December 23, 1783: “More Extraordinary Than Any Military Feat During the War”

On December 22, 2016December 23, 2021 By Mark MaloyIn Uncategorized1 Comment

In Baltimore, Maryland stands one of the first monuments erected to the memory of George Washington. The 180-foot monument was finished in 1829, before the Washington Monument in D.C. was even begun. The impressive stone pillar is topped with a large statue of the General. Unlike most other statues of George Washington, the statue in Baltimore does not depict the Revolutionary War hero on horseback with his sword drawn, or as the First President of the United States. Instead it shows Washington, in his military uniform, simply extending a hand holding a piece of paper. Despite the simplicity of the scene, it is representative of one of the most important moments in the founding of the American nation: Washington resigning his military commission.

The Baltimore Washington Monument. Emblazoned on the sides are important dates in the Revolutionary War, including December 23, 1783. At the top, Washington resigns his commission.

On November 1, 1783, Washington learned that the Treaty of Paris had been signed and the Revolutionary War was over. On December 4, Washington bid an affectionate farewell at Fraunces Tavern in New York City to his officers and aides he had struggled and fought alongside for the previous eight years.

After the emotional farewell, Washington rode to Annapolis, Maryland where Congress was meeting at that time. He arrived at Annapolis on December 19 and was greeted as a hero. Congress agreed to accept his resignation on December 23, in a special ceremony.

The night before the ceremony, the town threw a celebratory ball for the General, complete with a dinner and dancing as well as thirteen cannon firings and thirteen toasts.

washresign — This famous painting of Washington Resigning his Commission by John Trumbull is on display in the United States Capitol Rotunda. The empty chair covered in robes is an allegorical depiction of the throne Washington was rejecting through the act of resigning.

At about noon on December 23, 1783, George Washington entered the Old Senate Chamber in the Maryland State House. The importance of the moment was not lost on those who witnessed it, least of all, Washington himself. Washington is likely the only American who could have been made a king in America. In fact, in 1782, Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote a letter to Washington, suggesting that he should be king of America. Washington, quickly and emphatically crushed any notion of establishing a monarchy. More than a great general or leader, Washington believed in the ideals of American liberty and civilian rule.

In London, King George III remarked that if Washington gave up his power “he will be the greatest man in the world.”[1] Only a few times in human history before had a person at their zenith voluntarily surrendered all their power. Julius Caesar, William Cromwell, and Napoleon Bonaparte are prime examples of those who seized power at that same moment. Few men have been able to resist and became drunk with power. Washington was one of the few exceptions. One of the only precedents of rejecting the allure of that amount of power was in ancient Rome, when Cincinnatus gave up power after winning a war to become a simple farmer. Washington was about to become the American Cincinnatus.

cjjtqrnwsaalqu0 — Washington’s copy of his remarks delivered during his resignation on display in the Maryland State House.

Inside the chamber, Washington stood before the Continental Congress and its president, Thomas Mifflin, and read his concluding remarks. At one point, the power of the moment overtook Washington as he struggled through with a cracked voice the last few lines of his remarks. Washington finished his remarks: “Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of action; and bidding an affectionate farewell to this august body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my commission and take my leave of all the employments of public life.”[2]

Those inside the chamber were overtaken with emotion and wept in the galleries. Concluding his remarks, Washington handed over to the Congress his commission dated June 15, 1775 and his remarks and left the building. And like that, Washington was once again a simple private citizen.

osc-looking-sw — The Old Senate Chamber in the Maryland State House as it looks today. The room was just recently restored to the way it looked in 1783.

He rode from Annapolis and made it back to Mount Vernon the next day on Christmas Eve. It was the first time he had been home for Christmas since the beginning of the war. He could enjoy that Christmas with his family, but world history would never be the same again.

Today you can visit the location where this momentous event took place and see Washington’s hand written remarks on display at the Maryland State House in Annapolis. While the date of December 23, 1783 does not usually bring to mind a historic event, historian Ron Chernow described the event as “more extraordinary than any military feat during the war.”[3]

Washington would again be called back reluctantly to lead the nation as its first president in 1789. After serving two terms as president, Washington once again voluntarily gave up power in 1797. His disinterestedness in control and power set a precedent many have sought to emulate, and few have attained.

[1] Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin Books, 2010. 454.

[2] Ibid., 456.

[3] Ibid., 457.

ERW Weekender – Boston Tea Party

On December 17, 2016December 15, 2016 By Rob OrrisonIn Uncategorized2 Comments

The City of Boston is known for many things and history is one of them. There are many support%20landing sites within the city that interpret the story of the beginning of the American Revolution. Many sites are along the famous and popular “Freedom Trail.” The Freedom Trail winds through the city and connects historic sites, churches, monuments, museums and cemeteries that focus on the story of 18^th century Boston. The trail can be identified by a double brick pattern located in the sidewalk. The 2 ½ mile trail begins at Boston Common and ends at the Bunker Hill Monument. Several sites in this book are included in the Freedom Trail, but there are others that are just as important that are not on the path of the trail. All the locations for this section are in walking distance, though we highly encourage you to use public transportation as driving in Boston can be challenging. Most attractions/sites in Boston are conveniently served by the “T” subway system.

For your first stop, visit the Old South Meeting House located at 310 Washington St, Boston (GPS: N 42.357078, W 71.058578). Built in 1729, the Old South Meeting House was one of the largest buildings in Boston at the time. It was here where the public meeting was held on the night of the Boston Tea Party. Today the building serves as a historic site and museum. The small admission fee is worth the price to see this historic site which includes exhibits on the history of the church, Boston and the Boston Tea Party.

From the Old South Meeting House, you can take the route of the “Mohawks” to the next stop, the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum. Take Milk Street (next to the Old South Meeting House) for three blocks and take a right onto Congress Street. After six blocks the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum will be on your left as you cross the bridge over Fort Point Channel (GPS: N 42.352071, W 71.051369). The Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum includes interactive exhibits and experiences where visitors can help throw tea over board one of the recreated ships (the Eleanor and the Beaver). There is also a tea room, theater and film and gift shop. Hours vary depending on the season.

