Tag: History

 Religion & Rhetoric: The Significance of Religion to the Patriot Cause in the American Revolution

On By Ben PowersIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

     How significant was religious rhetoric in gathering support for resistance to Parliamentary authority in the lead-up to the American Revolution and the subsequent War for American Independence?  The historiography of the American Revolution includes several analyses of the struggle’s ideological roots. Historians consider whether colonial leaders identified with the Whig traditions of the Glorious Revolution, which placed monarchical power within a Parliamentary framework, or were more inspired by Enlightenment ideas focused on the natural rights of man and liberal notions of government by the consent of the governed.[1] The idea that the sources of inspiration for the rebellion, and much of its rhetoric, stemmed from religious rather than secular sources has received less attention, despite religion’s significance in the formation and administration of Britain’s North American colonies. Acknowledging the impact of religion on American revolutionary thought provides a more complete and balanced understanding of the inspiration for resistance during the War for Independence.

    Religious identity, clerical leadership, and the power of Scripture as an ideological rallying cry all played a role in shaping public opinion in favor of resistance to Parliamentary interference, and ultimately in supporting the movement for Independence in the American colonies.[2] While the group of colonial leaders known collectively as “The Founding Fathers” drew inspiration from the Enlightenment and political theorists such as John Locke, a great many of their supporters throughout the colonies viewed the conflict with England through a religious lens and employed the language of evangelicals inspired by the Great Awakening to frame their arguments against tyranny. [3]

     Additionally, many congregants of denominations established as Dissenters from the Church of England had extensive experience managing their own affairs, and they jealously guarded their sense of independence. As an example, Patricia Bonomi notes that Congregational Societies throughout colonial New England had extensive experience with governance systems in which the clergy and church members shared authority and responsibility. Through such arrangements, colonists learned to have a say in their own affairs, participated in a form of franchise through voting on church matters, and exercised budgetary control over ministers’ salaries.[4] In contrast to the traditions of Dissenting sects, the Church of England grew from a hierarchical tradition, in which centralized authority in the hands of the clergy controlled ecclesiastical affairs and church administration, with laity largely responsible for simply respecting the “descending hierarchy of the archbishop, bishop, and priest”.[5]

     Dissenting denominations other than Congregationalists, including Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers, participated in both spiritual and temporal activities in colonial parishes, largely due to an absence of qualified clergy. Communities throughout Britain’s North American colonies demanded centers of religious leadership and activity, and when qualified clergy was not available, they took matters into their own hands through lay preachers or, when possible, by availing themselves of visiting, itinerant clergy. The end result was a disparate collection of religious communities increasingly used to running their own affairs.[6] The Church of England in the colonies experienced the same shortage of qualified clergy, with no Archbishop for the American colonies and a tradition of locally elected vestrymen responsible for selecting and hiring ministers[7]. However, because the Anglican Church was hierarchical, with religious authority ultimately resting with the monarchy, local autonomy did not produce the same sense of independence found in other colonial denominations.[8] Dissenting sects specifically rejected the notion of being governed by a distant, centralized authority, and the sense of religious independence engendered by this development eventually entwined with a sense of autonomy in political affairs.

     The Great Awakening, an expansive revitalization of religious fervor experienced by Protestant congregations in Europe and the American colonies in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, reinforced the sense that religious communities existed within a covenant with God.[9] Great Awakening ministers such as George Whitefield preached a message of a personal relationship with God, brought on by encounters with the Holy Spirit, which detractors derided as religious enthusiasm that could upset the established social order.[10] Messages such as Whitefield’s shaped how many colonists viewed their relationship with God and fostered an interpretation that one’s natural rights stemmed from God rather than being granted by a sovereign. If a monarch refused to respect the natural rights of his people, the people had the right to resist. This interpretation meshed with the Enlightenment ideals of colonial leaders and served as a foundation for the movement towards American independence.[11]

     In the mid-19th century, a young man named Mellen Chamberlain interviewed an American participant in the first day’s fighting of the American Revolution, Captain Levi Preston of Danvers, Massachusetts. Preston fought against British troops as they retreated from Concord. Chamberlain’s record of the discussion included the following exchange:

              I suppose you have been reading Harrington, Sidney, and Locke about the eternal principle of liberty?”

             “I never heard of these men. The only books we had were the Bible, the Catechism, Watts’ psalms and hymns, and the almanacs.”

             “Well, then, what was the matter?”

              “Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”[12]

      Preston’s responses to Chamberlain provide evidence of both the prevalence of religious literature in the homes of American colonists and their sense of autonomy. His statements are an example of what the Anglican Clergy of New York meant when they wrote to their superiors in England that Dissenters in general, and Presbyterians and Congregationalists in particular, were the active promoters of the rebellion.”[13]

     The religious rhetoric espoused by colonial clergy on the eve of the American Revolution nested especially well with the rational arguments of Enlightenment philosophers. As Mellen Chamberlain’s interview with Captain Levi Preston indicates, the average colonist was not familiar with arguments from Thomas Hobbes or John Locke about the natural rights of man or the social contract between those who governed and those who lived under that government. The appeals to Enlightenment ideals and Classical examples that inspired the leaders of the American Revolution who attended the Continental Congress would resonate little with the men who would be asked to fill the ranks of the rebellion’s regiments.[14] Leaders such as Thomas Jefferson recognized that the religious heritage of the American colonies, which included traditional calls to fast and pray for God’s intervention during times of crisis, was the exact language the colonial populations would understand, and that by invoking these traditions through the messages preached in colonial churches and meeting houses, common people would recognize the immediacy of the danger posed by Parliamentary interference in colonial affairs. Scriptural rhetoric was a common language that was understood throughout all of Britain’s American colonies, from New Hampshire to Georgia, recently strengthened and refreshed by the work of the ministers of the Great Awakening.[15]  Thus, American revolutionary leaders could link Enlightenment language to the Word of God to rally support for resistance.

     This linkage to Colonial American religious tradition proved particularly effective in support of calls to resistance because the forms of dissenting Protestantism practiced by the colonists embraced a tradition of martyrdom. Political resistance contained a religious element that professed that “(t)o be a ‘true American’ was to be willing to die for the revolutionary cause, and to die for the revolutionary cause was to earn a ticket to paradise.”[16] Thus, religious duty intertwined with political duty, and colonial clergy invoked the Gospels to call forth their congregations to fulfill their civic obligations. 

