Category: Politics

“The people here are Liberty mad…” Nicholas Cresswell and the American Independence

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1775, 1776, 1777, Battlefields & Historic Places, British Leadership, Civilian, Common Soldier, Continental Leadership, Loyalist, Memory, Personalities, Politics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest writer, historian Kenneth Bancroft


Leesburg, Virginia. Tuesday, July 9, 1776. “…News that the Sanhedrim (1) had declared the
thirteen united Colonies Free and Independent States. That this was intended by the
Northern Colonies from the first, I am well convinced…” (2) These are not the words one
expects when talking about the Declaration of Independence, but to a 26-year-old
entrepreneurial Englishman caught in a revolution that he neither wanted nor supported,
this was the worst news ever. (3)

The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell is an informative source on the Revolutionary War from what could be considered a ‘Tory’ point of view. It is a personal account that shows that the struggle for freedom was not just on the battlefield but also in the streets and homes at the end of the colonial era. Nicholas Cresswell was an outsider from the moment he stepped on American soil in 1774 and heard news of the siege of Boston, noting that the colonists “talk as if they were determined to dispute the matter with the Sword.” (4) For two years, Cresswell observed the American colonies descend into rebellion, “The people here are Liberty mad, nothing but war is thought of.” (5)


When the colonies officially separated, Cresswell felt despair and anger instead of hope.
Cresswell’s intention was to set up life as a farmer, but misfortune and bad timing foiled his
plans. He blamed the “cursed Rebellion” for turning this “earthly paradise to a Hell upon
terra firma.” (6) Constantly under the suspicion of the local committees tasked with enforcing the
Continental Association as a suspected ‘Tory’ spy, he grew to despise the Continental
Congress as vile and hypocritical. “The Congress under the fallacious pretense of nursing
the tender plant, liberty, which was said to thrive so well in American soil, have actually
torn it up by the very root.” (7)

Cresswell could not help himself and always got into political discussions in the bars and
houses of Virginia. “At Dinner had a long dispute with Doctor Jacson about the origin of the
present proceedings…Most of the company agrees that I had the better of the argument.
But never so much embarrassed in my whole life.” (8) He even chided General Washington as a yeoman farmer “Negro-driver” (9) and a and was befuddled that he kept evading General Howe. Ultimately, he did decide that he was a decent General.


In the end, Cresswell decided that Virginia, for all of its bounty, was lost and returning to
England was his only option. After three years of surviving the storm of a revolution, he
made his slip to British lines. While technically not a Loyalist, (10) Cresswell provides critical
details on the otherwise missing narrative of Loyalism in the colonies, especially Virginia.
His last act dramatically involved him in a plot to free English sailors and soldiers from a jail
in Alexandria Virginia. Some of the conspirators were well known merchants in
Alexandria. (11) Thankfully Cresswell’s account exists to inform how a revolution hits the
home front and the profundity of independence at that time.

To learn more about Nicholas Cresswell, visit Kenneth Bancroft’s website at: https://nicholascresswell.wordpress.com/ and see his Rev War Revelry episode on Nicholas Cresswell on our You Tube Channel at: https://youtu.be/fyONRWmy6_I?si=-tIAEmJ69-GHv2BI


1 Cresswell’s derisive term for the Continental Congress. It refers to the Sandedrim, or Jewish Supreme
Council. “Sanhedrim,”McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia, accessed June 2, 2026
https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/sanhedrim.html. 2 Nicholas Cresswell, The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1777, (North Charleston, South Carolina:
reprinted 2024, 117. Free online version at the Library of Congress https://tile.loc.gov/storageservices/service/gdc/lhbtn/30436/30436.pdf. 3 See: “An Englishman’s Journal of the Revolutionary War: The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell 1774-1777,”
Emerging Revolutionary War, October 20, 2025, https://emergingrevolutionarywar.org/2025/10/20/anenglishmans-journal-of-the-revolutionary-war-the-journals-of-nicholas-cresswell-1774-1777/. 4 Cresswell, 16. 5 Ibid, 77. 6 Ibid, 197.
7 Ibid, 198.
8 Ibid, 99.
9 Ibid, 193. It is interesting that that turn of phrase is famously used by Samuel Johnson, an avowed Tory who
despised what the American colonies were doing. See: Interview, “Gordon S. Wood: How the American
Revolution “infused into our culture our noblest ideals and highest aspirations,” Library of America, accessed
June 7, 2026 https://www.loa.org/news-and-views/639-gordon-s-wood-how-the-american-revolutioninfused-into-our-culture-our-noblest-ideals-and-highest-aspirations/. 10 McGill … Cresswell was more of an immigrant who still had cultural ties to his homeland. 11 William Buckner McGroarty, “Loyalism in Alexandria, Virginia, The Virginia Magazine of History and
Biuography, 52, no. 1 (January 1944), 42-43, accessed March 11, 2026 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4245269.