Due to the expansion of the Boston shore lines over time, the actual location of Griffin’s Wharf is not near the water today. Some argue it was at the foot of Pearl Street near the intersection of Pearl Street and Atlantic Avenue. There is a plaque commemorating the Boston Tea Party located on Seaport Boulevard. To see the plaque, take Atlantic Avenue and make a right onto Seaport Boulevard, the plaque is located on the building to the right near the bridge (GPS: N 42.354147, W 71.050977).

“Boston Harbor a tea-pot this night!”

On December 16, 2016December 15, 2016 By Rob OrrisonIn Civilian, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Minute Men, Personalities, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

boston-tea-party The town meeting held on the night of December 16, 1773 at the Old South Meeting House was no ordinary meeting. Boston was well known for its public meetings, but this one was different. Frequently city leaders called town meetings to discuss important political, economic and social decisions facing the city or colony. The town meeting was a foundation of the political process for Massachusetts and much of the New England colonies. Royal authorities had watched these meetings more closely since the 1760s during the opposition to the Stamp Act. Colonial Whigs (anti Royal leaders) had used these meetings to protest British policies that they saw as threats to their liberties.

This town meeting was a follow up assembly to previous meetings held in November originally called for Faneuil Hall. The large turnout, however, required the crowd to move to the more spacious Old South Meeting House. Nearly 5,000 people attended the meeting to discuss the city and colony’s response to a new tax on tea and more directly, the ships in the harbor that held tea from the East India Company. The colonial Whigs did not want the cargo unloaded but the captain of the ships could not leave the harbor with the tea unless they had approval from the Governor. Governor Thomas Hutchinson did not believe he had the authority to allow the ships to leave without unloading the tea. Adding to that decision, Hutchinson was more than frustrated with those who had rejected Royal authority over the years. Thus, a legal and theoretical standoff ensued. That night, the people of Boston took the matter into their own hands.

On the surface, the Tea Act of 1773 was rooted in helping pay off the debt of the British Empire, caused in part by fighting the Seven Year War (French and Indian War) with France. Also, the revenue raised would pay British officials in the colonies, thus making them more loyal to Parliament and the British Crown. The Tea Act was one of many Parliamentary laws or “Acts” passed to raise revenue in the colonies. More importantly, the underlying purpose was for Parliament to display their authority to pass laws that were binding on the British colonies. Due to colonial opposition and resistance, many of these acts were repealed. However, the Tea Act, passed in 1773, sparked an immediate response throughout the colonies.

The Tea Act was also seen as a mode for saving a British held company, the British East India Company. Before 1773, the company had to sell its tea in London and was subject to duties. The company had collected large quantities of tea in warehouses in London and was looking for a way to disperse the tea at a bargain. The Tea Act allowed the company to sell directly to American ports without paying the duties. This also forced American buyers to only purchase their tea from the East India Company, which was subject to a tax. The good news was the price of tea was reduced because the Company no longer had to pay the duties in London. Colonists resisted the notion that Parliament could force them to buy tea from the East Indian Company (many made a good living off of smuggled tea sales) and that they were required to pay a tax on the tea.

The popular notion, “taxation without representation,” had been around since the 1750’s and became well-known in 1764 in response to the highly unpopular Sugar Act and Stamp Act. Colonial Whigs believed they had no representation in Parliament because they did not elect representatives to Parliament. British political theory and law believed in the model of “virtual representation” which meant the colonists did not vote for individual members of Parliament though that body, as a whole acted in the best interest for all British subjects. Colonial leaders, who for decades were allowed to vote for their representative bodies in their respective colony, did not accept this theory. The opposing views on representation began to open opposition to British authority over colonial matters.

Though passed in May 1773, the Tea Act did not impact the people in the colonies until fall. Seven ships of tea were sent to four American ports, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. Meanwhile, colonial Whig leaders began to organize a resistance to the East India Tea that was en route. In fact, in every other city but Boston the tea was refused and forced to either be returned to England or confiscated by local officials. It was in Boston that a determined governor and history of Royal opposition led to a signal event in American history.

On November28th, the ship Dartmouth arrived loaded with tea. British law gave ships with imports twenty days to pay the duties or the local custom officials could confiscate the cargo. Hutchinson, when petitioned, would not allow the ship to leave the port without paying the duty. His sons, who acted as the Tea Consignees (authorized to receive the tea and see to its distribution) for Boston, also refused to back down and resign their positions, which happened in other American ports. Soon two more ships arrived in the harbor with the unwanted tea. Unable to return the tea to England and without being able to unload the tea due to the threats of local groups such as the Sons of Liberty, the captains of the ships were in a tight and dangerous spot.

On the night of December 17^th, one of the largest public meetings in Boston convened at the Old South Meeting House. Speeches by Sam Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Warren and other Boston Whig leaders called for the return of the tea to England. Later in the evening, word came that a last minute plea to Governor Hutchinson to let the ships return was refused. Sam Adams announced publicly, “This meeting can do nothing further to save the country.”

The events that happened next have been debated since 1773, soon men arrived outside the Meeting House disguised as Mohawk Indians. Whether or not these men were signaled to move towards the ships with tea is unknown. As the “Mohawks” marched down Milk Street towards Griffin’s Wharf where the three ships of tea were docked, the thousands gathered inside the Old South Meetinghouse began to pour out of the building. Chants of “Boston a Teapot Tonight” and “Hurrah for Griffin’s Wharf” were reportedly heard. Some people followed the “Mohawks”, others continued to protest in the streets, while still others headed home believing that a confrontation was about to take place.

boston-tea-party-2 Many details remain unknown about who exactly the “Mohawks” were that marched on Griffin’s Wharf that night. The men used lamp soot and red ochre to disguise their faces and carried a wide assortment of weapons. As they made their way to the wharf, they yelled and “whooped” as Indians in a war party. If they had coordinated the timing with leaders in the Old South Meetinghouse, it is still unknown. The identities of most of these men either were never recorded or are lost to history; that is how tight their veil of secrecy was coupled with their sophisticated organization. As they made their way to the ships, the Whig leaders inside the Old South Meetinghouse stayed behind and were never directly part of what happened next.