     Historian Karen O’Brien notes in her 2005 PhD dissertation that the leaders of the American Revolution recognized they needed to share their message through community religious activities. She describes how doing so helped in“building communal resolve for the war. . . help colonists dispense with their initial anxieties over war; (and) unite soldiers and their communities around a shared moral purpose.”[17] Additionally, O’Brien notes that “local religious meetings. . .—be they in a local church or a hastily improvised backcountry clearing— provided a stage for people to negotiate between individual moral duties and the greater public good. Furthermore, the Bible offered a common language of moral right and political resistance, a type of ethical lingua franca able to reach even the most common colonist.”[18]

     Religion played a significant role in community life from the establishment of Britain’s North American colonies. For example, when Puritans settled both the colony at Plymouth and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century, a man had to be a full member of the church in order to exercise the right to vote.[19] Clergymen and religious lay leaders played prominent roles in their local communities, blurring the line between political and ecclesiastical affairs. Dissenting denominations became identified with colonial Whigs as tensions increased between the British Parliament and colonial legislatures after the Seven Years’ War. Revenue-producing legislation in the form of new taxes and stricter enforcement of mercantilist trading policies enacted in England became sources of political dissent, as colonial leaders viewed these policies as an infringement on their rights to govern their own affairs. Colonial pulpits broadcast calls to resist ministerial and monarchical oppression and rallied congregants to resist British tyranny. Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress extolled the clergy’s efforts, stating, “they with a fervor that will produce wonderful effects. Those … of every denomination . . . thunder and lighten every Sabbath.”[20]

     Ministers used the Scriptures to provide a moral undertone to messages of defiance of authority. Reverend Samuel Langdon, a New England Congregationalist Minister, raised the question of Divine protection of natural rights when he asked in a sermon, “may we not be confident that the Most High. . .will vindicate his owner, and plead our righteous cause against such enemies to his government, as well as our liberties?”[21] For Langdon, government ministers and members of Parliament were the enemies of the local governance colonists had practiced for generations. Likewise, Presbyterian Minister John Rodgers of New York preached a sermon on 1 Kings 18:12 in which he implored the men of his congregation to resist tyranny, expressing plainly that the colony’s “rights are now invaded, and your country’s cause now looks up to her free born sons for guardianship and protection.”[22] Rodgers not only made clear the threat of Parliamentary overreach, but implored his listeners to actively fight against it to protect their natural rights. 

     As affairs between England and her colonies deteriorated further, local Committees of Safety in New England, particularly in Massachusetts, began to reorganize and train militia forces and stockpile munitions. These efforts led to British operations to seize military stores, and one such operation on 19 April 1775 at Concord, Massachusetts, erupted into open, armed conflict. Eventually, the British government declared the American colonies in open rebellion against the monarchy; colonial clergy found their roles shifting from preaching the gospel of resistance to actively recruiting and supporting troops in the field.  Just as the clergy played a predominant role in calling for “liberty, independence, and a steady perseverance in endeavoring to shake off their allegiance to the mother country”[23], prior to April 19, 1775, they continued their efforts once the fighting began by assuming roles “peculiar to their character as ministers of the gospel, namely their activity as chaplains.”[24] Colonial ministers volunteered for military service, preached sermons to inspire men to arms, and joined military forces on campaign to provide spiritual comfort and mentorship.

     Once hostilities commenced, the need for chaplains exacerbated the lack of qualified clergy in the American colonies. As indicated previously, religion served an organizing function in colonial communities, and ministers were not always available to provide spiritual leadership. Once the War for Independence began, the need for chaplains in fighting regiments meant many communities lost their parish leadership, who volunteered their services with the Continental Army or local militias. As a result, the religious lives of those left behind might have suffered during the war because they lost the men who served pastoral functions in their communities in peacetime.[25]

     If religion was central to political and community life in Colonial America, it was no less important in military life once the colonies committed to armed resistance to British authority. Military leaders understood religion as a means to embolden, encourage, or chastise soldiers as the situation required, and they sought to ensure proper religious accommodations were available to their men.  This most often took the form of enlisting an appropriate clergyman to serve as a chaplain and look after the spiritual welfare of the men in the ranks. A good Chaplain ensured that men who came from different walks of life and disparate faith traditions were sustained by the message that God would bring them protection and victory if they adhered to his laws.[26] The role of a military chaplain covered three broad, but overlapping areas. For commanding officers, chaplains were critical for the maintenance of morale and good order and discipline; for the chaplains themselves, their role was an opportunity to be useful to the cause, placing the fight for independence in the context of the Scriptures, and another opportunity to spread the Gospel, while the troops in the ranks viewed chaplains as sources of comfort and aid while confronting loneliness, sickness and threat of wounds and death, as well as concern for families at home.[27]

      Continental officers codified the role of chaplains in maintaining good order and discipline almost immediately after Congress authorized the establishment of the Continental Army on June 14, 1775, appointing George Washington as its commanding general. Washington charged the chaplaincy with an array of duties, from looking after the morality of the soldiery, waging campaigns against vulgarity and alcohol in camp, setting an example of courage in combat, and providing the men the opportunity to regularly attend divine services.[28] Commanders expected chaplains to help inculcate in both officers and enlisted men a sense of moral superiority expected of soldiers fighting for republican ideals. Moral superiority went beyond merely displaying patriotic or soldierly behavior, but included behaving like a “virtuous, good man.”[29] According to historian Charles Metzger, developing this moral superiority proved challenging, as contemporary reports described Continental camps as filled with “the horrid sins of Cursing, swearing and other Vices with which . . . our Army vies with the most abandoned English troops.”[30] Chaplains also continued to attract fresh recruits to join Continental or militia regiments when other incentives, such as land or cash bounties, proved ineffective at enticing volunteers to the cause.[31]

      An examination of the Scriptural language employed by Continental and patriot militia chaplains throughout the war reveals that they utilized similar themes when addressing the troops consigned to their pastoral care. Issac Mansfield served as the chaplain of the Continental Army’s 2d Massachusetts Regiment during the Siege of Boston from the fall of 1775 through early 1776. Mansfield delivered A Sermon, Preached in the Camp at Roxbury, November 23, 1775; Being the Day Appointed by Authority for Thanksgiving through the Province as the men of the 2d Massachusetts faced cold, boredom, and restrictions of military discipline. The Siege of Boston began as a loose collection of Massachusetts militia regiments that surrounded Boston in the opening days of the American Revolution in April 1775. As the spring turned to summer, the other American colonies sent troops in support, and the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, voted to organize these forces into a Continental Army, with Washington as its commanding general. The novelty, danger, and excitement of military life had long since evaporated by the fall of 1775. Mansfield used this sermon to remind his listeners that they had God to thank for protecting them throughout the siege and urged the troops to continue demonstrating Christian conduct to remain worthy of God’s blessings. 