July 2, 1776: “the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America”

On By Kevin PawlakIn 1776, America 250, Continental Congress, PoliticsLeave a comment

At 11 a.m. on July 2, 1776, Second Continental Congress Secretary Charles Thomson called the roll of the colonies in the vote for independence from Great Britain. The debates were over (they lasted most of the legislative session on July 1). Now was the time to formalize Richard Henry Lee’s resolution, first introduced to the Congress on June 7, 1776, “That these United Colonies, are, and of right ought to be, free and Independent States …”

It only took perhaps a few minutes for Thomson to query each colony and record their vote. Before noon, 12 colonies unanimously voted for independence while New York abstained. They were no longer colonies, but states. All the men in the Pennsylvania State House knew the importance of the occasion. Abraham Clark, one of New Jersey’s delegates, wrote, “We are now … embarked on a most Tempestuous Sea. Life very uncertain. Seeming dangers Scattered thick around us …. Let us prepare for the worst, we can Die here but once. May all our Business, all our purposes & pursuits tend to fit us for that important event.”

John Adams, one of the champions of the independence movement, reflected on the importance of July 2 the next day in a letter to his wife Abigail:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

While the Declaration of Independence would still not be signed for several weeks, July 2, 1776, and the vote for independence marked a point of no return for the members of the Continental Congress.

The Anticipation of Late June 1776

On By Chris MackowskiIn 1776, Adams, John and Abigail, PoliticsLeave a comment

Do you remember those 1970s-era TV commercials for Heinz ketchup? A young boy, with his glass ketchup bottle turned upside down over a hamburger, waits for the ketchup to flow. In the background, Carly Simon sang, “Anticipation”: “It’s making me wait. It’s keeping me way-yay-yay-yay-yay-yay-yayting.”

Had Carly Simon been alive 250 years ago, I have no doubt her song would have been playing in the background for Thomas Jefferson on June 29, 1776. The day before, June 28, he and his four colleagues on the “Committee of Five” had formally submitted their draft of the Declaration of Independence. Congress accepted the draft, but delegates were not yet ready to take up the document as a piece of business. They would not do so until July 1.

What might those days of limbo have felt like?

Continue reading “The Anticipation of Late June 1776” →

“Separation Day”

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1775, 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, National Park Service, Politics, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

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.

Continue reading ““Separation Day”” →

The Burning of “Madam Souchong” and the Women of Providence Who Burned Her

On By erwguestIn America 250, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Politics, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

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.

Continue reading “The Burning of “Madam Souchong” and the Women of Providence Who Burned Her” →

“free and Independent States”: The 250th Anniversary of the Lee Resolution

On By Kevin PawlakIn 1776, America 250, Continental Congress, Personalities, PoliticsLeave a comment

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.”

Continue reading ““free and Independent States”: The 250th Anniversary of the Lee Resolution” →

“…declare the United Colonies free and independent states…” 250th of the Virginia Fifth Convention Resolution 

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Civilian, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Politics, Revolutionary War, UncategorizedLeave a comment
Virginia Capitol in Williamsburg,
March 2026

As the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia debated on next steps and the ultimate goal of the war with Great Britain, leaders in Virginia decided to push the needle. Virginia was the largest (population and economically wise) colony in the 13 rebellious colonies. Many of its leaders were seen as leaders in the Continental Congress and in revolutionary thought. Other colonial leaders, including John Adams, knew that for the war and independence to be successful, Virginia needed to be a leading participant in the effort.

