelry” of 2024! To kick off the new year, Emerging Revolutionary War is joined by Tom Hand, author, historian, and founder of Americana Corner. However, in the later stages of 20234, Tom added published book author to his lengthy list of accomplishments. His book, American Triumph is now available via his website.

The book, “masterly blends the personal experiences and historic milestones” of three luminaries of the early Republic, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Adams. The book, with a plethora of graphics, sidebars, and informational tidbits aims to provide a “captivating collection of stories” for the “everyday American.”

We look forward to a lively and friendly discussion with Tom. Hope you can tune in, to Emerging Revolutionary War’s Facebook page at 7 p.m. EDT this Sunday, January 7th.

Rev War Revelry: “God Save Benedict Arnold” with Author Jack Kelly

On By erwpostIn Emerging Revolutionary War, Northern Theater, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m. on our Facebook page for an author interview with Jack Kelly to discuss his new book, God Save Benedict Arnold: The True Story of America’s Most Hated Man.

Benedict Arnold committed treason― for more than two centuries, that’s all that most Americans have known about him.

Yet Arnold was much more than a turncoat―his achievements during the early years of the Revolutionary War defined him as the most successful soldier of the era. GOD SAVE BENEDICT ARNOLD tells the gripping story of Arnold’s rush of audacious feats―his capture of Fort Ticonderoga, his Maine mountain expedition to attack Quebec, the famous artillery brawl at Valcour Island, the turning-point battle at Saratoga―that laid the groundwork for our independence.

Arnold was a superb leader, a brilliant tactician, a supremely courageous military officer. He was also imperfect, disloyal, villainous. One of the most paradoxical characters in American history, and one of the most interesting. GOD SAVE BENEDICT ARNOLD does not exonerate him for his treason―the stain on his character is permanent. But Kelly’s insightful exploration of Arnold’s career as a warrior shines a new light on this gutsy, fearless, and enigmatic figure. In the process, the book offers a fresh perspective on the reasons for Arnold’s momentous change of heart.

Why Tea? Events Leading up to the Boston Tea Party

On By Rob OrrisonIn Boston Tea Party, British Leadership, Civilian, Memory, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary War, Social History2 Comments

As we move towards to the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, we at ERW have gotten a lot of questions with a central theme…” why was it tea that led to revolution?” Was tea so central to colonial life that it was worth risking war or was it something else? The answer is somewhere in the middle and as with most history, there is nuance to the story (and yes, tea WAS a big part of everyday live in British America).

On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, this act was a way for the British government to help bail out a major corporation, the British East India Company. The British East India Company was one of the largest global companies and faced immense debt and financial trouble. Furthering their troubles, they held a large amount of tea stored in warehouses in London. The British East India Company sought a way to offload this tea, which was considered some of the best tea in the world. The company’s success was directly tied to Great Britain’s international strategy, as the company spread British influence across the globe especially in India where they basically managed the British colony. The Tea Act reduced the cost on the tea (cutting out the “middleman” in Great Britain), and now the colonists could buy the tea directly from the British East India Company.

The British colonies in North America consumed on average of 1.2 million pounds of black tea annually. In 1773, about 1/3 of the population drank tea at least twice a day. It was a common luxury among most middle- and upper-class colonists. They preferred black tea but also drank green tea. Black tea varieties included Bohea, Congou and Souchong and common green tea varieties included Singlo and Hyson. All the tea that the British East India Company sold was grown and imported from China. Tea from China was preferred by most for better flavor, but it tended to be more expensive. The North American colonies consumed a lot of smuggled tea from the Dutch, the quality of the tea was not the same but much cheaper. A large market grew for smuggled tea with most British port officials looking the other way. All of this changed when the Tea Act was passed.