     Mansfield’s sermon was laden with scriptural analogies, exemplifying how chaplains used religious allegories to demonstrate God’s sanction of the American Revolution. Mansfield’s preaching is biblically dense, beginning with Genesis 32:9–13 and the struggle between Jacob and Esau. The patriots are cast as Jacob, struggling against their more powerful brother, the British Army. Mansfield encourages the men of the regiment to continue to fight, illustrating through examples from Deuteronomy 28 and Proverbs 14 that God will bring success to their arms if they obey His commandments; if they fail to follow God’s laws, they will face a variety of calamities before being called before the Lord to face final judgment. Mansfield encourages the troops by reminding them that they have served for months in the field, with God protecting them from both disease and the death and wounds of battle, and that they have thrived by the grace of God rather than through their own efforts. He emphasizes that the men should endeavor to avoid sinful behavior that could offend God and thus bring about a reversal of fortune to the Continental Army. Mansfield cites Psalm 44 as he closes his sermon, encouraging the troops to place their faith in God rather than themselves for ultimate success.[32]

          Other Patriot chaplains from different regions and periods of the war used similar scriptural language when preaching to their military congregants. John Carmichael (A Self-Defensive War Lawful, June 4, 1775)[33], Israel Evans  (Brigade Thanksgiving Sermon, Dec 18, 1777)[34], and John Hurt  (The Love of Our Country, 1777, before Virginia troops)[35] all emphasized that God was on their side and they must continue to deserve God’s favor through morally correct behavior. The similarities between these sermons reveal a shared vocabulary of resistance rooted in Christian imagery that transcends any specific region or campaign of the American Revolution.[36]

     A Self-Defensive War Lawful, Proved in a Sermon, Preached at Lancaster, before Captain Ross’s Company of Militia, in the Presbyterian Church on Sabbath Morning, June 4th, 1775, marks the transition from political protest to armed resistance. Chaplain John Carmichael preached this sermon in Pennsylvania less than two months after the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. This moment carried significant weight, as it marked an irrevocable choice: men had to decide whether they were justified in taking up arms against their sovereign. Carmichael assured his listeners that they were embarking on a just war, in defense of their homes against an invasion. God provided all creatures with the means of self-defense, according to Carmichael, and He would not leave them “destitute of this necessary principle”. He further stressed that as followers of Jesus Christ, they were not only justified in, but duty-bound “to arm ourselves and use our arms for our own pre­servation against any invading enemy.”[37] Carmichael’s sermon is an excellent example of a chaplain motivating men to rally to the defense of their community while also assuaging their consciences that doing so was right in the eyes of God.

     Chaplains in the field used remarkably similar language to sustain the spirits of soldiers in vastly dissimilar circumstances. Sermons thanking God for victory or asking Him for strength and fortitude in times of trial could both emphasize doing one’s duty to please God, regardless of a battle or campaign’s outcome. Chaplain John Hurt served as the chaplain for the Virginia Regiments of the Continental Army, known as the Virginia Line, troops with an elite reputation. Hurt gave The Love of Our Country: A Sermon Preached before the Virginia Troops in New Jersey, June 1777,at the beginning of the 1777 Campaign season. This was a remarkably difficult time for the Continental Army, which had almost ceased to exist the previous year during the fighting around New York City. An invading British Army had seized the city from Washington and his troops, who took tremendous casualties, mostly taken prisoner, and were driven across New Jersey into Pennsylvania. Washington managed to secure victories with raids against Trenton and Princeton, New Jersey, at the end of the campaign, giving the patriot cause a glimmer of hope, but the British held the initiative as the 1777 campaign began. Hurt’s sermon exhorts the men to do their patriotic duty with a spirit of self-sacrifice, comparing duty to one’s country with duty to God. A soldier who fought well pleased the Lord as well as his country, regardless of outcome.

     Chaplain Israel Evans’ A Discourse, Delivered December 18, 1777, Being the Day of Public Thanksgiving, in the Brigade of the American Army Commanded by General Poor, celebrated the victory of General Horatio Gates’ Northern Army at the Battles of Saratoga in September and October of 1777. This victory marked the first instance of a British Army surrendering to American forces in the field in the War for Independence, with 8,000 British and Hessian troops captured, and resulted in overt French support for the American war effort. Evans preached that such a complete victory was Providential, but the troops could only deserve such Divine support by continuing to serve with a spirit of bravery, self-sacrifice, and moral correctness. He further emphasized that the troops should show such behavior regardless of whether they succeeded in battle, because in doing so they pleased God. The outcome of their battles was secondary to ensuring their behavior was correct according to the Lord’s commandments.

      It is worth noting the similarity of language, biblical themes, and messaging used by Mansfield, Carmichael, Hurt, and Evans in their messages to the troops. Despite coming from different faith traditions, geographic regions, and fighting in a variety of circumstances, each chaplain emphasizes that success at arms comes through the grace of God, yet the men must endeavor to prove worthy of that grace through upright conduct and obedience to God’s commands. Each sermon draws on the Psalms, Proverbs, and Deuteronomy, emphasizing that God protects the righteous and punishes the sinful, reinforcing the notion that Providence will favor the Patriot cause, but that they must do their part through proper conduct and devotion to the Lord.

    Rank-and-file soldiers sought out the preaching of their chaplains and took comfort from their sermons. Ammi Robbins, a Continental chaplain from Connecticut, wrote that “there appears a great desire among the people, at least many of them, to hear the Gospel” from among the men in camp. He observed that the men would travel great distances to hear a sermon preached, noting that many men had walked “some six or seven miles, as sheep without a shepherd.”[38]Despite the evident desire of the troops to hear their chaplains preach, they thought of the impact of Divine Providence in much more personal and pragmatic terms than those used by clergy in their sermons. Years of campaigning exposed the troops to primitive living conditions, extremes of weather, sudden violence, the risk of wounds and death, and bouts of homesickness. While the men sought comfort in the words of their chaplains, their view of God’s blessings commonly focused on Providence’s role in their personal experiences.[39]  Samuel Haws, who fought against the British at the Battle of Bunker Hill in Charlestown, Massachusetts, in June of 1775, attributed his survival to God’s grace, writing that despite being heavily engaged by British troops “through the good hand of Divine providence in all their firing they did not kill one man nor wound any except one or two slightly.”[40] Similarly, another Continental soldier, Joseph Plumb Martin, considered that the will of Providence was imponderable after one firefight, recording that a comrade was killed and “(H)had I been at the same business I might have been killed but it might have been otherwise order(ed) by Divine Providence, we might have both lived.”[41]

     The men did not consider only God’s blessings when thinking about surviving in battle. During the 1775 expedition through the Maine wilderness to besiege Quebec, Canada, the men lacked provisions, shelter, and clothing as they marched and paddled northward. One soldier, Abner Stocking, reflected that he had taken such things for granted until they were not available: “Little thought I, do we know of the value of the common blessings of Providence, until we are deprived of them.”[42] Thus, for the troops on the line, God and the chaplains who preached his word were more often sources of spiritual comfort rather than sacrificial inspiration. 

