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.
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.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Michael Aubrecht
If one was to define the life and legacy of Colonel Johann Gottlieb Rall (Rahl) they may use the term “victim of circumstance.” His is the ironic tale of a military man, whose stubborn nature and bad luck resulted in an untimely death. As the commander of the Hessian Troops garrisoned at Trenton New Jersey, Rall was the unfortunate recipient of General George Washington’s surprise attack that followed his brilliant crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas night in 1776.
There have been many different versions of this story, but a reexamination of the events by modern military historians has yielded a more redeeming conclusion to Rall’s defeat. Whereas it was once believed that the Hessian troops were celebrating the holiday and simply too intoxicated to properly defend the garrison and themselves, experts now believe that Rall and a sober regiment of German soldiers may have underestimated the resolve of their adversaries.
One aspect of this story that hasn’t changed took place prior to the attack…
A young boy had been given a spy report from a local Loyalist with directions to deliver it to a Hessian colonel who was in occupation of the City of Trenton. The note, written in English, was intended to inform the commander that the Continental Army was crossing the river and planning to attack. It is said that the colonel did not want to be interrupted during his Chess game (some say cards), so he put the unread note in his pocket. The story concludes with the note being found, still in his pocket, unopened, after he died in battle.
As both a Chess and Rev-War aficionado, I decided to do a little research into this specific part of the story to see what information was available. What I found was completely different than I had originally anticipated.
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.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Emerging Revolutionary War has been pleased to co-sponsor a series of Monday-evening programs to commemorate the America 250th at St. Bonaventure University, where contributor Chris Mackowski teaches. In March, the line-up of programs featured a student research panel. We are pleased to present today the work of one of the “emerging scholars” from that panel, Alex Payne.
Alex is a junior Theology and Franciscan Studies and History double-major from Shinglehouse, PA, with a minor in classics.
———
Sailor’s ballads in the late 17th and early 18th centuries communicated revolutionary sentiment that influenced the ideological origins of the American Revolution. Sailors’ ballads from revolutionary Atlantic history show how labor culture intersected with protest, emerging revolutionary sentiment, and identity formation. These protest and revolutionary ballads are what I refer to as “records of thought” of oppressed people. By “records of thought,” I mean oral traditions in the form of songs sung by people who were religiously and civilly oppressed that have been written down and transmitted through centuries.
The starting point of the record of thought of oppressed people is with the “Diggers’ Song” attributed to Gerard Winstanley. Winstanley was the leader of the Diggers, similar to but separate from the Leveller movement that emerged during the English Civil Wars between 1641–1659. The Diggers, known to history as radical land reformists, were led by Winstanley. They believed in an agrarian socialism and would “dig up” the land that was unjustly and inhumanly taken from the English commoners. The oppression they endured is found in the record of thought appropriately named “The Diggers’ Song.” This ballad was sung on St. George’s Hill in Surrey around 1649 by 20–30 men. It reads:
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.
Dr. Richard Bell, historian and professor of history at the University of Maryland, will discuss his new book, “The American Revolution and the Fate of the World.” Published by Penguin Random House, this “revelatory and enthralling book, award-winning historian Richard Bell reveals the full breadth and depth of America’s founding event. The American Revolution was not only the colonies’ triumphant liberation from the rule of an overbearing England; it was also a cataclysm that pulled in participants from around the globe and threw the entire world order into chaos.”
We look forward to you tuning in to this Sunday evening, 7 pm EDT on our Facebook page for this discussion with Dr. Bell!
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 