The men, with a crowd behind them, approached the wharf. There they divided into three different groups, one for each of the ships, Dartmouth, Beaver and Eleanor. Being a port city, most of the men knew where to find the cargo they were looking for and how to operate on a ship. Respectively, most of the other cargo and private property on the ships were not touched. They were only after the tea. Hauling the chests to the deck, they were broken open and dumped into Boston Harbor. Some of the men watched to make sure no one was trying to steal any of the tea that they were dumping. The group of approximately 150 men worked quickly as the crowd of spectators grew.

The American Revolution did not just “happen.” It was the culmination of various events and acts that individually did not guarantee separation. As a collective, one can retroactively see how the accumulation of these events led to the inevitable. The Boston Tea Party was one of these events. This time it was different; this time Great Britain would respond in a way it never had before. The Tea Party gave the tinder box of revolution in America more fuel and many believed a small incident would cause a spark leading to open war between colonies and mother country. The spark would come on April 19, 1775 in the Massachusetts countryside.

Stepping Onto Long Wharf and Into History: The Day the British Came To Boston

On December 7, 2016December 6, 2016 By erwguestIn Battlefields & Historic Places, British Leadership, Civilian, Monuments, Northern Theater, Personalities, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

Emerging Revolutionary War is honored to welcome guest historian Katie Turner Getty. A short biography is at the bottom of the post.

In terms of historical significance, few American cities rival Boston, where shades and shadows of the Revolution can be found around every corner. By walking the city’s famous Freedom Trail, one can follow in the literal footsteps of the inhabitants who left such an indelible mark on the city. Indeed, many heroes of revolutionary Boston—Revere, Adams, Otis—lie in their eternal repose in burying grounds mere steps from busy thoroughfares.

The presence of those revolutionaries still looms large in Boston and many of their old stomping grounds still stand. Several buildings located on the Freedom Trail played unforgettable parts in the revolution. From the fiery speeches at Old South Meeting House on the eve of the tea party to the blood shed by those massacred outside the Old State House*, these sites are popular and are frequently visited.

But there is one site not located on the Freedom Trail that is yet imbued with great historical import. Indeed, it is the site of the 1768 arrival of British warships in Boston Harbor and the troops who first took those fateful steps into Boston for the purposes of occupying the city.

katieturnergettyphoto1 — East-facing view of Long Wharf and John Hancock’s office and counting house, built in 1763, and now the Chart House restaurant.

The name of this site, so often overlooked, is Long Wharf.

Long Wharf has stretched into the Atlantic from Boston for 300 years, serving as the world’s great doorway to the city. It was the longest wharf in Boston, extending 1,586 feet into the deep water of the harbor allowing up to 50 ships to dock at one time[1]. It would have been a place of great bustle—the loading and unloading of cargo by longshoremen, transporting of such cargo to the busy warehouses and shops that lined the wharf, and then the purchase of such goods by local people.

katieturnergettyphoto2 — West-facing view toward Boston, from the end of Long Wharf. The Town House (now known as the Old State House), built in 1713, is in the distance.

On Friday, September 30, the Beaver, the Senegal, the Martin, the Glasgow, the Mermaid, the Romney**, the Launceston, and the Bonetta anchored in the harbor. On board the ships were “the 14^th and 29^th Regiments, a detachment from the 59^th regiment, and an artillery train”.[2] The next day, Bostonians warily watched as “the war ships maneuvered closer to the town and ranged themselves as if for a siege.”[3] Then, carried off the warships by small boats, British troops stepped onto Long Wharf and into American history.

These ships and troops had arrived in the port of Boston as a response to colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts which were enacted by Parliament in 1767 in an effort to enforce their sovereignty over the colonies and raise revenue. The Townshend Acts imposed a tax on imports such as tea, glass, paper, and paints, as well as instituted a Customs board to help enforce British trade regulations and deter smuggling activity. Many Bostonians were opposed to the Townshend Acts and protested by gathering in mobs and harassing officials.

katieturnergettyphoto3 — View of the Atlantic Ocean from the very end of Long Wharf.

Paul Revere immortalized the landing of the troops in an engraving entitled “A View Of Part of the Town of Boston In New England And Brittish [sic] Ships of War Landing Their Troops! 1768”. The image depicts the eight British ships of war arrived in the harbor, with smaller boats carrying red-coated soldiers to Long Wharf. Some troops are already amassed on the wharf, gathering into formation.

katieturnergettypaulrevereengraving — “A View of Part of the Town of Boston In New England And Brittish [sic] Ships of War Landing Their Troops! 1768” (courtesy of American Antiquarian Society http://www.americanantiquarian.org/Inventories/Revere/b2.htm )

Revere’s engraving also shows many buildings running along the north side of Long Wharf in an uninterrupted line toward the town. They were warehouses, counting houses, shops, and dwellings. One of these buildings was John Hancock’s Counting House, which still stands on Long Wharf today. Currently incarnated as a restaurant called the Chart House, it is the oldest extant building on Long Wharf, built in 1763. John Hancock’s original wall safe is actually still set in the red brick wall of the second floor dining room. The safe is not off-limits; visitors may freely open and close the safe’s inner and outer doors or even run a hand over the smooth metal.

katieturnergettyphoto4 — John Hancock’s original safe, still fixed in the wall of his Counting House.

When standing at the wall safe, take a few steps to the right and look out the front windows of the building. Look down to the ground level to see the path of the troops as they passed right by Hancock’s Counting House, “with insolent parade, drums beating, fifes playing, and colours flying, up King Street” as they headed down the wharf and into the town. The soldiers were marching to the Town House, at the base of King Street. And beyond that, to Boston Common.

katieturnergettyphoto5 — View out a second floor window of Hancock’s Counting House, a few steps from the wall safe. The viewer is looking down at Long Wharf where the British troops marched past on October 1, 1768.

Long Wharf at the time (as it is today) was really just an extension of King Street, which ran all the way from the Town House (later to become the site of the Boston Massacre), down to the shoreline, then continued along in the form of a wharf, out into the harbor. After the Revolution, King Street was (perhaps appropriately) renamed State Street and is known by that decidedly more American moniker today.