     The centrality of religion to the lives of colonial Americans, combined with the importance military commanders, clergymen, and the soldiers themselves placed on the availability of religious support, made chaplains an expected presence in nearly every campaign of the American Revolution, from William Emmerson accompanying the Minutemen at the Battle of Concord in April 1775, where he encouraged the militia to stand fast and telling them,  “Your cause is just and God will bless you!”[43], to John Ellis of the 1st Connecticut Regiment at the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia, in October 1781. Ellis enlisted during the Siege of Boston in 1775, served through the winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in 1777-1778, and stood in the firing line at the Battle of Monmouth, New Jersey. Chaplains served with regular troops, short-service militia, at sea with American warships and privateers, and even continued to minister to the troops when taken prisoner by the enemy. [44]

      Religious language fueled the rhetoric of rebellion throughout the American colonies between the end of the Seven Years’ War and the outbreak of the American Revolution. Colonists had grown used to self-determination in local affairs, religious practices independent of central authority, and the idea that their natural rights came from God alone. They found inspiration in clergymen who used Scripture to express resistance to tyranny. When political resistance turned to armed struggle, religious language continued to inspire men to enlist, fight, and endure. Clergymen became chaplains in a variety of Continental and militia military organizations, offering a message of continuity: the struggle for independence was a fight for their God-granted rights.

[1] Patricia U. Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins’: Religion and Politics in the American Revolution,” The History Teacher 29, no. 2 (February 1996): 137.

[2] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 138.

[3] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 138.

[4] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 140.

[5] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 139.

[6] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 140.

[7] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 141.

[8] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 143.

[9] Thomas S. Kidd, America’s Religious History: Faith, Politics, and the Shaping of a Nation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019): 32.

[10] Hannah Schell and Daniel Ott, Christian Thought in America: A Brief History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015): 61.

[11] Kidd, America’s Religious History, 52.

[12] David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 164.

[13] Bonomi, “‘Hippocrates’ Twins,’” 142.

[14] Emory Elliott, “The Dove and Serpent: The Clergy in the American Revolution,” American Quarterly 31, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 187.

[15] Elliott, “The Dove and Serpent,” 188.

[16] John Fanestil, American Heresy: The Roots and Reach of White Christian Nationalism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2023), 149.

[17] Karen Elizabeth O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration: Lived Religion, Obligation, and Political Identity in the American Revolution” (PhD diss., Northwestern University, 2005): 92.

[18] O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration,” 92.

[19] John H. Schaar, “Liberty/Authority/Community in the Political Thought of John Winthrop,” Political Theory 19, no. 4 (November 1991): 517.

[20] Derek H. Davis, “Religion and the American Revolution,” Journal of Church and State 36, no. 4 (Autumn 1994): 710.

[21] Davis, “Religion and the American Revolution,” 710.

[22] Valerie Paley, “A Spirit of Patriotism: John Rodgers and New York City’s First Presbyterian Church in the American Revolution,” Journal of Presbyterian History 94, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2016): 56.

[23] Charles H. Metzger, “Chaplains in the American Revolution,” The Catholic Historical Review 31, no. 1 (April 1945): 31.

[24] Metzger, “Chaplains in the American Revolution,” 31.

[25] Richard W. Pointer, “Religious Life in New York during the Revolutionary War,” New York History 66, no. 4 (October 1985): 361.

[26] O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration,” 124.

[27] O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration,” 147.

[28] Metzger, “Chaplains in the American Revolution,” 53-54.

[29] Craig Bruce Smith, American Honor: The Creation of the Nation’s Ideals during the Revolutionary Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2018), 106.

[30] Metzger, “Chaplains in the American Revolution,” 53.

[31] O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration,” 165.

[32] Isaac Mansfield, A Sermon, Preached in the Camp at Roxbury, November 23, 1775; Being the Day Appointed by Authority for Thanksgiving through the Province (Boston: S. Hall, 1776).

[33] John Carmichael, A Self-Defensive War Lawful, Proved in a Sermon, Preached at Lancaster, before Captain Ross’s Company of Militia, in the Presbyterian Church on Sabbath Morning, June 4th, 1775 (Lancaster, PA: Francis Bailey, 1775).

[34] Israel Evans, A Discourse, Delivered December 18, 1777, Being the Day of Public Thanksgiving, in the Brigade of the American Army Commanded by General Poor (Boston: Thomas and John Fleet, 1778).

[35] John Hurt, The Love of Our Country: A Sermon Preached before the Virginia Troops in New Jersey, June 1777 (Philadelphia: Styner and Cist, 1777).

[36] O’Brien, “Pragmatic Toleration,” 57.

[37] Carmichael, Self-Defensive War Lawful, 4–5.

[38] Roberto Oscar Flores de Apodaca, “‘Alas My Backsliding hart!’: The Religious Worldview and Culture of Continental Soldiers in New England, 1775–1783,” Journal of Presbyterian History 97, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2019): 12.

[39] Flores de Apodaca, “‘Alas My Backsliding hart!,’” 8.

[40] Flores de Apodaca, “‘Alas My Backsliding hart!,’” 8.

[41] Flores de Apodaca, “‘Alas My Backsliding hart!,’” 8.

[42] Flores de Apodaca, “‘Alas My Backsliding hart!,’” 8.

[43] Jack Darrell Crowder, Chaplains of the Revolutionary War: Black Robed American Warriors (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2017), 66.

[44] Crowder, Chaplains of the Revolutionary War, 66.

250 Years Ago Today: The Heroic Charges of the Maryland 400

On By Mark MaloyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

On August 27, 1776, in Brooklyn, New York, a small contingent of Maryland soldiers showed the world what valor and patriotism looked like. During one of the largest and bloodiest battles of the Revolutionary War, the actions of these brave soldiers would earn them the venerated name of the Maryland 400.

The Maryland 400 monument in Prospect Park on August 27, 2026. (Author photo)

At the Battle of Long Island, the American Army was strung out in a long line across modern day Brooklyn facing south, with Washington and his headquarters located at Brooklyn Heights. However, Washington and the Americans had failed to guard the extreme left flank of the American line. As a result, British General William Howe divided his army in two, attacked the American main line head on to hold them in position, while British Generals Charles Cornwallis and Henry Clinton marched around the American flank and attacked from the east.

A statue of Minerva stands on Battle Hill in Green-Wood Cemetery with one hand placed on the Altar of Liberty, while her other hand salutes the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. (Author photo)

As the battle played out during the day of the 27th, the men of the 1st Maryland Regiment, under the temporary command of Major Mordeci Gist, were positioned on the right flank of the American Army, near present day Green-Wood Cemetery. Gist’s men were in General William Alexander’s (Lord Stirling’s) brigade. Stirling’s men were engaged heavily that morning as they fought the diversionary force in their front. The battle raged on what is today known as Battle Hill, and the Americans felt confident they were winning the day’s battle.

A new map of the Battle of Long Island from the book Conquer or Die: The 1776 New York Campaign by Mark Maloy and Dan Welch.

Late in the morning though, the Marylanders began to hear the sounds of musketry and cannon fire coming in from their left and rear. They soon realized that the American position had been flanked and that they would soon be totally surrounded and annihilated. They were immediately ordered to retreat. They fell back to the banks of Gowanus Creek, which had to be crossed to reach the relative safety of Brooklyn Heights. The bridge across the Creek had been burnt and the Americans would have to swim across to escape. As the Americans stood looking at the Creek, Cornwallis and his Light Infantry appeared and began to fire on the retreating American soldiers. Cornwallis sent some of his men to occupy an old stone house (the Vechte-Cortelyou House) near the creek and fire into the panicking men. At this critical juncture, with the whole of Stirling’s brigade about to be crushed, Stirling ordered Gist’s men to charge the British line.