The Fifth Virginia Convention, the extra-legal body running Virginia in the absence of Royal authority, met in the Virginia Capitol in Williamsburg on May 6, 1776. There was a lot to discuss among the members. The Convention consisted of more conservative planters from the eastern part of the colony. These members tended to favor reconciliation with the mother country. Other members of the convention, that supported a more radical response were from the western part of the colony (west of the fall line) and many of its legal and philosophical minds (George Mason, James Madison, George Wythe). These men, who held the majority of the Convention, favored independence and also held the hearts and minds of most Virginians.

The most significant action of the Fifth Convention came on May 15, 1776, adopting groundbreaking resolutions. First the Convention directed Virginia’s delegates to the Continental Congress to propose a formal declaration of independence, to “declare the United Colonies free and independent states…” This directive was the first official call from any colony for a complete break with Britain. It signaled that reconciliation was no longer the goal; independence had become both necessary and inevitable in the minds of Virginia’s revolutionary leaders.

The resolution went even further. It not only urged independence but also called for the establishment of foreign alliances and confederation among the colonies. These measures demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of what independence would require: diplomatic recognition, military support, and political unity. Virginia’s leadership recognized that separation from Britain would not be sustainable without these elements in place. Soon, on June 7, 1776 in Philadelphia, Virginian Richard Henry Lee took the direction from the Fifth Convention and proposed that the Continental Congress declare independence.

Secondly, the Convention called for constructing its own independent government, taking concrete steps to replace colonial rule with a republican system. This new constitution of the “Commonwealth of Virginia’ would set up the system for which Virginia would be governed. Finally, the convention appointed a committee to draft a declaration of rights. This effort reflected the belief that independence was not just about rejecting British authority but also about creating a new political order grounded in principles of liberty and self-government.

One of the most influential figures in this process was George Mason. Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a document that would become one of the most important statements of political philosophy in the revolutionary era. Adopted in June 1776, it asserted that all men are by nature equally free and possess inherent rights, including the enjoyment of life and liberty, the means of acquiring property, and the pursuit of happiness and safety. It also emphasized that government derives its power from the people and must be accountable to them.

Delegate James Madison wrote
townspeople in Williamsburg took
down the Union Jack and replaced it
with the Continental Union flag.

Another key figure connected to Virginia’s revolutionary leadership was Thomas Jefferson, who was serving in the Continental Congress. Although he was not present at the Virginia Convention in May, the instructions sent by Virginia directly influenced his work. When Congress appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence, Jefferson drew heavily on ideas similar to those expressed in Mason’s document. The resulting United States Declaration of Independence, adopted in July, echoed Virginia’s emphasis on natural rights and the legitimacy of revolution against unjust government. The Convention also created a committee to design a state seal, this committee (led by George Wythe) adopted the seal of Virginia that is the basis for the seal used today.

Virginia’s actions in May 1776 also reflected broader social and political changes within the colony. The authority of the royal governor, Lord Dunmore, had effectively collapsed, and revolutionary institutions had taken control. Local committees and militias enforced the decisions of the convention, demonstrating that power had shifted from imperial officials to colonial leaders. This transition was not without conflict, but by May 1776, the revolutionary cause had gained widespread support among Virginia’s population. In the mind of Virginians, as of May 1776, Virginia was independent of the King and Parliament of Great Britain.

On June 12th, a follow up article will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Why 1776?

On By jmmcdonald28In 1775, America 250, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Politics, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

The American Revolution lasted eight years, 1775-1783. Why then do we celebrate 1776 and not the end of the war? Continental Congress presented the Declaration of Independence to the world on July 4, 1776. That’s the big deal. 

There was something different about this revolution against British authority. The colonies were better organized. The people, policymakers, and military worked in harmony, though imperfect, toward freeing themselves from the bonds of the British Empire. Lexington and Concord had loudly proclaimed the shots heard round the world in April 1775.