The soldiers’ route may be traced today by any perambulating history enthusiast. Walk out past Hancock’s Counting House, to the terminus of Long Wharf and stand where the British soldiers disembarked. As you gaze out across the cold gray Atlantic, feel the stiff sea breeze rolling in off the water just as they did. Then turn your gaze away from the Atlantic and look back toward the city. The view is the same as in 1768—the Town House will be in your direct line of sight. As the soldiers marched down the wharf in a straight line, they too would have seen the Town House quite clearly.

A pamphlet published by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in the 1980s reveals that although the wooden timbers of Long Wharf are experiencing decay, the 17th and 18th century granite bulkheads beneath the wharf are still intact.[4] It is a thrill for any revolutionary history enthusiast to walk out to the end of Long Wharf, knowing that deep beneath his or her feet are the very same granite blocks, impervious to time and history, that bore silent witness to the arrival of the British soldiers who stepped onto Long Wharf and into history when they came to occupy Boston.

*The building known today as the Old State House was known in the 1770s as the Town House.

**The Romney actually arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768 to help enforce customs and discourage the flouting of trade regulations, attempting to seize John Hancock’s ship, Liberty.
*Katie Turner Getty is a lawyer, history enthusiast, and lifelong resident of Boston. She holds an A.A. from Bunker Hill Community College in Charlestown, Massachusetts, a B.A. in History from Wellesley College, and a J.D. from New England Law Boston. She can often be found exploring historic sites both on and off the Freedom Trail.

Sources:

[1] National Park Service, “Long Wharf and Custom House Block,” Maritime History of Massachusetts, accessed October 28, 2016, http:// https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/maritime/lon.htm%20

[2] Paul Revere, A View of Part of the Town of Boston in New England and Brittish [sic] Ships Landing Their Troops! 1768, circa 1770, engraving, 26 x 40.5 cm, American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts http://www.americanantiquarian.org/Inventories/Revere/b2f1.jpg

[3] Richard Archer, As If An Enemy’s Country (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), xiv.

[4] Boston Public Library, “Long Wharf”, Sasaki Associates, Boston Redevelopment Authority, 1980, accessed October 24, 2016 https://archive.org/details/longwharf00sasa

Two Places the American Revolution Could’ve Started

On November 30, 2016November 30, 2016 By Phill GreenwaltIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Monuments, Northern Theater, Revolutionary War2 Comments

Recently, I had the chance to head to New England to take photos for an upcoming publication in the Emerging Revolutionary War Series. While there I ventured to Salem, Massachusetts and New Castle, New Hampshire. Two great places filled with American history and also what could have been even more American history.

The shooting war that became the American Revolution began in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. Yet, these two places; Salem, Massachusetts and Fort William and Mary in New Hampshire, almost, caused the war to begin.

Here is what happened.

On December 14, 1774, local militia raided the British post garrisoned by six men at Fort William and Mary near Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Faced with over 400 militiamen the garrison proved obstinate and did not accept surrender and when faced with an assault, actually fired three cannon shots at the charging militia. Open combat ensued but no deaths occurred before the militia gained the fort.

Entrance to the fort, with the plaque commemorating the events in December 1774 to the right of the entrance.

During the afternoon, the militia would deprive the fort of over 100 barrels of precious gunpowder. By the next day, over 1,000 militiamen had arrived to lend support and within a few days, British General Thomas Gage had dispatched a small force on a British naval vessel but by the time they arrived, the commotion at Fort William and Mary had subsided.

Three months later and located approximately 50 miles south of Fort William and Mary is Salem where the following incident took place. Thomas Gage ordered 240 men of the 64^th Foot Regiment under Lt. Col. Alexander Leslie on February 27, 1775 by water to the town. Upon arrival the force hovered off the coast waiting for the residents to attend their regular Sunday sermon. Soon after, the 64^th Foot began to make the five mile march to Salem. A column of nearly 250 British regulars brought a lot of attention and soon riders were riding ahead to Salem to warn them of the approaching British. The men in Salem began to remove the cannon and hide them in the countryside. The main objective for Leslie was a blacksmith shop on the north side of the North River. Here is where it was reported that the ship cannons were being refitted for field use.

Historic Marker commemorating the spot of armed resistance at the Salem Bridge on February 27, 1775.

The issue at the river was a draw bridge was the only way across and as the British approached, several men raised the drawbridge so the British could not cross. By this time militia was on the opposite banks of the North River. An armed confrontation, one of many this winter, between colonials and Royal troops ensued. Leslie demand that the bridge be lowered so he could cross but the militia would not budge. Meanwhile, the cannons Leslie was looking for were being dispersed. Leslie threatened to fire on the militia, but Leslie’s senses got the best of him as he recognized hundreds of townspeople were now turned out and watching. He did not want to have blood on his hands this day. Plus the safety of his own men became in doubt as the day was getting long and he knew he had to extricate himself somehow.

Soon a local minister proposed a compromise, the bridge would be lowered and the British could cross and march to the blacksmith forge just a hundred yards beyond the bridge. If no cannon were found (which by now, they were all removed) then Leslie would turn around and march his men back to the ships on the shore. To Leslie, this was an honorable compromise as his orders were to cross the river and investigate the blacksmith forge and shop. Soon after the British crossed the North River, they re-crossed and marched back to their ships. Open rebellion was again thwarted. But a deadly precedent was set, the militia learned that the British did not intend to fire on them and such the bravery of each militia unit at each alarm was amplified.

Both of these affairs did not start the war. Both could have. We may never know why. But, what we do know is that they were example of how close the war was to starting. Lexington and Concord became the tipping point.

