A Naval Battle off Wilmington, DE: May 8, 1776

Action off Mud Fort by William Elliott circa 1787 (Wikimedia Commons). This image portrays a subsequent battle in the Delaware in the Autumn of 1777, during the naval campaign to open the Delaware River. Roebuck was a major combatant in those engagements as well.

The beginning of May 1776 found Captain Andrew Snape Hamond of the Royal Navy’s Roebuck, a fifth rate of forty-four guns, operating off the Delaware capes.  His job was to control traffic in and out of the bay and maintain a de facto British blockade while seizing any supplies that might be of use to the rebel Americans and instead secure them for British forces.  On Saturday, May 4, Hamond began moving up the bay and into the Delaware river in company with Liverpool, 28 guns, the brig Betsey and several tenders.   He was short of water and needed to refill empty casks at a fresh source.  It was also an opportunity to take a look at rebel defenses on the critical waterway.[i]  The British enjoyed only light winds and cloudy skies as they sailed upstream for the next two days, periodically anchoring and frequently taking soundings to avoid the muddy shallows.  Operating at some distance, on May 6 the Liverpool spotted a grounded sloop and sent a boat to recover it.  But, it was stuck fast and Captain Henry Bellew’s crew burned the ship instead.[ii]

Between 6 and 7 am on Tuesday, May 7, Hamond signaled his little squadron to raise anchor and continue moving up the Delaware River in the direction of Wilmington.  Off New Castle, they spied an armed schooner and several boats and gave chase in the afternoon, just as the weather broke and began pelting the ships in strong winds and heavy rain.  The schooner ran for the shallows under fire from the British ships.  She grounded and Hamond sent boats to seize her around 3 pm.  Unable to refloat her, they settled on taking off her cargo: bread and flour.[iii]  At the end of a productive day, around 7 pm, Hamond anchored his ships near the Christina River and Wilmington.

Ashore, word spread quickly of Roebuck’s advance up the river.  At Dover on May 6, Colonel John Haslet of the Delaware Regiment received word that the British were off Port Penn in the area of Reedy’s Island and the local militia expected an attack.  The British were already upstream from Haslet.  As Roebuck alternately sailed and anchored, the troops ashore had time to assemble, although they were often chasing dated intelligence about the British position.  One hundred thirty men assembled in Cantwells Bridge about 4 am on the 7th, but by then Roebuck had already moved up to New Castle.[iv]  Word of the British anchoring off New Castle reached Philadelphia in the afternoon, about the same time that American gondolas at Fort Island left to drop down the river and attack the British at their anchorage.  Robert Morris, Vice President of the Continental Congress Marine Committee, ordered Continental Navy Captain John Barry to assemble as many Continental Navy crew as possible and dispatch them to the Pennsylvania ship Reprisal and a floating battery, which were both also to drop down the river and join in the attack on the British.[v]  Men from Captain Proctor’s Company of Artillery in the fort even joined the slapdash crews, serving aboard the American vessel Hornet.[vi]  It was an all hands moment for Philadelphia’s naval defenders.

Continue reading “A Naval Battle off Wilmington, DE: May 8, 1776”

Before July 1776, There Was Rhode Island

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Bjorn Bruckshaw

By the spring of 1776, the people of Rhode Island no longer needed to speculate about their relationship with Great Britain—they were already living in open resistance to it. War had begun the previous year, British naval power remained a constant threat along the coast, and the colony’s long history of defiance toward imperial authority had already brought confrontation to its shores. The destruction of His Majesty’s schooner Gaspee in 1772 had marked a decisive escalation, transforming protest into direct action against the Crown.¹ Now, as members of the Rhode Island General Assembly made their way to Providence in early May 1776, they did so with the reality of war firmly in mind. The question before them was no longer whether they opposed British authority, but whether that authority could continue to exist at all within their government.

Rhode Island Independence Document

Inside the Assembly chamber on May 4, 1776, that question was answered with clarity and finality. Without issuing a sweeping declaration or engaging in extended philosophical argument, the legislature passed an act that removed King George III from every function of governance within the colony. The law ordered that “in all commissions, writs, and other proceedings in the courts of law,” the name and authority of the king be omitted.² In their place stood the authority of the colony itself. The act further directed that royal authority was to be “totally suppressed.”³ Courts would continue to function, but under a new source of legitimacy. Officials would take new oaths. The government would proceed without reference to the Crown. Rhode Island did not simply declare independence—it enacted it.

