A Naval Battle off Wilmington, DE: May 9, 1776

A Chart of the Delaware Bay and River, 1776 (LOC).

While the Americans recovered their strength and restocked their vessels upstream after the fighting on May 8, Hamond and his sailors worked to refloat the Roebuck.  With a higher tide and deeper water sometime between 2 and 4 am, Roebuck finally floated free.[i]  When the sun rose on Thursday the 9th fog blanketed the river and neither side could see one another.  The American ships were already on the move, though, falling back down the river under a light breeze and oars to reengage the British vessels, probably in the hope that Roebuck was still grounded.[ii]  In the fog, though, they paused to wait.

                  The mist finally burned off enough to see and around 8 o’clock that morning, Wallace and Liverpool spied the American galleys some two miles upriver.[iii]  Hamond made the signal to weigh anchor and pursue them upstream.  Even at full sail, though, the British couldn’t catch the Americans as “they industriously plied their Oars and Sails to avoid us.”[iv]  They eventually found a point of land on the western shore Hamond could not reach, particularly in the face of an ebbing tide.  Both sides anchored and waited.  The prospect of continuing to advance up the Delaware, which grew ever narrower and more shallow did not appeal to Hamond.  He and Captain Bellew held a quick conference and decided to drop back down the river, hoping to draw the galleys after them toward water more favorable to the British.

                  Around 2 pm, Hamond detected the Americans getting underway.  So, Roebuck and Liverpool raised their anchors and clapped on more sail, still hoping to entice them to chase the British into deeper water.  The small squadrons began exchanging long range fire around 4 pm, lasting through afternoon all while slowly moving down the Delaware.  The cannon were heavy enough to be heard in Philadelphia.[v]  The winds were generally moderate, but an occasional shower passed through.[vi]  As they had through most of the day, the Americans stuck to the shallows closer to shore.  Throughout, the two sides kept their distance.  The Americans were satisfied chasing the British away and Hamond could not tempt them into a close-in fight.  Finally, with darkness deepening, the firing ceased.  The Americans preferred not to descend below New Castle.

Continue reading “A Naval Battle off Wilmington, DE: May 9, 1776”

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””

Review: “The Wandering Army: The Campaigns That Transformed the British Way of War” by Huw J. Davies

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Ben Powers

Huw Davies’s work The Wandering Army: The Campaigns That Transformed the British Way of War posits that the British Army underwent a period of enlightenment during the late eighteenth century, inspired by its poor showing in the War of the Austrian Succession. Officers turned to continental Europe to study military art in the same spirit that enlightenment scholars studied moral philosophy. This period of military change, innovation, and adaptation encompassed what Davies refers to as “the interconnected relationship of these three areas: military thought, experience, and knowledge exchange, which together drove Britain’s accidental military enlightenment.”

Davies documents that the British Army in the 1700s entered a doldrums of intellectual and tactical stagnation in the early decades of the century, following its successful participation in the War of the Spanish Succession. Victory bred complacency, leading to a poor showing at Fontenoy in 1745. He goes on to demonstrate that defeat galvanized officers to undertake self-directed study of military theory and share lessons learned with other officers, forming a community of practice. Officers later combined these efforts with practical experience gained through active campaigns and peacetime training, resulting in cycles of learning throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century. Davies’s work contributes to the historiography of the British Army by demonstrating that officers actively sought to synthesize the latest military theories, their own combat experiences, and the ideas of their peers into innovative systems to address challenges across multiple theatres of war.

Davies uses a variety of evidence, including historical analysis, accounts of officer practices, and descriptions of training reforms. The bibliography of The Wandering Army contains almost 600 entries, ranging from period treatises, manuals, and official correspondence such as orderly books and military returns, to contemporary newspapers, to historical manuscripts. Davies traces a paper trail of British study of military art from 1745 to 1815, showing that officers studied war, applied what they learned, and discussed war in public forums and personal correspondence.  He cites examples of General Henry Clinton walking and studying old battlefields in 1774 to prepare himself for future challenges (Davies, 82–83); Lord Charles Cornwallis’ establishment of a standardized system of drill and equipage for his troops in India, based on lessons he had learned during the War for American Independence (Davies, 204); and the establishment of a camp for the training of light troops at Shorncliffe, England, to teach innovative tactics to light infantry, developed by Sir John Moore (Davies, 287–315).  

