Shortly after 11 p.m. on the night of June 16, Colonel (although the monument calls him general) William Prescott led approximately 1,200 Massachusetts soldiers toward the Charlestown Peninsula from Cambridge Common. These men would spend the night fortifying Breed’s Hill before spending the majority of the next day defending the earthen redoubt from successive British attacks. Although forced to evacuate due to low ammunition and the British breaching the redoubt, the defeat had a positive impact on the morale of the “Grand Army” as the New England militia soon-to-be-Continental Army.
On Tuesday, the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, fought on Breed’s Hill on Charlestown Peninsula, will be remembered. On June 17, 1775, the last major engagement before George Washington arrived in Massachusetts to take command was fought between militia under Colonel William Prescott and British forces under General William Howe. Although a defeat for the patriots, resulting in the death of Dr. Joseph Warren, the victory was a pyrrhic one for the British.
Join Emerging Revolutionary War historians as they discuss the engagement, the personas, and the ramifications of the Battle of Bunker Hill. Also, stay tuned until the end for an announcement as well.
So, two days before the 250th, grab your favorite beverage and tune into our Facebook page at 7 p.m. EDT and have your questions ready. If you are unable to attend the live on Sunday evening, don’t fret, the video will be posted to YouTube by the anniversary and to our podcast channel as soon as possible
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Riley Sullivan, Professor of History at San Jacinto College in Houston, Texas.
While many might be familiar with famed engagements at places like Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Yorktown during the Revolutionary War, few are familiar with the actions that took place near New London, Connecticut in September of 1781. However, for the people of Connecticut, the battles that took place near Groton Heights and New London have been immortalized as a campaign highlighted by treachery and massacre. Largely, this interpretation has been adopted due to the commander of the British forces who engaged in this raid, Benedict Arnold.
Perhaps no other name in American History brings about more scorn than that of Benedict Arnold. Having defected to the British cause late in the Revolutionary War, for Americans at the time–and even today–he is viewed as a modern day Judas. However, with such infamy ultimately comes much misinterpretation of this historical figure and the events he was involved in. In Matthew E. Reardon’s recent study The Traitor’s Homecoming, he attempts to undo much of this misinterpretation. Drawing on previously unused primary sources, Reardon constructs an engaging argument that challenges the traditional view of Arnold’s conduct in the New London raid.
To construct this narrative of the New London raid, Reardon attempts to place into context the setting of the New London raid. By this stage in the war, the conflict in New York had been a state of stalemate for the previous few years. However, with Generals Washington and Rochambeu’s combined Franco-American forces on the move, the British commander in the region, Henry Clinton—informed by faulty intelligence as Reardon demonstrated—was convinced that an attack on New York was imminent. As a result, to divert Washington’s attention away from a possible attack on New York, Clinton authorized Arnold to lead a contingent of British troops to attack the vulnerable Connecticut coastline.
New London made the ideal target for a British raid as it had been a hotbed for commerce and privateering for the Patriot cause. To conduct such a raid, Clinton turned to Arnold as he was both a native of Connecticut and familiar with the New London area. Largely only being contested by militia behind a number of forts that guarded approaches to both the town and the Thames River, Arnold’s combined force of Loyalists, Hessian Jaegers, and British regulars made quick work of the Patriot militia throughout the campaign. Even with New London in their hands, outside events–notably Clinton’s realization that Washington was moving on Cornwallis at Yorktown–led to Arnold having to relinquish his gains. However, with the high casualties suffered by both sides during the raid, coupled with the burning of much of the town, the events “cemented Benedict Arnold’s reputation for villainy.” (x)
When considering the traditional interpretation of Arnold’s raid on New London, Reardon makes it clear throughout his work that a “distorted interpretation” of the events had emerged (ix). From veterans to the Groton Battle Monument at Fort Griswold Battlefield State Park, the events that took place in Connecticut in 1781 have been enshrined as a massacre of Connecticut militia at the hands of Arnold. However, when looking at contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension records, Reardon demonstrates that there are some noticeable gaps within the traditional account of this campaign. In particular, when examining the death of Colonel William Ledyard–who was alleged to have been killed while attempting to surrender–Reardon concluded that through these sources, the traditional accounts accepted proved to be inconsistent with contemporary accounts of the campaign.
But, even with these inconsistencies, this is not to say that the fighting at Fort Griswold and the subsequent burning of New London was less than brutal. Reardon wrote that “the immediate reaction of the community was shock” and that “for many it was beyond comprehension.” (339) To no surprise, this sheer shock of the fighting coupled with Arnold’s involvement led to this distorted narrative of the campaign.