The Vechte-Cortelyou House on August 27, 2026.  Today it is known as the Old Stone House in Brooklyn.  This is a reconstruction of the original building, using the original materials.  While most of the Brooklyn battlefield is unrecognizable from 1776, this building stands as a reminder of the borough’s Revolutionary War history and has a museum located inside it. (Author photo)

It was an impossible task, and Gist and his soldiers probably knew it too. Gist, with less than 400 men was to assault the vanguard of an entire British division, numbering at least 2,000 men with artillery. But, Stirling needed something to allow his division to escape into Brooklyn Heights. He himself would stay and fight with this rearguard. The Marylanders, in their first real battle, didn’t hesitate at all. Closing up their ranks, the Old Line pushed forward into the hailstorm of lead numerous times. As musket balls thinned their lines, the Marylanders would fall back, reform and strike again. On a hill at Brooklyn Heights, Washington watched the action in his spyglass. “Good God! What brave fellows I must this day lose!” he exclaimed as he witnessed the sacrifice of some of his best soldiers.

A 19th century image of the fighting by the Marylanders at Brooklyn. (New York Public Library)

The brash and bold attacks had the exact effect Stirling needed.  The British, temporarily stunned by the attacks, paused to fight this small contingent of soldiers.  Meanwhile the remainder of Stirling’s men successfully crossed Gowanus Creek and arrived in the main American lines.  General Stirling, still fighting from horseback was eventually surrounded and captured by some Hessian soldiers.

After a sixth and final charge by the Maryland troops, Gist’s command had been effectively destroyed. Gist and a handful of his men finally fell back and crossed Gowanus Creek themselves.  The Marylanders had helped many American troops escape capture and death, and also caused a diversion that stopped any possible assault on the main American position at Brooklyn Heights.  Gist and a few dozen survivors had made it back to the main army, but back on the fields around the Vechte-Cortelyou House 256 Marylanders lay dead or dying.  It was one of the highest number of casualties a regiment would lose in the war.

An old metal sign at an American Legion post in Brooklyn on August 27, 2026 denotes the possible burial location of the 256 Marylanders. (Author Photo)

The battle was all but over.  It appeared that the 9,000 Americans who were now holed up on Brooklyn Heights would all be captured, but Washington successfully evacuated the entire army over to Manhattan.  The war would continue for seven more years and end with independence for America, but that may not have been the case had the Maryland troops not sacrificed themselves for the fellow men, and bought the American Army precious time.

Cover of the upcoming book Conquer or Die: The 1776 New York Campaign.

250 years later, many New Yorkers walk throughout the Park Slope neighborhood, unaware of how hallowed the ground is they tread on. Thankfully, people are doing more to bring this history to light. This past weekend a reenactment of the battle was held in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park and at the Old Stone House museum. Check out Emerging Revolutionary War’s realtime coverage of the fighting on our Facebook page. This November Emerging Revolutionary War’s Mark Maloy and Dan Welch will release a new book about these battles and the places you can visit today. Check out the new book Conquer or Die: The 1776 New York Campaign and pre-order it today! This August 27, remember the brave men of the Maryland 400 and the freedom they died for.

The 1776 New York Campaign: 250 Years Later

On By Daniel WelchIn 1776, America 250, Armies, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Campaigns, Charles Lee, Emerging Revolutionary War, Emerging Revolutionary War Series, Hessian (German), New York Campaign, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

The New York Campaign had been building for over year by August 1776. In July 1775, previous British commander of forces in America, Thomas Gage, had sent a request to his superiors to be allowed to leave Boston and begin a new campaign in New York. Following Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, Gage’s force remained bottled up and besieged in and around Boston and Charleston. When word of approval of Gage’s plan reached Boston, so too did orders relieving him of command. Before he departed for England in October 1775, he met with his successor, William Howe, and greatly stressed the importance of moving the theater of war to New York. Howe would follow Gage’s preplanning and approval to the letter, including waiting until the spring to began the shift in the army’s base of operations. Howe’s timetable, however, was moved up after the arrival of Henry Knox’s artillery train and the placement of guns on Dorchester Heights. On March 17, 1776, Howe and 11,000 troops and Loyalist citizens sailed for Nova Scotia. Foreshadowing the British departure and the location of the next campaign in a letter written two days before they set sail, Col. Joseph Reed, later George Washington’s adjutant-general, correctly asserted, “If Howe should leave Boston, we expect he will make for New York; and, at all events, we look upon that as one of the scenes of the summer business.”

Meanwhile, George Washington also looked to New York as the next seat of this growing conflict. In January he sent Charles Lee to begin laying out a position for the Continental Army to take once it shifted southward from Boston. Not long after Lee arrived in February 1776 he assured the Committee of Safety that even though he could see no way to make New York into a “tenable fortification” he could make a position strong enough to be “a most advantageous field of battle” that would “cost the enemy many thousands of men to get possession of it.” Just two months later, on April 13, Washington and the Continental Army arrived.

The Continental Army commander had no other choice than to do what he could in New York. There was immense political pressure on Washington not to abandon it, the Congress believing it had high political and psychological value. Many in Congress believed abandoning it would demoralize the Patriot cause and swell the morale of the Loyalist population in the city and colony thereof. Furthermore, it was a central location along the Atlantic coast and a conduit of communication and supplies between New England and the southern colonies via the Hudson River. Furthermore, the Hudson River/Lake Champlain corridor remained a vital passage to Canada and the Great Lakes. New York was also a bustling economic hub, the second largest urban center in the colonies, with a port, shipbuilding, and deep-water harbor had immense naval and trade value. Widely considered as the “key to the continent,” Washington would have a difficult task defend the city, it’s deep water port, and the numerous navigable waterways; all reasons the British wanted to seize the city in their effort cutoff New England from the middle and southern colonies. Writing to his brother, John Augustine Washington, between May 31 and June 4, 1776, he confessed, “We expect a very bloody Summer of it at New York . . . & I am sorry to say that we are not, either in Men, or Arms, prepared for it.”

Finally, after several months of resupplying and refitting his army in Nova Scotia, William Howe and his command arrived on Staten Island, unopposed, in June 1776. Pvt. Daniel McCurtin, 1st Company of Maryland Rifles, recorded the British arrival, noting he saw, “the whole Bay was full of shipping as ever it could be. I declare that I thought all London was afloat.”Over the coming weeks he would be joined by his brother, Richard, with large numbers of reinforcements, ships, transports, supplies, and Hessians. Although the two brothers leaned into their role of peace commissioners, attempting to end this growing rebellion through pardons and not bloodshed in July, by August, with no peaceful resolution insight, military preparations moved forward.