By the second year, the colonial armies already had two significant military achievements in the winter and early spring. The militia turned back the invading southern British army at the battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge, North Carolina, in February. This victory contained the Redcoats in the southern theater to South Carolina. Up north, the British army withdrew from Boston in March, giving the colonists a physical and moral achievement. The leaders of the Glorious Cause, however, knew violence and blood wouldn’t be enough to win the war as failed Scottish and Irish uprisings had demonstrated all too well.

It was now up to the Continental Congress to fire a political shot. Congress tasked a committee of five to draft a declaration in June 1776. The members included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Jefferson was the principal author. By July 1776, a final version was signed and submitted. It was only two paragraphs, but its words were, and still are, heard round the world.

The Declaration of Independence succinctly describes two of the five “Ws” of the war. Why we were fighting, or the main political goal, was first to be put forth. The colonists demanded a political divorce from British rule. As the committee wrote, at times “…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another …” Instead, the colonies wanted to form their own government based on a constitutional republic. It would be equal in standing to all other sovereign nations. That was the Why.  

Then our founding fathers pulled the trigger and laid out the What, the reasons or “unalienable rights” we were fighting for against the crown. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The King and Parliament hadn’t given these rights to any of their colonies or even their own citizens.

In fact, quite the reverse, British rule had subjugated the American colonies in “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Redcoats threw colonists in jail without due process. Colonists were hung without a trial or after an unfair trial. Parliament levied taxes on colonial goods at a whim. We were subjects. We were here to serve the crown. Facing such despotism, the colonies had every right to abolish political ties with the British Empire and pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

It’s these three rights that we will soon be celebrating by commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the document that declared those rights, the Declaration of Independence.  

Thoughts on “Thoughts on Government”

On By Chris MackowskiIn 1776, America 250, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Politics, Rev War RevelryLeave a comment

For weeks, colleagues in the Continental Congress had been asking John Adams for advice. If the colonies were to break away from Great Britain and established governments of their own, what should those governments look like?

The first request came from North Carolinians William Hooper and John Penn in late March. The duo had been recalled from Philadelphia so they could join in conversations about a new government for their home state. Before departing, they each asked Adams for his thoughts. Adams “wrote with his own Hand, a Sketch,” and gave copies to both delegates.[1] The ensuing discussions in North Carolina led to the April 12, 1776 passage of the Halifax Resolves, which authorized the colony’s Congressional delegation to vote in favor of independence—the first colony to formally grant such authorization. 

Next came a request from George Wythe of Virginia and then one from John Dickinson Sergeant of New Jersey. Finally, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia asked for a copy.

Adams had already given the topic considerable thought. He had touched on it in early 1775 in a series of newspaper articles that he’d signed “Novanglus,” and during a trip home in late 1775, he had addressed it for the Massachusetts colonial assembly. “The Happiness of the People is the sole End of Government, so the Consent of the People is the only Foundation of it,” he had written.[2] “Happiness,” in Adams’s vocabulary, meant “ease, comfort, security.”[3]

As Adams sketched out his ideas for his colleagues, he took the same approach, and each letter allowed him to develop and refine his ideas even further. By the time he wrote out his thoughts for Wythe, those ideas had become so clear and well articulated that the impressed Lee asked if he could have the letter published. Adams agreed. Using Wythe’s letter as the basis, Lee threw it into shape and “put it under the Types.”[4]

Continue reading “Thoughts on “Thoughts on Government”” →

The Adams Book Club: “Making the Presidency” by Lindsay M. Chervinsky

On By erwpostIn Adams, John and Abigail, PoliticsLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War is pleased to partner with the Adams Memorial Foundation to share some reading about America’s “Founding Family.” The Foundation holds a monthly book club, hosted by Board President Jackie Cushman. In special arrangement with the Adams Memorial Foundation, ERW is sharing links to the first few conversations from that book club.

The next book highlighted in our series is Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic by Dr. Lindsay M. Chervinsky (Oxford, 2024).

Continue reading “The Adams Book Club: “Making the Presidency” by Lindsay M. Chervinsky” →