Through the examination of contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension applications, Reardon is able to reconstruct in great detail the events of Arnold’s New London raid and offer an unbiased narrative. By providing these fresh sources in The Traitor’s Homecoming, Reardon effectively builds on the existing literature of the subject and demonstrates how public perception can lead to the misinterpretation of historical events like that of the New London raid.
Details:
Matthew E. Reardon, The Traitor’s Homecoming: Benedict Arnold’s Raid on New London, Connecticut, September 4-13, 1781. Published by: Savas Beatie LLC. Summer 2024. 448 Pages.
*Check out Emerging Revolutionary War’s YouTube page as well for a “Rev War Revelry” interview with author Matthew E. Reardon.*
Katy in her later service as the Continental Navy ship Providence. “Sloop Providence under Sail by Kristopher Battles” (Naval History and Heritage Command)
Since his brief visit in November 1774 and his longer term stay commencing in December, Captain James Wallace of the British ship Rose (20 guns), had patrolled Narragansett Bay to enforce the Coercive Acts and prevent Britain’s rebellious colonies from importing gunpowder and armaments. Loyalists had taken heart and rebels had been frustrated with his presence. Not only were his patrols interfering with local commerce by seizing ships and their cargos—his main mission—but he created a more visible symbol of Britain’s ability and willingness to force its colonists to comply with Parliament’s laws.
One of the loyalists encouraged by the Royal Navy presence in Narragansett Bay was a Newport merchant named George Rome. Wallace had visited Rome and was dining with him when a breathless messenger warned the captain that a mob was out to tar and feather him back in December, 1774. In the moment, nothing came of it, but Governor Joseph Wanton warned Wallace that the town was not safe for British officers, sailors, or loyal subjects. Things remained at a low simmer that winter and spring, including the initial weeks after the Lexington and Concord. Tensions, however, could not help but rise. Diarist Ezra Stiles, recorded on May 23 that some 90 Rhode Island soldiers under the command of Captains [John] Topham and [Thomas] Tew marched from the Newport courthouse and through town beating up volunteers to join the nascent American Army. Wallace was dining in town that day and no doubt heard the racket.[1] Stiles wrote, “The Tories were greatly mortified to see the daring Boldness of the Rebels as they called them. The Tories had said that the Men o’War would fire the To[wn] if any Soldiers were raised in it. But there was no Molestation.” From Stiles’ version of events, the march appears as nothing less than a provocation to determine whether the rumored threat of Wallace and his ships to Newport proper was a bluff. The lack of an immediate response may have demonstrated that it was. In truth, a significant portion of Newport’s population opposed the rebels and voluntarily supplied Wallace and contracted for grain to provide to the British army.
Much has been written about the “shot heard around the world,” as the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson eloquently wrote in the 19th century. Yet, what about those actual shots? The musket balls fired on April 19, 1775? What was the damage, and how does this material culture history add to our overall understanding of the events that unfolded on that fateful day? Thanks to historian Joel Bohy, who is part of a duo of historians, along with Doug Scott, we now have insight into that answer.
Using forensic techniques, seemingly straight out of CSI, the authors have done painstaking research into the bullet holes and artifacts struck by bullets to shed even more light on the events that unfolded along Battle Road, Lexington, and Concord on the first day of the American Revolution.
Join Emerging Revolutionary War for this pre-recorded “Rev War Revelry” this Sunday evening at 7 p.m. EDT with author Joel Bohy as he explains the history and research behind this book. A much-needed addition to any Revolutionary War enthusiast’s bookshelf!
On Friday, April 21, 1775, word arrived in New Haven, Connecticut, regarding the fighting at Lexington and Concord. The Revolutionary War had begun, and thousands of militiamen from Massachusetts and the surrounding colonies in New England were converging around Boston to lay siege to the British army bottled up in the city. The next day, New Haven’s militia unit, the Governor’s Second Company of Guards, or Second Company, Governor’s Foot Guards, prepared to march to Cambridge.
Garbed in “A scarlet coat of common length, the lapels, cuffs and collars of buff and trimmed with plain silver wash buttons, white linen vest, breeches and stockings, black half leggins and small, fashionable and narrow ruffled shirt,” the Foot Guards made for quite the appearance. At the head of the 65-man-strong company was Captain Benedict Arnold, a leading member in revolutionary New Haven.