Defending the New Nation: The Fredericksburg Gun Manufacturing Plant

On November 14, 2016November 3, 2016 By erwguestIn Civilian, Common Soldier, Revolutionary War, Weapons2 Comments

Part Two by historian Malanna Henderson

The financial direction of the gunnery was put into the hands of Fielding Lewis. Born into a wealthy family at Warner Hall in Gloucester County, Virginia in 1725, Fielding was the third son of John and Frances Lewis. Following his father’s footsteps, Fielding was a prosperous industrialist, running a fleet of ships to England and English ports, exporting tobacco and grain. In addition, he operated a store and served on numerous committees and local government associations that laid the groundwork for governing what would eventually become the United States of America. Fielding was addressed as Colonel Lewis, more often than not, reflecting his participation as a provider of provisions and raising the local Spotsylvania militia during the French and Indian War. Feats he was to repeat and go beyond during the Revolutionary War.

colonel-fielding-lewis — Colonel Fielding Lewis (Courtesy of The George Washington Foundation)

Often using his vast personal wealth, Lewis purchased schooners and sloops, outfitting them with artillery to patrol the Rappahannock River in an effort to protect civilian lives and property, and to stop British troops from seizing colonial weaponry.

In February 1776, Lewis purchased the schooner, Liberty, outfitting it with armory. Later, renamed Hornet, it sailed under the command of Richard Taylor of Caroline County. It carried a crew of twenty-one men. Lewis, then purchased a sloop named Defiance and placed it under the command of Captain Eliezer Callender. In April, Lewis purchased the pilot boat, Adventure, appointing Captain William Saunders at the helm.

Lewis commissioned ships to be built as well. The row galley was the most popular vessel used for defense of the river and harbor at the time. Although equipped with sails, the primary source of power was the oar. Larger row galleys measuring seventy feet long could carry a crew of fifty men. These galleys often-times carried two large eighteen pound cannons. Lewis commissioned another ship named Dragon and launched it in 1777; it was used primarily to patrol the Chesapeake Bay.

Free and enslaved blacks were often members of the crew. Around one-hundred and forty black men served with the Virginia fleet; one to ten on each of the seventy vessels. About ten served on the Dragon. Some of these men may well have been slaves belonging to Lewis or Dick. Only ten percent of black men who served in the navy were free, most were escaped slaves posing as free men, like Crispus Attucks, the first casualty of the Revolutionary War. To fulfill enlistment quotas, slaves served as substitutes for their masters. Unlike white men who served for a specific time, blacks were in it for the long haul; for only then could their service earn them the promise of freedom.

The first ship to engage in warfare was the Hornet, capturing four enemy merchantmen in the Rappahannock. Their ship, Speedwell, was taken into custody by the Virginia Navy and sent to the West Indies to bring back gunpowder. Fielding imported guns and ammunition for use in the colonies by the Rappahannock and the Patsey.

Lewis’s commitment to freeing the colonies from British rule was unrelenting. A wealthy man, he sacrificed nearly everything he possessed to see his dream of American independence from Britain rule become a reality. He sat on one local government committee after another. He bought ships and turned them into naval ships. He managed the financial direction of the gunnery, as well as procuring military materials. Col. Lewis appointed ship captains and he raised regiments, adding manpower to the Continental Army. During this time, Lewis didn’t neglect the on-going responsibilities he administered before the war. He presided over legal cases as the Justice of the Peace, provided religious leadership, administrative duties and support for the poor as a vestry member of St. George’s Anglican Church, and ran his plantation and mercantile business.

The Fifth Convention met in May of 1776 and authorized the Virginia Committee to reimburse Lewis 1,059 pounds to pay privateers who imported provisions. He was also reimbursed an additional 1,800 pounds in July. However by the end of the war Lewis was virtually bankrupt. He was owed a considerable amount of money but he never recouped all of the money he invested. By 1780, Lewis’ health had deteriorated to the extent that he was no longer able to manage the gunnery and the full responsibility fell on the shoulders of Charles Dick, who had used his personal credit to finance various tasks related to the success of the gunnery. The Convention was delinquent in its payments to Lewis, Dick and the sixty employees at the gunnery. Dick closed the factory for a time due to his inability to meet payroll. He wrote to Governor Thomas Jefferson his frustrations about the lack of funds:

“I will do all in my Power to carry on the Work; but impossibiltys I cannot do … There must be proper stores laid in, Provisions, Walnut Plank for Gun-stocks, Iron, Steel are the principal articles, and these require even a good deal of Real money – And without which little or nothing can be done; I cannot speak plainer.”

The gunnery closed in 1783, the same year that the Treaty of Paris was signed establishing the independence of the United States of America. The manufacturing plant continued to operate, repairing muskets badly damaged after the war. Subsequently, once the gunnery ceased operations, the property and land was sold to trustees of the Fredericksburg Academy, whose president was James Mercer. The academy opened in 1786.

The last major battle of the Revolutionary War occurred at Yorktown. Major General Charles Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington in October of 1781. By December, Fielding Lewis, at the age of fifty-six, had succumbed to his battle with (consumption) tuberculosis. Charles Dick died a few years later in 1783. True patriots, Fielding Lewis and Charles Dick sacrificed their fortunes and health to free colonial America from British rule and were eye-witnesses to the birth of a new nation.

Today, at Historic Kenmore, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, stands the 18^th-century plantation home built by Fielding Lewis and Betty Washington Lewis. The home, the pre-Revolutionary colonial kitchen and the Crownsinshield Gallery are open to the public for tours. Besides the antique collection of furniture and decorative arts, a musket produced by the Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory hangs in a display case in the gallery.

In the pages of American history, Col. Lewis and Charles Dick stand out as men whose faithful and persistent dedication to the cause of liberty lives on as an example of true patriotism.

“Fielding Lewis and Charles Dick may not have served on the battlefield during the Revolution, but they fought their own battles on the homefront, sacrificing all they had to keep the Gunnery running, naval ships operating and the militia supplied. Their sacrifices should remind us all to ask ourselves if we would be willing to do the same if ever called upon.” – Meghan Budinger, Aldrich Director of Curatorial Operations, The George Washington Foundation.

memorial-stone-dedicated-to-col-fielding-lewis-from — (Courtesy of The George Washington Foundation)

*Endnotes “Protecting the New Nation: The Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory

Photo Credit Information

Meghan Budinger, curator, sent me a list of questions that I had to answer in order to get permission to use the photographs from their collection.