This action did not emerge suddenly. For years, Rhode Island had been among the most resistant of the colonies to British imperial control, particularly in matters of trade and enforcement. British officials repeatedly complained of the colony’s defiance, noting the difficulty of imposing authority in a place where regulations were often ignored.⁴ That resistance became unmistakable with the Gaspee affair, and the Crown’s response—threatening to transport suspects to England for trial—provoked widespread alarm. Colonial critics warned that such measures would undermine “that great bulwark of English liberty,” the right to trial by a local jury.⁵ By the time hostilities began in 1775, many Rhode Islanders had already concluded that reconciliation with Britain was increasingly unlikely.

That understanding was reflected not only in legislative action, but in the colonial press. The Providence Gazette soon reported the Assembly’s proceedings, noting that the legislature had taken measures removing the authority of the Crown from government functions, a step consistent with the colony’s wartime posture and political condition.⁶ While not framed in celebratory or rhetorical language, the report treated the change as a matter of governance already in motion. Similarly, the Newport Mercury, writing amid growing military uncertainty, reflected a broader shift in tone, reporting colonial affairs in a way that assumed the imperial relationship was breaking down beyond repair.⁷

These accounts are significant not because they proclaim Rhode Island’s primacy, but because they demonstrate how independence was understood in real time—not as a single dramatic declaration, but as a series of actions already unfolding.

Continue reading “Before July 1776, There Was Rhode Island”

Thoughts on “Thoughts on Government”

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: The Unexpected Abigail Adams by John L. Smith, Jr.

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. Over the next few days, in special arrangement with the Adams Memorial Foundation, ERW will share links to the first few conversations from that book club.

We’ll kick things off with a conversation between Jackie and historian John L. Smith, Jr., about his book The Unexpected Abigail Adams: A Woman ‘Not Apt to be Intimidated’ (Westholme, 2024).

Continue reading “The Adams Book Club: The Unexpected Abigail Adams by John L. Smith, Jr.”

“Winning the War” ERW Panel Discussion

Join Emerging Revolutionary War LIVE on Monday evening, April 13 for a discussion about “Winning the War.”

Why was American victory in the Revolution so remarkable? It seems inevitable to us now, but at the time and on the battlefields, victory seemed anything but assured. How did America overcome the odds, particularly after several decisive defeats? Historians from Emerging Revolutionary War (ERW) will examine key military moments that kept the dream of independence alive.

We’ve been helping St. Bonaventure University commemorate the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution this semester with a series of Monday-evening programs. On April 13 at 7:00 p.m. ERW historians will Zoom in for a panel discussion as part of the series. You can watch at https://sbu.zoom.us/j/98224552407 or on the ERW Facebook page.

Panelist include:

  • Phill Greenwalt, author of The Winter that Won the War: The Winter Encampment at Valley Forge, co-author of A Single Blow: The Battles of Lexington and Concord, and co-author of the forthcoming A Hard-Bought Victory: The Battle of Bunker Hill
  • Mark Maloy, author of Victory or Death: The Battles of Trenton and Princeton, To the Last Extremity: The Battles for Charleston, and a forthcoming book on the battles for New York City
  • Rob Orrison, co-author of All That Can Be Expected: The Battle of Camden and A Single Blow: The Battles of Lexington and Concord

Greenwalt and Maloy are both historians with the National Park Service, and Orrison serves as ERW’s chief historian.

ECW’s Chris Mackowski, who teaches at St. Bonaventure, will moderate the discussion. For people on campus or in the community around St. Bonaventure, the program will be available—with refreshments!—in 201 Plassmann Hall.

The program will be simulcast on the ERW Facebook page and on the blog of St. Bonaventure University’s History Department.

Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution, 1752–1789

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, Kayla Krupski.

Kayla is a junior history major from Hamburg, NY, with a minor in classics. Her talk was titled “Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution, 1752–1789.” We invited Kayla to share a synopsis of her research here.


The American Revolution is most often remembered through the voices of those who primarily wrote its history—men. Because women were not marching miles to face a redcoat with a musket, their courageousness was often overshadowed by active battle. However, women of the 18th century faced constant battles and fear within their domestic lives. Regardless of their allegiance, women embodied a quiet strength in maintaining their households.

Anna Rawle, a young loyalist woman living in Philadelphia, wrote in 1781, “It was the most alarming scene I ever remember.”[1] This quote comes shortly after the American victory at the Battle of Yorktown, when a Patriot mob harassed her home. These uneasy, fearful words that came from a young Loyalist woman reflected how her home, family, and life was threatened because of the Patriot victory.