On August 20, 1776, British troops began loading onto ships and transports from their Staten Island camps, and 250 years ago today, August 22, 1776, the first British troops landed on Long Island at Denyse’s Ferry. Howe had chosen this site for its richness and crops and plentiful livestock in which to supply his army. Still unsure of Howe’s intentions, and constantly worried about his flank and rear being turned by the British Navy, Washington had spread his army dangerously thin across several islands with waterways separating reinforcements should the need for them arise. Thus, on August 22, Washington only had 3,000 men, John Nixon and Nathaniel Heard’s brigades, and some Long Island militia in which to contest the landing. All they could really do was raise the alarm. By the end of the day 20,000 British troops were on Long Island. Only time would tell, at least for Washington, whether or not this would be Howe’s main push or simply a diversion to another beachhead and main strike.

Learn more about the 1776 New York Campaign with ERW’s forthcoming release, Conquer or Die: The 1776 New York Campaign, by Dan Welch and Mark Maloy. Pre-order here!

“Mostly Members of the Old Flatbush Families”: The Kings County Historical Society and the Battle of Long Island in Memory – Part Two

On By erwguestIn 1776, UncategorizedLeave a comment

ERW welcomes back historian Keith J. Muchowski as he concludes his series.

A new Brooklyn, a new century
This all happened at a moment of great economic, political, and demographic transformation in Brooklyn. For many residents of Dutch colonial heritage, life had changed surprisingly little since the seventeenth century. Well into the twentieth century, families like the Lotts, Bergens, Kouwenhovens, and Remsens and others lived comfortably in houses built by their ancestors. Some even continued farming the same fields that their forbears had tilled centuries earlier.1 Besides enjoying a domestic life that would have been recognizable to their ancestors, many worshipped in the same Dutch Reformed Churches those ancestors had built. When the time came, they often buried their loved ones in plots beside family members who had been resting there for centuries.

Continue reading ““Mostly Members of the Old Flatbush Families”: The Kings County Historical Society and the Battle of Long Island in Memory – Part Two” →

Embattled Farmers or Continentals?

On By Ben PowersIn Armies, Common Soldier, Emerging Revolutionary War, Minute MenLeave a comment
The First Blow for Liberty. Battle of Lexington, April 1775. Copy of print by A. H. Ritchie after F.O.C. Darley (Library of Congress)

There is a sense in the American military tradition that the Republic has relied on citizen-soldiers in times of crisis to bolster its army rather than maintain a large standing force. While the modern American military, post-1945, has increased in size and power to accommodate the global commitments incurred in the wake of World War II, for the bulk of American history, the United States sought to make do with a small professional force, bolstered with militias called to arms and volunteers when war threatened. While this arrangement for national defense was in part driven by fiscal concerns, as a large standing army incurs a cost to the treasury, another aspect concerned how the United States perceived itself. The early Republic, and before its establishment, the thirteen original colonies, inherited from England a distrust of standing armies and a faith in community militias. Historian John Galvin’s The Minutemen posits that the colonial militia, especially in New England, had a long tradition of active training participation, evolving organization, and combat experience prior to the commencement of hostilities on 19 April 1775, and that it was the progenitor of the American citizen-soldier who won the American Revolution.[1] In contrast, James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender argue in A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789 that commitment to militia duty was honored largely in the breach in the American colonies prior to the revolution, that the militia performed unevenly during the War for Independence, and that ultimately the Continental Army achieved the victory that cemented America’s freedom.[2] Martin and Lender conclude that the American tradition of a sturdy yeoman militiaman is more legend than fact and used to justify maintaining a small regular army during the early days of the republic.

    The notion of the American militiaman responding to an alarm to defend his own appears repeatedly in the literature on the Revolutionary War. John Shy, in his 1962 paper on colonial military systems, described the notion underlying the efficacy of the militia system as “only when free men must themselves fight to maintain their liberty are they likely to remain free.”[3] According to Fred Anderson Berg in his encyclopedia of Continental Army forces, the militia systems of the American colonies evolved from English tradition, and were geographically organized around townships and counties, and were designed to serve for short periods, without pay, and in proximity to their homes. The intent was for them to be an “in extremis” force designed to protect their own neighborhoods. Anderson’s entry on the militia in the American Revolution paints their performance in a favorable light and does nothing to contradict the idea that militia units contributed significantly to securing American Independence.[4] David Hackett Fischer reinforces these points in his analysis of the events of April 1775, providing a brief summary of the martial qualities of the men of Massachusetts Bay Colony, specifically noting that at least once a generation between 1689 and 1763, the militia answered the call to arms in operations against indigenous peoples or French colonial opponents, either separately or in combination.[5] Despite these descriptions of militia origins, motivations, or performance, none of the writers delved into what made militia troops effective, as John Galvin did in his book The Minutemen, The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution.    Galvin first appears as an unlikely proponent of the militia tradition. He spent his career as a professional soldier, having graduated from the United States Military Academy, served multiple tours in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a General Officer as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe.[6] Upon closer examination, his motivation for doing so becomes apparent. Galvin was a native of Massachusetts and keenly interested in the military history of his home state. He grew up learning the myth that when the King’s troops departed Boston to collect military supplies stored in Concord, every day farmers left their homesteads, banded together against the invaders, and chased them back to whence they came. The take did not make sense to Galvin precisely because of his military training and combat experience. Such a performance in battle suggested organization, command & control, and logistical forethought rather than a spontaneous response to a threat.[7]

     Galvin set out to learn the facts behind the myth and discovered that the Massachusetts troops that responded to the alarm of 19 April 1775 enjoyed substantial advantages. He learned, contrary to legend, that the colonists benefited from significant logistical and preparation and training, political support, and a highly organized administrative structure that turned the colony’s country structure into a regimental system capable of rapidly assembling combat power when required. Gavin found that this level of sophistication was the product of an evolving system of alarm companies and other community-based defensive systems dating back to the late 17th century, combined with a renewed emphasis on readiness dating from the fall of 1774, when Massachusetts Committees of Safety began preparing in earnest for what they felt was an inevitable clash with the British troops occupying the colony.[8] This combination of tradition, commitment, and anticipation resulted in a system that could be activated as required, with each participant trained and equipped for action, knowledgeable of their leadership, with an overarching command structure prepared to lead once the men took the field.[9]

     Galvin paints a picture of a highly prepared and motivated militia force and documents how the Massachusetts colonists achieved this level of readiness. In contrast, James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Leander postulate that the militia tradition had to be modified to enable the Americans to field a long-service professional force capable of meeting the British Army in sustained combat.[10]

Surrender of Cornwallis. Painting by John Trumbull. (Library of Congress)