State Marker: N-7,Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory
Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation (The Papers of George Washington Revolutionary War Series, Fielding’s letter to George Washington)
Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation (The Papers of George Washington Revolutionary War Series, Military Manual)
Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation (Musket: Fredericksburg Gunnery, Gift of Thomas Mellon II, 1936.)
Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation (Colonel Fielding Lewis, portrait by John Wollaston, Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation, circa 1755-1757.)
Courtesy of the George Washington Foundation Memorial stone from The Sons of the American Revolution

Bibliography:

Kenmore Training Manual, Fielding Lewis of Ships and Slaves, courtesy of the George Washington Foundation.

Prelude to a Revolution: Dunmore’s Raid on the Williamsburg Magazine, by Norman Fuss, www.allthingsliberty.com

Free-Lance Star “The Way It Was,” by Ruth Coder Fitzgerald, February 15, 1997.

Defending the New Nation: The Fredericksburg Gun Manufacturing Plant

On November 7, 2016November 3, 2016 By erwguestIn Civilian, Common Soldier, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Revolutionary War, WeaponsLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War is honored to welcome back historian Malanna Henderson.

Part One

n-7-fredericksburg-gun-manufactory-state-marker — N-7 Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory State Marker

Located at 200 Gunnery Road between Dunmore and Ferdinand Streets is the Old Walker-Grant public school. The three-acre campus is home to the Fredericksburg Regional Head Start educational program. Built in 1938, Walker-Grant was the first publically financed high school for black youth in Fredericksburg. The institution was named for Joseph Walker and Jason Grant.

Walker, born into slavery in Spotsylvania County in 1854, was freed after the Civil War and moved to Fredericksburg. Employed in a paper mill, Walker was self-taught and had a keen interest in expanding educational opportunities for black youth. He served as the sexton at St. George’s Episcopal Church for more than 50 years. Jason Grant was born free in Chatham, Ontario, Canada, in 1861 to a middle-class family. He attended Wilberforce Educational Institute in Ohio. He met an inspiring educator from Fredericksburg and decided to move there and teach. Grant taught at the county and city schools and also served as principal. His career spanned 42 years. Both Walker and Grant worked diligently to establish a learning institution for black children whose educational opportunities were marginalized by the social order of the day: segregation and racial discrimination.

Over two-hundred years ago, this location was once the site of the Fredericksburg Gunnery plant; the first government ran factory of its kind in the nation. Established in 1776, its existence was paramount to the victory of the Continental forces in winning the Revolutionary War.

By then, the colonists had interpreted an array of British economic policies as threatening their rights as Englishmen. When a slew of taxes were demanded of the colonists who were accustomed to governing themselves, their rebellious cry became, “no taxation without representation.” Until then, the planter-statesmen and other notables still felt they could reconcile with the mother country, despite the occurrences of the Boston Massacre in 1770 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773. However, in Virginia an odious act by the royal governor put the colonists on notice that the British were willing to spill more blood in an effort to vanquish the rebellion.

In the dead of night, on April 21, 1775, a mixed military unit of His Majesty’s Navy and Marines confiscated gun powder and armaments from the Williamsburg Magazine. This vital repository of weapons was stockpiled for the defense against Indian raids, slave revolts and riots. The action of the British soldiers left Virginia virtually defenseless.

John Murray, Fourth Earl of Dunmore and the last royal governor of Virginia ordered the raid. Many colonists saw this as the last straw. Dunmore had repeatedly rebuked the colonial statesmen’s demands, dissolving the House of Burgess and other political committees. An aristocrat, accustomed to having his word obeyed without question, Dunmore saw the burgeoning independence of the statesmen as an affront to his authority and responded by acts of retribution instead of compromise.

Blood had already been spilt at the Battles of Lexington and Concord a few days prior. Thus, disarming the colonists seemed a logical strategy to weaken their resolve. The shot heard around the world occurred in the north and in the south; the stealth act of a midnight raid struck a wedge between Britain and the American colonies that was irreparable.

The colonists had to arm themselves if they were going to war with England, whose military might seemed Herculean to the limited martial skills of the local colonial militias. There was no standing army. Each of the thirteen colonies had their own reservists, comprised of farmers, merchants and tradesmen who were needed sporadically for lawless incidents.

On July 17, 1775, the Third Virginia Convention convened in Richmond to create a working government structure. Delegates were elected to serve on the Committee of Safety, which replaced the Committee of Correspondence. Its powers were comparable to the defunct House of Burgess. The most important resolutions that sprung from those meetings were to raise two regiments, a total of sixteen companies of sixty-eight men each to serve one year tours. In addition, sixteen districts of Minutemen were planned. In all of the county militias, the remaining free white males between the ages of fifteen to fifty were to muster, eleven times a year. Below is a page from Colonel Lewis’s manual on military exercises and drills, dated 1777.

excercises-and-evaluation-of-military-drills-1777 — (Courtesy of The George Washington Foundation)

The last meeting of the convention took place on the 26^th of August. An ordinance to build a gun manufacturing plant was enacted. One prominent Virginian intellectual described it as, a first step “in open defiance of British parliamentary law.”

The five commissioners appointed to operate the gun factory were Mann Page; William Fitzhugh; Samuel Selden; Charles Dick and Fielding Lewis, George Washington’s brother-in-law, husband to his sister Betty Washington. Lewis was elected chairman of the Committee. As it turned out, the only men who stayed the course was Charles Dick and Fielding Lewis.

Initially, the convention issued to Lewis 2,000 pounds to construct the gun manufacturing plant. Early in November, Lewis purchased a ten-acre tract of land located south of town. He also leased a nearby mill on four town lots.

Knowing how desperate the Continental Army was for arms, Lewis penned a letter, on February 4, 1776, to George Washington in haste. Now the Commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, George received this letter from Fielding describing the developments of the factory and the formation of the army regiments they were establishing. Of note, in August of 1775, Patrick Henry was named Colonel of the 1^st Regiment, and the 2^nd Regiment was commanded by William Woodford with Alexander Spotswood serving as major. In January of 1777, Hugh Mercer was named Colonel of the 3^rd Regiment.

fielding-lewis-letter-to-george-washington-on-the-building-of-the-gunnery — (Courtesy of The George Washington Foundation)

“…our Gunn Manufactory is now beginning & expect by New Years day to have near fifty Men imploy’d who will make about Twelve Gunns compleat a Day…”

The gunnery was close to the Hunter Iron Works, an important supplier. James Hunter, the owner, added the manufacturing of muskets to his production output, independent of government funding. He also supplied regiments with axes, spades, shovels and mattocks.