Nineteenthcentury lithograph depicting a tea plantation in Qing China 

Many in Parliament believed the colonists would have little opposition to this new act. They could now purchase their preferred tea for a cheaper price than the smuggled tea from the Netherlands. Unfortunately for Royal leaders, this was not the case. As word reached the colonies Whig leaders such as Samuel Adams called it nothing more than a British authorized monopoly of the tea market, cutting into the pockets of colonial merchants (though their tea smuggling business was illegal to begin with). The Tea Act also highlighted a British policy that the colonists opposed for many years, the Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts imposed duties on imported lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea. This “tax” was payable at ports and funded the salaries of colonial judges, governors, and other government officials. This angered many colonial leaders for two reasons. First, it levied another tax on the colonists without having their own representation in Parliament. Secondly, it made the government officials more beholden to the British government (and the tax) than the colonial governments.

Whig groups like the Sons of Liberty used local taverns as places for their meetings. The most famous being the Green Dragon Tavern in Boston. It no longer stands today.

As the news of the Tea Act reached the colonies, the reaction was mixed. Whig leaders in major cities such as Charleston, New York, Philadelphia and Boston saw it as a way to reinvigorate their cause of opposing British rule. Recently things were mostly quiet with little interest by the public for protest. But now the Whig spin machine went into full affect. The Tea Act was a direct affront to colonial self-rule and economic interest. The taxes paid for the tea went to British officials in the colonies and the cheaper priced (and better quality) tea would put many American merchants out of business. Whigs were able to control the message that the Tea Act was just another way for Parliament to make money off the colonists, who did not have representation in Parliament.

As part of the Tea Act, consignees were appointed to oversee the sale of tea and the collection of the taxes on behalf of the British East India Company. As the tea began to arrive in colonial ports, public pressure was put on consignees to resign. This pressure was successful in New York, Philadelphia and in Charleston. Each of these cities were able to either stop the tea from being offloaded or, as in the case of Charleston, they confiscated the tea and didn’t allow any duties to be paid on it. All of these were direct affronts to the law but the events in Boston proved to be the most dramatic.

Ca, 1780 view of Charleston Harbor, and the Exchange Building where the confiscated tea was locked away by Whig leaders.

Unlike in other port cities, the consignees in Boston refused to resign. Richard Clarke, leading merchant in Boston and one of consignees faced a mob at his warehouse trying to pressure him and the other consignees to resign. Encouraged by the Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson (who had two sons serving as tea consignees) to stand their ground, the consignees refused to resign. Soon news arrived that the first ship carrying the tea, the Dartmouth, was arriving in Boston soon.

Hosting several town meetings, some hosting thousands of people, Whig leaders such as Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren and John Hancock were able to organize a strong opposition to the tea. Of course, Boston was already a tinderbox due to the “Boston Massacre” in 1770 and the large contingent of British regular troops stationed in Boston. Bostonians were reminded daily of Royal influence. The Whigs protested to the Governor to order the ships to return to England, but Hutchinson refused to do so and claimed he didn’t have that authority. Many historians believed Hutchinson, who recently had resigned as Governor and was awaiting his replacement, had grown tired and frustrated with the likes of the Whigs and Sons of Liberty in Boston and was trying to press the issue.

On November 28, the Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor. Captain James Hall was turned away at the first wharf he sailed too and was redirected to Griffins Wharf. Everyone knew that once a ship entered the harbor, the captain had twenty days to unload the cargo and pay the custom duties. Soon two more ships arrived at Griffins Wharf with more tea. With the Governor refusing to allow the ships to leave the harbor and local patrols watching the ships to make sure the tea was not offloaded, the stage was set for December 16th, the last day the ship’s captains had to unload their cargo.

2024 ERW Bus Tour Announcement – Lexington and Concord!

On By Rob OrrisonIn 2024 Bus Tour, African-American, Armies, Arms & Armaments, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Campaigns, Civilian, Common Soldier, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Minute Men, Monuments, National Park Service, Patriots Day, Personalities, Preservation, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

We are excited to announce our 2024 (fourth annual!) bus tour location will be Lexington and Concord on October 11-13, 2024. Join historians Phillip Greenwalt, Rob Orrison and Alex Cain as we tour the sites associated with the beginning of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. The tour will cover events in Lexington, Concord and sites along the “Battle Road.” Tickets are $250 per person and includes a Friday night lecture, all day tour on Saturday and half day tour on Sunday (bus tour transportation and Saturday lunch included in cost).