Arnold, 34-years-old at the outbreak of the war, had not stood pat during the decade leading up to April 1775. He was a member of the Sons of Liberty, and on multiple occasions, led mobs against the pro-monarchy members of the community. His leadership and zeal were recognized in March 1775 when he was elected captain of the militia. Like so many other patriots throughout the colonies, the shots fired at Lexington and Concord on April 19 would catapult Arnold onto a path to glory, and unfortunately for the country, later treason.
When the news arrived in town the evening of April 21, fifty-eight members of the Foot Guards voted to march to the assistance of their New England brethren. The next morning, Captain Arnold assembled the men on the New Haven Green, where the powder house was located. The doors were locked, and the keys to the stores in possession of New Haven’s Selectmen. Just off the green, at the intersection of College and Chapel Streets, stood Beers Tavern, where the Selectmen were gathered and discussing the town’s response to the recently received news.
The Foot Guards positioned themselves outside the building, while Arnold banged on the door demanding the keys to the powder house. The Selectmen refused to turn them over until official orders arrived. “None but the Almighty God shall prevent my marching,” Arnold passionately assured them. His forceful persuasion worked. The storehouse was opened, and the militia retrieved the necessary ammunition, flints, and powder. Once equipped, Arnold led his men out of New Haven and began a three-day march to Cambridge to join the fight.
Benedict Arnold Demands the Powder House Key by Mort Künstler
Idleness was not in Benedict Arnold’s nature, and upon arriving within the army’s camp, he approached the Massachusetts Committee of Safety with a proposal to lead an expedition against the British-held Ford Ticonderoga situated between Lake George and Lake Champlain in New York. The fort helped defend the crucial waterway system running north-south from Canada and housed cannon that could be vital to the patriot cause. The committee’s chairman, Dr. Joseph Warren, backed the plan and it was approved. On May 3, Arnold was promoted to colonel in the service of Massachusetts (not Connecticut) and was ordered to raise a force in western New England to accomplish the mission. The future hero of Saratoga and traitor to American liberty spurred his horse out of Cambridge and set his sights on taking “America’s Gibraltar.”
“LISTEN, my children, and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow penned the poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride” in 1860. Now as America moves toward celebrating the 250th anniversary of Paul Revere’s famous ride, which happened on this date in 1775, another literary work has hit the market on this very topic.
Published on March 25 by Kostya Kennedy, Chief of Premium Publishing at Dotdash Meredith, with a lengthy career in writing, teaching, and journalism. The book reads like Revere’s ride, a fast-paced, descriptive overview of the man, events, and memories around the night of April 18, 1775. For those who have read David Hackett Fischer’s book, published in 1994, you may not find anything groundbreaking or new. However, that is not the point I feel in this book.
Kennedy pens this to get the reader hooked. Sets of rhetorical questions, “what-if” scenarios, and descriptive writing make the reader feel that they are in the environs of Boston or on the routes to Lexington traversed by Revere. Oh, and Kennedy does not forget Dawes, Prescott, and others who also played prominent roles in April 1775.
History enthusiasts and content experts may find a few shortcomings and errors, such as Kennedy continuing to use “Royal” when discussing the British Army. Since the English Civil War, the British Army has lost the right to use “Royal” in front of it. A few times, he labels the “British” as coming when the colonists would have used “Regulars” or “Redcoats.” Lastly, falling into the ag-old myth that Lexington had minutemen and a militia, the town just had the latter. Trivial things that do not impact the flow of the narrative.
A highlight to me, though, is the final sections about the memory of that day. Including a great insert of an interview with the direct descendant of Paul Revere and a comical anecdote about Paul Revere III being pulled over for speeding in Lexington, Massachusetts one year on April 18.
The book is a great read on the anniversary of Paul Revere’s Ride. Take it from me, I read the book in a day! Descriptive, vivid, and convince you that if you have not been, a trip to Boston and the Massachusetts countryside should be in your near future.
Published by: St. Martin’s Press, March 25, 2025 Images, sources, 282 pages
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Tom Elmore. Brief bio is at the bottom of the post.
When Walt Disney’s Disneyland anthology series, featuring shows inspired by the themes of the park’s sections, debuted in 1954 it ended the television season at #6 in the Nielsen television ratings and improved to #4 the next season. Much of that success was due to the Davey Crocket episodes, one of the first major television phenomena.[1]
But the series dropped to #14 in the third season and was out of the top twenty in the fourth and fifth seasons. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) which carried the program, renamed Walt Disney Presents, pressured Disney to come up with another Crockett and more westerns which made up most of the top 20.[2]
Disney later complained that “I found myself in a straightjacket. I no longer had the freedom of action…They kept insisting that I do more and more westerns and my show became loaded…with every western myth.” Consequently, relations between Disney and ABC became strained.[3]
Disney turned to one of his passions, American history, to create a series based on the partisan leader, General Francis Marion, “the Swamp Fox,” who harassed British troops in South Carolina during the American Revolution.[4]
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Eric Olsen. Eric is a historian with the National Park Service at Morristown National Historical Park. Click here for more information about the site.