  In A Respectable Army, The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789, Lender and Martin do not seek to contradict Galvin, but to show that the Massachusetts militia structure was not replicated throughout all thirteen colonies in the spring of 1775, nor were even the Massachusetts militia inclined to remain in the field for prolonged operations.[11] The authors make an effective case that the militia earned an uneven reputation throughout the war, with experienced officers such as Nathaniel Greene arguing that men “coming from home with all the tender feelings of domestic life were not sufficiently fortified with natural courage to withstand the shocking scenes of war.”[12] Greene’s point is that long service in the field, under discipline and consistent training, molded men into effective combat soldiers. Lender and Martin argue that this is precisely the hardening that the Continental Army provided. The authors point out that after the opening battles of the war, the militia’s performance against British regulars was uneven at best. Militia forces provided the bulk of Washington’s troops during the ill-fated battles around New York City in the summer and fall of 1776, in which the British and Hessian troops under Howe forced Washington to evacuate the city and retreat across New Jersey to Pennsylvania by the end of the year. Despite retrieving his fortunes with lightning strikes at Trenton and Princeton in December 1776 and January 1777, Washington’s fortunes were at a low ebb, and he sought to rebuild his Army into a more professional force capable of holding its own in the field. Lender and Martin document that he was able to do just that, relying more on long-service volunteers than short-service militia to achieve his ends. The reality of Continental Army service clashed with the myth of the virtuous citizen-soldier: Washington’s troops were not yeomen protecting home and hearth, but men on the margins of society hoping to improve their fortunes through military service. They were available to serve precisely because they did not have a large stake in the day-to-day running of their home communities.[13]

      Galvin presents a contrasting argument to Martin and Lender regarding the militia’s contribution to victory in the American Revolution. While Galvin’s arguments are well-documented, his focus is narrowly oriented toward the Massachusetts colony and the events of April 1775. He does not extrapolate his conclusions to the militia’s overall contribution throughout the war, whereas Martin and Lender demonstrate that militia quality was uneven, combat performance was lacking, and that the military leaders of the United States sought to create a more professional force to achieve military success.

Bibliography

Berg, Fred Anderson. Encyclopedia of Continental Army Units: Battalions,
     Regiments and Independent Corps. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books,
     1972.

Fischer, David Hackett. Paul Revere’s Ride. New York: Oxford University
     Press, 1994.

Galvin, John R. The Minute Men: A Compact History of the Defenders of the
     American Colonies, 1645–1775. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1967.

Martin, James Kirby, and Mark Edward Lender. A Respectable Army: The
     Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789. Arlington Heights, IL:
     Harlan Davidson, 1982.

Shy, John. A People Numerous and Armed: Reflections on the Military
     Struggle for American Independence. New York: Oxford University
     Press, 1976.

[1] John R. Galvin, The Minute Men: A Compact History of the Defenders of the American Colonies, 1645–1775 (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1967), 59-67.

[2] James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender, A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789 (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982), 45.

[3] John Shy, A People Numerous and Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 31.

[4] Fred Anderson Berg, Encyclopedia of Continental Army Units: Battalions, Regiments, and Independent Corps(Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1972), 76-77.

[5] David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 151.

[6] Galvin, The Minute Men, vii.

[7] Galvin, The Minute Men, 3-5.

[8] Galvin, The Minute Men, 73.

[9] Galvin, The Minute Men, 206.

[10] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army,

[11] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 46.

[12] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 45.

[13] Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army, 212.

Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1776

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment
The rebuilt Jacob Graff House

July 4, 1776 was not an unusual day when it began for Thomas Jefferson. It started off as any normal Thursday. Jefferson documented that he woke up around at dawn on the second floor of the Jacob Graff House at the corner of Market and 7th Streets. He spent the morning shopping in nearby Philadelphia stores. He documented the temperature that day at an ironic high of 76 degrees (much cooler than the expected 100+ degree heat on July 4, 2026). As he perused the stores on Philadelphia that morning, he purchased seven thermometers as well as women’s gloves. Jefferson also noted donating one shilling six pence to charity.

Jefferson was on hand as the Second Continental Congress convened at 9:00am in the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House. The day before, Jefferson sat through discussion on editing his draft of the Declaration of Independence. He would also spend this morning listening to others editing down his document by one-third. Jefferson took great offense to the edits and preserved his original draft for posterity.

Jefferson used this chair in the Graff House to write the declaration. Today the chair is on display at the American
Philosophical Society

After some time spent finishing the edits to Jefferson’s Declaration, the Congress approved the document later that morning. Congress then ordered local printer John Dunlap to print 200 copies of the Declaration now known as the “Dunlap Broadsides.” Dunlap worked quickly to set his printer’s type and began printing the copies the night of July 4th. For Jefferson and the other members of Congress, the rest of the day was spent on various items around defense, relations with native tribes and other committee work. No noted celebration of the occasion of passing the Declaration. Congress also directed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to design a new “Great Seal” for the new nation. [2]

It was not until later in life did men such as Adams and Jefferson give the day its prominence in American ethos. Though Adams called on Americans to celebrate July 2, today we celebrate the day that the Declaration was adopted. Both days are surely worth their own celebrations.

[1] – Jefferson the Virginian by Dumas Malone, pg. 229.

[2] – Letters of Delegate of the First and Second Continental Congresses,1774-1789. edited by Edmund C. Burnett

July 2, 1776: “the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America”

On By Kevin PawlakIn 1776, America 250, Continental Congress, PoliticsLeave a comment

At 11 a.m. on July 2, 1776, Second Continental Congress Secretary Charles Thomson called the roll of the colonies in the vote for independence from Great Britain. The debates were over (they lasted most of the legislative session on July 1). Now was the time to formalize Richard Henry Lee’s resolution, first introduced to the Congress on June 7, 1776, “That these United Colonies, are, and of right ought to be, free and Independent States …”

It only took perhaps a few minutes for Thomson to query each colony and record their vote. Before noon, 12 colonies unanimously voted for independence while New York abstained. They were no longer colonies, but states. All the men in the Pennsylvania State House knew the importance of the occasion. Abraham Clark, one of New Jersey’s delegates, wrote, “We are now … embarked on a most Tempestuous Sea. Life very uncertain. Seeming dangers Scattered thick around us …. Let us prepare for the worst, we can Die here but once. May all our Business, all our purposes & pursuits tend to fit us for that important event.”

John Adams, one of the champions of the independence movement, reflected on the importance of July 2 the next day in a letter to his wife Abigail:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

While the Declaration of Independence would still not be signed for several weeks, July 2, 1776, and the vote for independence marked a point of no return for the members of the Continental Congress.

ERW to Help St. Bonaventure University Commemorate America’s 250th Birthday

On By Chris MackowskiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment
Clockwise from top left: Chris Mackowski, Christopher Dalton, Steven Pitt, and Philip Payne

To help celebrate America’s 250th birthday this year, St. Bonaventure University’s History Department will present a series of public programs through March and April—and Emerging Revolutionary War is taking part. From John Adams and Revolutionary-era Boston to George Washington’s long shadow, presenters will invite audiences to reconsider how we remember the Revolution today. And all programs will be available to watch live on Zoom and later on YouTube.