Continue reading “Review: “The Wandering Army: The Campaigns That Transformed the British Way of War” by Huw J. Davies”

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.”

The Adams Book Club: An Introduction

Emerging Revolutionary War is pleased to partner with the Adams Memorial Foundation to share some reading about America’s “Founding Family.”

The Adams Memorial Commission is the Congressionally approved organization tasked with supporting the creation of a memorial in Washington, D.C., to John Adams and his family. The Adams Memorial Foundation is tasked with assisting with the fund-raising and public education aspects of that effort. As part of the Foundation’s work to raise awareness about the project—and about the Adams family—Board President Jackie Cushman hosts a monthly book club.

As we prepare to kick off our book club series with the Foundation, I spent a few minutes chatting with Jackie about the book club and about the Adams Memorial Foundation in general:

Over the next few days, ERW will share links to the first few conversations from Adams Memorial Foundation’s book club. We hope you’ll enjoy the excellent reading as much as we do!

Reflecting on ERW’s 250th Lexington and Concorgasm One Year Later

Being present at the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the Revolutionary War in Boston, Lexington, and Concord was truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Once because there will never be another 250th anniversary ever (and maybe never another such commemoration on this scale in my lifetime) but also once because many of the ERW historians who attended the events did something none of us will likely be fit to do in 25, 50, or more years for the next large commemorative events. We spent 32 hours in the saddle (longer than Paul Revere but with better amenities) visiting countless sites related to the Lexington Alarm of 1775. By the end of April 19, 2025, I had been awake for 40 straight hours. However, I was still on a history high from the experiences of those anniversary events.

Our 250th events began by visiting the graves of some of the first fallen Americans in the Revolution in Acton. We followed that up with a trip to Bedford, another community whose men answered the calls of Paul Revere, William Dawes, and the network of colonial riders. While in Bedford, stop into the Bedford Free Public Library to see the oldest known flag in the United States. Then, onto Lexington we went for the first time this trip to visit the Scottish Rite Masonic Museum & Library which housed a new exhibit displaying artifacts from the start of the Revolutionary War.

Continue reading “Reflecting on ERW’s 250th Lexington and Concorgasm One Year Later”

“Rev War Revelry” A Discussion with Revolutionary Maryland historian Drew Palmer

When you think of Maryland in the American Revolutionary War, what are the first connections that come to mind? Taking a stab at it, probably the Maryland 400 during the Battle of Brooklyn in 1776? Or possibly the 1st Maryland at the Battle of Guilford Court House in 1781? If you are a national park junkie, potentially Thomas Stone National Historic Site, home of one of Maryland’s four Signers of the Declaration of Independence, may come to mind. If you are not familiar with that NPS unit, click here.

To fill in those gaps, Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes historian Drew Palmer. He is the creator of Revolutionary Maryland, which is an online public history blog that is “dedicated to uncovering and sharing all things related to the state’s experience during this transformative period.”

Palmer is a Revolutionary War historian, a U.S. high school history teacher, and the creator of Revolutionary Maryland. Palmer has worked as a public historian at numerous historic sites over the years, including Appomattox Courthouse, Fort Ticonderoga, Adams National Historical Park, and Fort McHenry National Monument and Shrine. Palmer’s research primarily focuses on the Revolutionary War in Maryland and the South. Most recently, he published his research on Fort Whetstone and the Maryland Matrosses during the Revolutionary War. He also worked with Fort McHenry to direct a short documentary on Fort McHenry’s 250 years of history. Palmer earned his B.A. in history from DeSales University in 2023 and his M.A. in applied history from Shippensburg University in 2024. He currently lives outside of Baltimore and is working on multiple research topics involving the Revolutionary War.

Emerging Revolutionary War is proud to welcome a great emerging historian of the Revolutionary War Era to the “Revelry.” We hope you can join us, live, on Sunday, April 19, at 7 p.m. EDT on our Facebook page.

“The Jeffersons & Alexandria”

On the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Madeline Feierstein.

Alexandria, Virginia, is famous for its presidential native son: George Washington. The Old Town has maintained its colonial charm, in spite of raging warfare and demolition waves since its founding in 1749. This port city, however, has hosted numerous other American presidents – especially Thomas Jefferson. Our third president visited and stayed in Alexandria on several occasions, and his connections to this Northern Virginia locale extended past his death in 1826.