Years ago, while I was looking at a list of disabled Revolutionary War veterans from Rhode Island I noticed some curious things. The list didn’t provide much information. It just gave the name and age of the veteran, their disability and how they were injured. At first, I was excited because I found a couple of guys who were wounded at the battle of Springfield in June 1780. But then I noticed a number of other men whose information seemed a little odd.
Several men were listed as having lost toes. Those same men had all lost their toes at a place called Oswego. Their wounds had all occurred in February 1783. A couple of the men even had the same unusual name of “Prince.” For me this raised several questions which required more research.
Fort Ontario at Oswego in 1759
Where in the World is Oswego?
It turns out Oswego is a town in New York state on the eastern shore of Lake Ontario where it connects with the Oswego River. The name “Oswego” comes from the Iroquois word meaning “pouring out place” which is appropriate since it is where the Oswego River flows out into Lake Ontario. Heading inland, the Oswego River connects with the Oneida River which flows out of Oneida Lake.
In the 18th century lakes and rivers were the interstate highways of the day. Boats traveling on water could travel faster and carry heavier loads than wagons could on dirt roads. As a result, settlements developed along waterways and forts were built at strategic points where waterways connected.
The British originally established Oswego as a trading post on the northwest side of the mouth of the Oswego River. It was first fortified in 1727 and was known as the Fort of the Six Nations or Fort Oswego. By 1755 Fort Ontario was built on the opposite side of the river to bolster the area’s defenses during the French and Indian War. That fort was destroyed by the French in 1756 and rebuilt by the British in 1759. During the Revolutionary War, the fort was the starting point for St. Leger’s march against Fort Stanwix in 1777. Later the fort was abandoned by the British and destroyed by the Americans in 1778. The British returned and rebuilt the fort in 1782.
The 27-year-old from Thetford, Norfolk, England native had a long journey before he even sailed across the Atlantic Ocean for the colonies. Although receiving an education until age 13, and an apprenticeship with his father until age 19, both uncommon among his peers, Thomas Paine started his professional career as a privateer. It did not suit him for long, he returned to Britain in 1759. Paine then became a staymaker, and within several years, opened his own store in Sandwich, Kent. By the end of the same year, Paine had married.
Life seemed to be set for the young couple, but tragedy after tragedy ultimately led Paine to the American colonies. Paine’s shop ran into financial challenges not long after his nuptials, and although offset by the joy of pregnancy, a relocation to a new town may have been too much on Mary. She went into early labor, and both mother and child tragically died during the delivery. A series of moves, career changes, and troubles dotted the next dozen years.
A supernumerary, Excise Officer, staymaker, schoolteacher, were all ahead of time. Charges of fraud and dismissal were as well. By the age of 31, in 1768, Paine’s next professional endeavor took him to Lewes in Sussex. Over the ensuing years in Lewes, a town with a long history of opposition to the monarchy and republican sentiments, Paine became a member of the Court Leet and parish vestry, worked as a tobacconist and grocer, and married for the second the time.
Thomas Paine
By 1772, Paine wrote his first political piece. His time in his home country was now on the clock. By the spring of 1774, following his political priorities and ideologies, Paine had all but abandoned his post as an excise officer and was essentially fired. He next separated from his second wife, Elizabeth, and moved to London. It was while in London that Paine met Benjamin Franklin who suggested he emigrate to Philadelphia. Paine did exactly that.
His journey through life was turbulent, even more so during the first half of the 1770s, just like his voyage across the Atlantic on his to Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania colony. The water supplies aboard the ship were dreadful, and typhoid raged across the decks of the vessel. Paine was barely alive by the time the ship reached Philadelphia. He was so ill he was unable to leave the docked boat under his own power, Benjamin Franklin sending his personal physician to the ship and have him carried off. Yet, on this date, November 30, 250 years ago, Thomas Paine had arrived to the American colonies. After six weeks of recovery his new journey, a journey shared by all those that were to be swept up in the American Revolution, began.
Less than two years after landing in Philadelphia, Paine published his work Common Sense. Coupled with a series of works entitled The Crises, Paine, “ignited a nation to help the failing cause of the Revolution.”
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 