The items produced at the Fredericksburg Gunnery were muskets, bayonets, flint locks, ramrods and more. The plant encompassed a main manufactory, a stone powder magazine, cartridge works, repair shops and a vegetable garden, for the benefit of the employees.

Charles Dick ran the day to day operations, hiring a master workman and artisans. Although, the very capable Mr. Dick never discussed his origins or even his birthdate; the self-made man wasn’t a member of the established gentry. However, he easily found his place amongst Fredericksburg’s leading citizens. Dick was a successful merchant, land owner, Mason and a well-respected member of the community. He served on several important civic organizations; the Committee of Correspondence and later the Committee of Safety. A business partner and personal friend of Fielding Lewis, Dick was godfather to Lewis’ first son.

On September 22, 1775 an advertisement for locksmiths was published, most likely in the Virginia Gazette. Dick needed gunsmiths, artisans and a variety of other laborers to make the gunnery productive. It was evident, early on, that there was a deficiency of expert gunsmiths ready for hire. The House of Delegates passed an apprentice act so Dick could train a class of artisans from the white youth in the area. The young men would be housed, fed and clothed; all paid for by the government. Dick forbade the drinking of beer and rum at the establishment, a drastic change from Eighteenth Century practices. Three black men were engaged to cook, bake and do an assortment of odd jobs. Whether they were slave or free is unknown.

In an emergency the aristocrats of the town, women, too, worked at the factory stuffing cartridges, etc., for the more than one hundred guns hastily readied for the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania militia. The most commonly used weapon at the time was the British Brown Bess, a muzzle-loading smoothbore musket. It fired a single shot ball or a cluster shot which fired multiple projectiles like a shotgun. About four shots per minute was the typical output from most soldiers. By May of 1777, the factory produced similar muskets to the British Brown Bess by the rate of twenty per week.

a-musket-produced-from-the-fredericksburg-gun-manufactory — (Courtesy of The George Washington Foundation)

Review: Braddock’s Defeat: The Battle of the Monongahela and the Road to Revolution, by David Preston. Oxford University Press, 2016. Reviewed by David A. Powell

On November 4, 2016November 3, 2016 By erwguestIn Battles, Book Review, British LeadershipLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War is honored to welcome back guest historian David A. Powell.

When George Washington opened fire on a small party of Canadian militia commanded by Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville in May of 1754, he fired the first shots of what would eventually become the French and Indian War – and the Seven Years War across the rest of the globe. Many scholars have also acknowledged that this incident set the spark for what would become our own American Revolution.

51n-wna6fhl-_sx328_bo1204203200_ — Braddock’s Defeat: The Battle of the Monongahela and the Road to Revolution, by David Preston.

Of course, Washington intended none of those things; instead he was carrying out the British Crown’s policy of staking claim to and defending the Ohio Country, lately disputed between France and Britain. However, Jumonville’s death set irreversible forces in motion, not the least of which was the capture of Washington’s own company of Virginia Colonial Militia at Fort Necessity by a much larger French response in June of 1754.

The direct consequence of that encounter was the creation of a new British army, including two regiments of regulars and a train of artillery, rushed from Ireland and England to re-assert Crown control over the forks of the Ohio. Command of this new expedition fell to Major General Edward Braddock. Arriving in 1755, Braddock’s mission was to lead this new force from Fort Cumberland, in western Maryland, to the site of the French Fort Duquesne (present-day Pittsburgh.) That campaign ended in disaster on July 9, 1755 when Braddock’s column collided with a combined force of French and Indians just a dozen miles short of Duquesne, resulting in horrific British losses – including Braddock.

Not surprisingly, this story has been fertile ground for historians. Fine monographs have already been written on the campaign, as well as on the French and Indian War as a whole. Having a particular interest in the period, I have read a number of those works. Naturally, I was curious when I first heard of Dr. David Preston’s new book exploring the campaign.

Preston, a professor at the Citadel, has delivered a tremendous book. Combining new research and close analysis of previously known sources, he provides fresh new perspective on General Edward Braddock, his ill-fated expedition, and the French & Indians opposing him.

Preston finds that Braddock, far from being an unyielding martinet uninterested in either the “savages” or using Colonials, worked hard (if unsuccessfully) to bring Indian warriors into his force, and showed more respect for the colonial elements under his command than some previous historians have portrayed. A number of factors precluded Braddock’s success here, but it was not for want of trying.

Where Preston’s interpretation really shines is in exploring the French and Indian sides of the war. A new account of the battle, located in a French archive, casts new light on the French efforts to defend Fort Duquesne – a venture whose success was by no means a sure thing. Preston also explores the Indian Nations’ complex and diverse reasons for casting their support with the French, which was also not certain. Preston makes it clear that the French defense was in many ways based on fortuitous circumstances rather than planning, especially in regards to the timing of the campaign.

Preston’s detailed description of the battle in question on July 9 presents a clear and detailed exploration of the sequence events as far as they can be known; where the author speculates he notes that, and explains the basis of his interpretation. Above all, his narrative is well-written, exciting and drama-filled.

Preston also excels in his summation of the long-term impact of Braddock’s defeat, both on the fortunes of British North America in the two years following the battle (which ran from bad to disastrous) and on the longer term consequences: the development of light infantry and ranger tactics, leadership, and the growing rift between American colonials and England.

Students of both the Seven Years War in America and the American Revolution will want to read Braddock’s Defeat. Get your copy today.

The Revolutionary Beginnings of the Headless Horseman

On October 30, 2016October 30, 2016 By Mark MaloyIn Uncategorized6 Comments

October of 1776 was a scary time during the Revolutionary War. George Washington’s army had suffered major defeats in August and lost the city of New York to the British Army. By October many of Washington’s men had fallen back towards White Plains, New York where they prepared to defend themselves. Morale was plummeting among the Continental Army and it seemed the Americans would lose the entire war before the end of the year.