While enroute to Philadelphia, Jefferson typically went north of Alexandria to cross the Potomac into Maryland. It was not until after the Revolution, and with his emergent friendship with George Washington, that his visits to Alexandria became regular and expected. But as an Alexandrian, I’ve heard more “town lore” about Washington’s longstanding affiliation with the city than any other president. The following accounts are not exhaustive, but they aim to spotlight the reasons for Jefferson’s presence and his impact on the city itself.

1790 was a critical year for the region. The National Capital Act was hotly debated. Where would America’s main city be located? Mayor William Hunter extended an invitation to Jefferson in March 1790 for dinner in his honor at the Fountain Tavern, which no longer stands, and where he had previously stayed.[1] At this time, his passage through Alexandria coincided with his trip to New York to assume the role of Secretary of State.

Jefferson understood Alexandria’s importance as a thriving commercial and political center, especially since the next nearest urban hubs were days away in Richmond and Baltimore. Mayor Hunter hoped that Alexandria would be in the running for capital selection, and that this dinner would confirm the statesman’s opinion: “You have returned to your native Country [from France]. Permit us the inhabitants of Alexandria to join with the rest of our fellow citizens in the warmest congratulations to you on that happy event. As a commercial town, we feel ourselves particularly indebted to you for the indulgencies which your enlightened representations to the Court of France have secured to our trade. You have freed commerce from its shackles…”[2]

In September of that year, Jefferson met with George Washington back in Alexandria to continue the discussion of where to assign the new capital. He and James Madison, along with notable figures in the Georgetown and Great Falls neighborhoods, negotiated the boundaries of the new federal city. Jefferson and Madison stayed overnight in Alexandria on September 14 before turning homeward bound.[3]

Gadsby’s Tavern is one of the most famous spots in Old Town. Famous for being the site of Washington’s farewell (to the presidency in New York), and a general meeting spot for the city’s elites, it’s no wonder that Jefferson also frequented this establishment! In January 1801, he stayed at the Tavern before his first inauguration. Ten days later, the ceremony, a banquet was held for him at Gadsby’s – and it apparently had the honor of being the “largest event ever given in the city.”[4]

There is no evidence that Jefferson came back to Alexandria after this 1801 visit. Additionally, no business interests here are documented, which is odd considering Alexandria’s reputation for commerce and industry. He appeared to prefer to travel north of the city to and from Monticello at this point, once again taking the ferry across the Potomac from Georgetown and continuing through what is now Loudon County southward. But the Jefferson connection did not end with the President’s change of scenery.

Granddaughter Virginia Jefferson Randolph Trist (1801-1882) and her husband moved to Alexandria in 1874. Her own daughter, Martha Burke, Jefferson’s great-granddaughter, resided in the city with her family. After Virginia’s husband died, she moved in with Martha until her own death.[5] Another granddaughter, Virginia’s sister, Cornelia Jefferson Randolph (1799–1871) joined niece Martha’s home, where she also died.[6]

Extensive family members of Thomas Jefferson are buried in Alexandria’s Ivy Hill Cemetery. Martha Burke’s daughter, Ellen Coolidge Burke, was quite active in the city’s civic causes. A reference and catalogue librarian, she is notable for expanding library services and opening branches in the surrounding neighborhoods.[7] A few miles away from where her great-great-grandfather wined and dined, a library was named in her honor before she died in 1975.


[1] “Washington, D.C.,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/washington-dc.

[2] “Address of Welcome from the Mayor of Alexandria, 11 March 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0129.

[3] “Memorandum from Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0209.

 

[4] “George Taylor to Thomas Jefferson, 9 March 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-33-02-0191.

 

[5] “Virginia Jefferson Randolph Trist,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/virginia-jefferson-randolph-trist.

 

[6] “Cornelia Jefferson Randolph,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/cornelia-jefferson-randolph.

 

[7] “Women’s History in Alexandria,” Office of Historic Alexandria, 19 November 2025, https://www.alexandriava.gov/historic-alexandria/womens-history-in-alexandria.

Bio:

Madeline Feierstein is an Alexandria, VA historian and founder of the educational and historical consulting company Rooted in Place, LLC. A native of Washington, D.C., her work has been showcased across the Capital Region. Madeline is a writer for Emerging Civil War and the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. She leads significant projects to document the sick, injured, and imprisoned soldiers that passed through Alexandria and Washington, D.C. Madeline holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminology from George Mason University and a Master’s in American History from Southern New Hampshire University. Explore her research at www.madelinefeierstein.com.