Lodging is not included in the ticket fee. Our host hotel is the Courtyard Marriott – Waltham, a room block is set aside for $239 a night. For reservations contact 781-419-0900 or visit https://www.marriott.com/events/start.mi?id=1699298201894&key=GRP

Join us for our FOURTH annual tour as we take on the beginning of the American Revolution just a few months before the 250th anniversary. Learn about the dramatic events that led to the first shots for the Revolution and the bloody aftermath. We will visit Lexington Green, Buckman’s Tavern, North Bridge in Concord, Battle Road including Merriam’s Corner, Parker’s Revenge and the Jason Russell House. There is no better way to experience history than to stand in the footsteps of where it happened!

To register, visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/760200178197?aff=oddtdtcreator

For more questions, please email emergingrevolutionarywar@gmail.com.

Jefferson County, West Virginia: Home of Two Revolutionary War Generals

On By Kevin PawlakIn Charles Lee, Continental Leadership, Personalities2 Comments

Though it is most commonly associated with its Civil War history, Jefferson County, West Virginia, boasts a large amount of Revolutionary War history, too. One does not have to travel far in the county to stumble on a Washington family home (there were ten, seven still stand) or find Washington family members buried in the Zion Episcopal Cemetery in Charlestown, the county seat (this cemetery supposedly boasts more Washington family graves than any other place in the United States).

Beyond Washington, though, Jefferson County can claim at least two other well-known Revolutionary War generals on its citizen rolls: Horatio Gates and Charles Lee. Both of their countryside estates still stand today but are privately owned.

Traveller’s Rest (Library of Congress)

Traveller’s Rest, built by Horatio Gates in 1773, stands west of Kearneysville in the western section of the county. Gates employed carpenter John Ariss for the wooden portions of the construction project, a man who also worked on many of the local Washington homes. Gates lived at Traveller’s Rest until his service in the Continental Army took him away from his home. Following his defeat at the Battle of Camden in 1780 and his subsequent sidelining by the Continental Congress, Gates returned to his plantation, where he lived quietly. In 1790, the former general freed his slaves, sold the house, and moved to New York, where he died in 1806.

Three miles south of Gates lived Charles Lee at Prato Rio, a Portuguese phrase meaning “Stream on the meadow.” Lee did not build his home but purchased the 1733 structure in 1774 after some urging from Gates. Following his own sacking in the wake of the Battle of Monmouth, Lee returned to his home in 1779, a place he referred to as “The Hut.” Lee spent his last years there quietly surrounded by his three dogs, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Supposedly, when he learned of a possible visit from George Washington, Lee attached a note to his door that read, “No dinner cooked here to-day.”

Lee’s house was less conventional than Gates’ home. The inside contained no walls—only chalk lines delineated the different rooms. Lee remarked, “I can sit in any corner, and give orders, and overlook the whole, without moving my chair.”

Prato Rio (West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office)

While both homes can be seen from public roads today, they are not open to the public. Please respect the owners’ privacy.

Rev War Revelry: “For Britannia’s Glory and Wealth” with Author and Historian Glenn Williams, PhD

On By erwpostIn 1776, African-American, British Leadership, Civilian, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, French and Indian War, Memory, Militia (Loyalist) Leadership, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary War, Slavery, Social HistoryLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday night at 7pm as we welcome Glenn F. Williams, PhD to our popular Sunday night Rev War Revelry! Glenn will examine the political and economic causes of the American Revolution beginning at the end of the Seven Years War / French and Indian War through the resistance movements. He will dispel or clarify some of the popular beliefs about the grievances that eventually led the thirteen colonies to break with the Mother Country. This will be a timely discussion as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Glenn Williams is a retired U.S. Army officer that until recently also enjoyed a “second career” as a military historian. He retired as a senior Historian after 18 years at the U.S. Army Center of Military History and 3 1/2 years as the historian of the American Battlefield Protection Program of the U.S. National Park Service.

Grab your favorite drink and tune in, we will be live so feel free to drop your questions in the live chat. If you are not able to tune in on Sunday, the video will be placed on our You Tube and podcast channels.