“July Fourth this year will mark 250 years since the Declaration of Independence was finalized,” says Dr. Phillip Payne, chair of the history department. “We wanted to invite members of the community to join us in commemorating that event. It’s a question we can all think about: what does the American Founding mean to us today?”

The programs, which are free and open to the public, will each begin at 7:00 p.m. Light refreshments will be served. The programs will also be available to watch via Zoom; for Zoom links, visit the history department’s blog, https://bonashistorydept.blogspot.com/.

Continue reading “ERW to Help St. Bonaventure University Commemorate America’s 250th Birthday” →

Canadian Invasion: The Occupation of Montreal

On By Bert DunkerlyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

In the fall of 1775, 250 years ago, the American Revolutionaries invaded Canada. It was hoped that a 14th colony could be added to the effort. Members of the Continental Congress felt that Canada’s majority French Catholic population was unhappy with British rule, and would welcome the chance to join them. Conquering Canada would also remove the potential for a British invasion from the north.

General Richard Montgomery led forces from New York State north, and by November 13 captured Montreal. He and most of his troops departed for Quebec on November 28, where they joined forces with General Benedict Arnold to attack that city. General David Wooster remained in command at Montreal.

The Chateau Ramezay in the center of the town became headquarters for the occupying Continental Army. In the meantime American forces were defeated at Quebec on December 31, with General Montgomery killed.

Chateau Ramzey. Author Photo.


By spring, Montreal was under the command of Colonel Moses Hazen, a resident of the Province of Quebec. He tried to raise troops for the Continental army, but only about 500 joined his Canadian Regiment.

With about 10,000 people, Montreal was the fifth largest city in North America. While residents initially welcomed the Americans, they soon saw them as invaders and occupiers. Uncertainty about the economy, American intentions, and the defeat at Quebec all caused Canadians to gradually lose support for the Americans. For the Continental troops stationed here that winter, it must have been a dreary, cold, and depressing experience.


View of Montreal and its Walls in 1760. Image Source: Pictorial Field-Book of the American Revolution by Benson Lossing (1860).

On April 29, 1776 a delegation from the Continental Congress arrived, which included Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, Charles Carroll, and Carroll’s cousin, John Carroll, Catholic priest. It was hoped that a priest would give the American cause more legitimacy with the Canadians. Upon arriving, General Arnold had his troops salute the Congressional delegation.

Charles Carroll wrote, “On our landing, we were welcomed by General Arnold in the most courteous and friendly manner and conducted to the headquarters where a society of women and gentlemen of distinction had assembled. As we were on our way from our landing site to the General’s house, the cannon of the citadel thundered in our honour as commissioners of the Congress.”

It was all a failure. The Canadians were unwilling to throw off British rule, which guaranteed religious freedom and protection of their language and culture. On May 11, 1776, Franklin departed, saying it would have been easier if the Americans had tried to buy Canada than invade it.

Arnold and his troops occupied Montreal until June 15, when British forces advancing from Québec forced their evacuation. For seven months, the largest town in Canada was under American military occupation.

Today one of the few reminders of the American occupation is the Chateau Ramezay, built in 1705. It had been the Governor’s mansion during British rule and was the seat of Government until 1849. It is now a museum. Also visible are the old stone walls that surrounded the city. These fortifications defended the town in 1763 during the French and Indian War, and again in 1775 and 1776.

Eighteenth century fortifications at Montreal. Author Photo.

The Adams Family Memorials in Quincy’s Merrymount Park

On By Chris MackowskiIn Uncategorized1 Comment

I want to take a moment to give a shout out to the Quincy Historical Society in Quincy, Massachusetts.

For my upcoming ERW Series book on John Adams in the Revolution, Atlas of Independence, I included an appendix that highlights a number of Adams-related sites in his hometown of Quincy: his birthplace; the home he first lived in with Abigail; his later-in-life home, Peacefield; the “Church of the Presidents,” which includes his crypt; and several other cool spots.

One of the places I direct people is to Merrymount Park, which features two monuments to Adams and members of his family. The newer of the two consists of a statue of John that stands across a small plaza from a dual statue of Abigail and a young John Quincy. The distance symbolizes the distance between John and his family for much of his public life.

Sculptor Lloyd Lillie created the Abigail and John Quincy statues first, in 1997. They stood together in downtown Quincy along Hancock Street. John was installed across from them in 2001, separated by traffic. When the city redesigned downtown and created the new Hancock-Adams Commons in 2022, the statues were relocated to Merrymount Park to join an older monument already standing there.

That older monument was a little harder to investigate.

The monument itself is made from Quincy granite, a longtime staple of the local economy. A bas relief bronze tablet mounted on the granite shows John and an adult John Quincy—both as presidents—seated together for an imagined conversation with each other. An inscription reads: “Father and Son, Second and Sixth Presidents of the Nation, Statesmen, Diplomats, Patriots, and Builders of our great Republic, they labored in the vanguard of human democracy on this soil.”

Beyond that, I knew the memorial had once been moved to the site where the John and John Quincy birthplaces stand along Franklin Street, but I didn’t know when and I didn’t know when the monument came back to Merrymount. I couldn’t even find the year of the monument’s dedication or the name of the sculptor. The internet didn’t seem to know these things, and none of my reference materials referenced them.

And so it was that I reached out to the Quincy Historical Society to see if they might have anything in their archives that could help me out.

Archivist Mikayla Martin went above and beyond to assist, sending me a neat little bonanza of stuff! Since she sent me more material than I had room for in the book, I thought I’d take the opportunity to share my windfall here so that you, too, could benefit from the Quincy Historical Society’s kindness.

The memorial, as it turned out, was dedicated in 1927. The chief of staff of the United States Army at the time, Maj. Gen. Charles P. Summerall, served as master of ceremonies for the event, according to a clipping from the Patriot Ledger the historical society sent me:

Photographer Warren S. Parker captured this image of the Adams Memorial on April 18, 1929. (courtesy of the Quincy Historical Society)

The Patriot Ledger hailed the memorial’s sculptor, Bruce Wilder Saville, as “One of Quincy’s most distinguished native sons.” Saville was best known in town for another of his works, the WWI “Doughboy” Memorial that stood in front of the Coddington School. The Quincy Historical Society included Saville’s obituary from the Patriot Ledger, which I’ll reproduce below, along with a photo of the Doughboy Memorial that the society sent me.

Another newspaper clipping revealed that the $5,000 memorial was a gift to the city of Quincy from the U.S. government. In 1961, city leaders voted to move the monument to the Adams birthplaces, but when the NPS took over management of the site 1979, the city returned the monument to Merrymount Park. I’ll reproduce a newspaper article related to that, as well (see below).

Every monument and memorial has a story of its own, and I find those stories fascinating. They can tell us a lot about the people they honor as well as the people who are doing the honoring.

Please consider supporting your own local historical society (and, if you’re so inclined, please consider supporting the Quincy Historical Society while you’re at it). Organizations like this provide invaluable services to researchers everywhere, but more importantly, they carry the torch for the history in your own back yard.