This painting portrays the Headless Horseman, a decapitated Hessian trooper, chasing Ichabod Crane, a scene from Washington Irving's short story, "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" — This painting, by John Quidor (1858), portrays the Headless Horseman, a decapitated Hessian trooper, chasing Ichabod Crane, a scene from Washington Irving’s short story, “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

It was around this time that some believe the story of the Headless Horseman had its origins. The Headless Horseman is a legendary ghost who first made his appearance in Washington Irving’s classic “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” which was originally published in 1820. The story is set in the early years of the republic in a small town on the Hudson River.

While this is a fictional story, it has some basis in fact. The village of Sleepy Hollow is a real place in Westchester County in New York, less than ten miles from White Plains, New York. The ghost known as the Headless Horseman that haunted this village is referred to by Irving in the story as “the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannonball, in some nameless battle during the Revolutionary War.”

This is the cemetery around the Dutch Church in Sleepy Hollow, NY where the grave of the Headless Horseman was supposedly buried. — This is the cemetery around the Dutch Church in Sleepy Hollow, NY where the grave of the Headless Horseman was supposedly located. (Author’s photo)

A Hessian soldier made a natural choice for this fearsome ghost. Hessians were greatly feared by Americans during the Revolutionary War. These German soldiers were sent by the thousands to America to reinforce the British. Hessians got their name as many of these soldiers were from Hesse-Kassel in Germany. These foreign speaking mercenaries were viewed as bloodthirsty killers and easily vilified. They were renowned as fearsome fighters and there were stories that they showed no quarter to retreating American troops at the Battle of Long Island, including nailing American riflemen to trees with their bayonets. However, some of these Hessian soldiers were probably misunderstood. Many of them had been pressed into service and were forced to fight for their princes. Many Hessians even preferred life in America and thousands decided to desert and settle in America at the end of the war rather than return to Germany.

Hessian soldiers as they would have appeared in 1776.

The Hessian that provided the inspiration for the Headless Horseman may have been killed during the Battle of White Plains on October 28, 1776. Washington Irving even mentions this particular battle in his tale when he recounts a small anecdote of an “old gentleman . . . who, in the battle of Whiteplains, being an excellent master of defence, parried a musket ball with a small sword.” During this battle Hessian troops played a large role.

Some of these Hessian troops, commanded by Colonel Johann Rall, led a flanking assault on the American troops and pushed the entire American force back. More than 400 British, Hessian, and American soldiers were dead or wounded at the end of the day and although the Americans fought bravely, Hessian and British troops commanded the battlefield.

white_plains_battle_plans — This 18th century map of the Battle of White Plains shows the disposition of British and American troops. On the British left flank you can make out “Col. Rall” and his Hessians. On the left side of the map you see the North River (Hudson River) and can see Terry Town (modern day Tarrytown). Sleepy Hollow is located just north of this town.

Perhaps the ghost of the Headless Horseman was the spirit of one of the many Hessian soldiers killed during the Battle of White Plains. Another possibility is one of the Hessians killed in the skirmishing that occurred in the days that followed. Major General William Heath of the American army remembered a particular skirmish that occurred a few days later on November 1, 1776 when “a shot from the American cannon at this place took off the head of a Hessian artilleryman. They also left one of the artillery horses dead on the field.”

The grave of Washington Irving, most famous for his stories about Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle, he was actually very much fascinated with the Revolutionary War and later wrote a large historic biography of George Washington. (Author's photo) — The grave of Washington Irving who became famous for his stories about Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle. Irving was actually very interested in Revolutionary War history and later wrote a large historic biography of George Washington. (Author’s photo)

Regardless of the true origins of this ghost, the Hessians’ victory at White Plains was short lived. Colonel Rall and his brigade of Hessians would be surprised and captured by George Washington’s men at the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776, which would prove to be a major turning point in the Revolutionary War.

Christopher Walken famously played the Hessian who became the Headless Horseman in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow movie. In this retelling of the tale, the Hessian was killed in a skirmish in the winter of 1779. — Christopher Walken famously played the Hessian who became the Headless Horseman in Tim Burton’s *Sleepy Hollow* movie. In this retelling of the tale, the Hessian was killed in a skirmish in the winter of 1779. Although there is no historical evidence that supports his fanciful outfit, weaponry or filed down teeth.

While the Battle of White Plains has been all but forgotten, the story of the Headless Horseman has become a touchstone which still connects us with this battle and the Revolutionary War in general. And just like we like to find where these battles took place and walk the hallowed ground, so too does the Headless Horseman. Irving writes that while the body of the Hessian lies “buried in the churchyard, the ghost rides forth to the scene of battle in nightly quest of his head.” I urge you to follow in his footsteps and check out Battle Hill Park next time you are in White Plains, New York and the historic environs of Sleepy Hollow nearby.

One of the many historic sites in Sleepy Hollow you can visit still today. (Author's photo) — One of the many historic sites in Sleepy Hollow you can visit still today. (Author’s photo)

Surrender at Yorktown

On October 19, 2016 By erwpostIn Battlefields & Historic Places, British Leadership, Continental Leadership, Monuments, National Park Service, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

On this date, in 1781, the British army marched out of their entrenchments at Yorktown and surrendered to General George Washington and the combined Continental and French armies.

Modern view of the “Surrender at Yorktown” site (P. Greenwalt)

Although the victory did not conclusively end the war, the victory prompted British Prime Minister, Lord Frederick North, to exclaim,

“Oh, God, it is all over!”

Approximately two years later, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, the American Revolutionary War was truly over.

What is not truly over is the efforts to preserve, interpret, and educate the current and future generations about the importance of Yorktown and the American Revolution. In the spring, the new American Revolution Museum of Yorktown will open its doors, updating the Victory Center at Yorktown Museum.

From the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation website, the museum’s goals are to;

“Through comprehensive, immersive indoor exhibits and outdoor living history, the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown offers a truly national perspective, conveying a sense of the transformational nature and epic scale of the Revolution and the richness and complexity of the country’s Revolutionary heritage.”

For more information about the museum, what it entails, and the opening date, click here.