The resilience and challenges of female roles during the Revolution showed how certain hardships did not solely lean toward one political side. Whether one was a Loyalist or a Patriot, it did not deem that one group of people were harassed more for their beliefs than others. Understanding this allows the unbiased mind to look past the political allegiances and recognize that, through their self-determination, women were not going to let the chaos of the war keep them from continuing to live their domestic lives.

By looking at three women of different ages and political and religious backgrounds, we can connect how the American Revolution affected all women who shared the common emotion of fear. Sally Wister, Anna Rawle, and Abigail Adams had a swift transition from calmness to chaos in their daily lives.

Continue reading “Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution, 1752–1789”

Review: New Hampshire and Independence; Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution edited by William Edmund Fahey

If one peruses the shelves of their favorite bookstore, histories line the shelves with words in their title “new look,” or “fresh perspective,” or “revisited,” or “rediscovered.” Usually, I am skeptical about what that history entails and whether that perspective will be based on a factual foundation or the author’s interpretation. That last word, “rediscovered,” graces the subtitle of William Edmund Fahey’s edited volume for The History Press. Fahey, who holds a doctorate degree and is a Fellow and President of Thomas More College in Merrimack, New Hampshire. In 2024, he was appointed the historian of the New Hampshire Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.

With that background, one can be assured that his “rediscovered” history will be based on impeccable research and accounts that have, unintentionally, been overlooked through the passage of time. That is the case in “New Hampshire and Independence, Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution.” As “questions or even needs that have arisen in recent years. The 250th anniversary of sovereignty is upon Americans” (pg. 29). This is the volume to understand and, if I may, borrow a word, rediscover the role of this small but important colony and its contributions to American victory in the American Revolutionary War.

“The structure of this book is rather straightforward…” (Pg. 30). Part one “sets the mood…the multi-generational effort to reflect, remember, and value the past” (Pgs. 30-31). “The heart of the book is found in the six addresses…” that comprises the entire second part of the publication (Pg. 31). Fahey wraps up this edited volume with the last section, part three, offering “readers key resources to become involved in the Sons of the American Revolution” (Pg. 31). Part four provides key legislative and primary source material for referencing and sparking research into the period. Now, let’s examine key points from each section to show Fahey’s mastery of the material and editorial prowess.

Continue reading “Review: New Hampshire and Independence; Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution edited by William Edmund Fahey”

“…to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot…”

On this date in 1776, Major Joseph Ward, serving as a staff officer for Major General Artemas Ward, second in command of the Continental Army that had just evicted the British from Boston, sat down at his desk to pen the following letter. The recipient was John Adams, a fellow Massachusettsan then serving in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ward continued his correspondence of keeping Adams apprised of military affairs around Boston. In this letter, however, he makes the case for the colonies to “cut the Gordian knot” and declare independence, months before Richard Henry Lee’s proposal to call for independence in late June 1776.

Boston 23 March 1776

Sir,

The 17th Instant the Pirates all abandoned their Works in Boston and Charlestown and went on board their Ships, and on the 20th they burnt and destroyed the works on Castle Island. They now lye in Nantasket Road waiting for a fair wind; we keep a vigilant eye over them lest they should make an attack on some unexpected quarter. The particulars with regard to the Seige, the Stores taken, &c. you will receive from better authority, therefore it is unnecessary for me to mention them. Our Troops behaved well, and I think the flight of the British Fleet and Army before the American Arms, must have a happy and very important effect upon the great Cause we engaged in, and greatly facilitate our future operations. I wish it may stimulate the Congress to form an American Government immediately. If, after all our exertions and successes, while Providence offers us Freedom and Independence, we should receive the gloven cloven foot of George to rule here again what will posterity, what will the wise and virtuous through the World say of us? Will they not say, (and jusly) that we were fools who had an inestimable prize put into our hands but had no heart to improve it! Heaven seems now to offer us the glorious privilege, the bright preeminence above all other people, of being the Guardians of the Rights of Mankind and the Patrons of the World. It is the fault of the United Colonies (a rare fault among men) they do not sufficiently know and feel their own strength and importance. Independence would have a great effect upon the Army, some now begin to fear that after all their fatigue and hazards in the Cause of Freedom, a compromise will take place whereby Britain may still exercise a power injurious to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot, and the timid and wavering will have new feelings, trimming will be at an end, and the determined faithful friends of their Country will kindle with new ardour, and the United Colonies increase in strength and glory every hour.

Yesterday I saw your Brother, who informed that Mrs. Adams and your Children were well.

General Ward, on account of his declining health, has wrote his Resignation to the President of the Congress. I expect the greatest part of the Army will march for New York, or the Southern Colonies as soon as the Fleet is gone to Sea; and the Troops that remain here will be employed in fortifying the most advantageous Posts to defend the Town and harbour. I do not much expect the Enemy will make any attempts to regain possession of Boston, for I think they are sufficiently convinced that they cannot penetrate the Country in this part of America; ’tis probable they will try their fortune to the Southward and if they fail there the game will be up with them. We hear many accounts about Commissioners coming from Britain to treat with the Colonies separately, or with the Congress. Many fear we shall be duped by them, but I trust the congress is too wise to be awed by the splendor or deceived by the cunning of British Courtiers.

I know not of one discouraging circumstance attending either our civil or military affairs in this part of the Continent. I have lately heard with pleasure that the Farmer is become an advocate for Independence.Wishing the Congress that Wisdom which is from above, I am Sir with much Respect Your most Humble Servant,Joseph Ward

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To learn more background about the letter, click here. Courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

The Defense of the Upper Chesapeake: Maryland’s First Trial in the Revolutionary War

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Drew Palmer. He is the founder of Revolutionary Maryland; click here to learn more about that blog.

(Vallejo Image Galleries)

In the early evening of March 5, 1776, two armed boats left Annapolis to patrol the Chesapeake Bay. Captain John Pitt and Joseph Middleton were patrolling to prevent any British ships nearby from entering Maryland’s waters.  As they patrolled, they discovered an alarming sight: three British warships heading directly towards Annapolis. Middleton and Pitt rushed off to the Maryland Council of Safety’s chambers in Annapolis to report the startling news.1 In the coming days, Maryland was tested for the first time in the growing Revolutionary conflict.

The American rebellion had become a full-scale war by the spring of 1776. In early March, the siege of British-held Boston was about to end. Hundreds of miles south in Philadelphia, the Declaration of Independence was only four months away. In Maryland, politicians worked hard to maintain Maryland’s isolation from the worst of the conflict. In Virginia, a raiding war had already begun. Only two months before, the town of Norfolk, Virginia, was bombarded, leading to the destruction of the town. Along with Norfolk’s destruction, British attacks and raids were carried out throughout the lower Chesapeake Bay, along with a blockade. 2

Participating in British operations in the lower Chesapeake was Captain Mathew Squire of the British Royal Navy. For several months, Squire’s vessel, the  Otter, served as the headquarters of the exiled Virginia Governor, Lord Dunmore. From the Otter, British attacks and raids were launched on Patriot strongholds in the lower Chesapeake. By March, Squire had gained a reputation as a competent officer and ruthless raider of American shipping.3 Squire was heavily involved in the bombardment of Norfolk and an attempted attack on Hampton, Virginia. Though Squire’s area of operation had been centered on the lower Chesapeake, new intelligence pulled him northward into Maryland.

Continue reading “The Defense of the Upper Chesapeake: Maryland’s First Trial in the Revolutionary War”

To the Commanding Officer at Roxbury…

Timothy Newell kept a very vivid diary of life in Boston in 1775 and 1776. He started the entry below on this date, 250 years ago, by copying the “sundry papers lent me…relative to the Siege and Evacuation of Boston in 1775…”

To the Commanding Officer at Roxbury

March 8, 1776

As His Excellency Gen Howe is determined to leave the Town with the troops under his command, a number of the respectable Inhabitants, being very anxious for its preservation and safety, have applied to General Robertson for this purpose, who at their request have communicated the same to his Excellency Gen Howe, who has assurred him, that he has no intention of destroying the Town, unless the Troops under his command are molested, during their embarkation, or at their departure by the armed force without; which declaration he gave General Robertson leave to communicate to the Inhabitants. If such an opposition should take place, we have the greatest reason to expect the Town will be exposed to entire destruction. As our fears are quieted, with regard to General Howe’s intentions, we beg we may have some assurances, that so dreadful a calamity may not be brought on by any measures without. As a testimony of the truth above we have signed our names to this Paper, carried out by Mess Thomas and Jonathan Amory, and Peter Johonnet, who have at the earnest entreaties of the Inhabitants, through the Lieu Governor solicited a flag of truce for this purpose.

  1. John Scollay 2. Timothy Newell 3. Thomas Marshall 4. Samuel Austin

*The General Robertson mentioned above was Brigadier General James Robertson, who commanded the 4th Brigade during the Siege of Boston

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

“Newell‘s Journal” https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3496228&seq=301