Episode 038: The Green Mountain Boys

Last week, I talked about the continuing attempts to settle the Ohio Valley.  At the same time that longstanding political fight raged, another continuing land dispute flared up in New England.

Now before I get into the details, I want to say that I thought most of the history on this topic of land disputes between New Hampshire and New York seemed to paint New York as the bad guy.  Thinking that there was probably more gray area than that, and that since the New York parties became Tories during the Revolution, I tried to see if there really was more blame to go around on both sides.  But the more I read about this, I came to the same conclusion as most other historians.  The New Hampshire land owners certainly were not saints, and were not afraid to use violence, and perhaps the New Hampshire Governor was out of line in issuing the original grants.  But New York, mostly out of corruption or contempt, seems to bear the responsibility for events getting out of control.

The New Hampshire Grants

I mentioned almost in passing way back in Episode 18 that New Hampshire governor Benning Wentworth had been issuing land grants in the early 1760’s to lands he claimed were in the western part of the colony.  Wentworth argued that the western border of New Hampshire started up around the same point as the western border of Massachusetts, about 20 miles west of the Connecticut River.

Map showing the disputed area
(from: Ethan Allen History- Weebly)

The Governor had begun issuing land grants as early as 1749 beginning with a town he named after himself, Bennington.  He really got going after the French and Indian War ended in 1760, and set up over 100 towns west of the Connecticut River.  In each town, Gov. Wentworth received a small portion of the land as his personal property, thus giving him great financial incentive to encourage these settlements.

In fact, there was no good documentation on what New Hampshire’s western border was.  New York claimed it held all the land on the western side of the river.  In the early 1760’s, new York’s colonial government started paying attention to all these New Englanders settling in eastern New York and claiming it was part of New Hampshire.  In fact, they did more than pay attention. Acting NY Gov. Coldon started selling land patents to this land, giving the New York owner a legal claim to land that others already claimed under New Hampshire grants.

As was often the case, London had at different times issued vague and sometimes contradictory instructions about colonial borders. Therefore, both New Hampshire and New York argued they had valid claims to this land.  New York sent lobbyists to London to secure its claims.  They assured the Privy Council that they had already settled the land and that New Yorkers were living happily all over the region.  Without bothering to confirm any of this, the Privy Council ruled in 1764 that the land was in fact, part of New York.

Privy Council

The Privy Council is a group of advisers to the King.  The King appoints the members of the Council who serve at his pleasure.  Typically, during the reign of George III.  The Council included members of the Cabinet, other top political officials, as well as leaders of the Church of England and anyone else the King cared to include.  The Council acted as an advisory committee for the King on matters requiring his action.  But on most issues the King went along with the Council’s recommendations.  Certainly, a minor legal land claim between two colonies based on interpretations of old land charters was probably not something that drew the King’s great interest.  The Council had lawyers look at the claims, took their recommendation to the King who assented to the Council’s decision.  The Council would then issue its orders in the name of the King.

Benning Wentworth
(from Wikimedia)

So the Privy Council listened to New York’s land claims, discussed the matter among themselves, and issued a ruling in 1764 without really consulting anyone from New Hampshire.  They simply relied on the arguments by New York agents who wanted to establish the border and allow New York to begin settling the territory properly:

His Majesty doth order and declare the western banks of the River Connecticut, from where it enters the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, as far north as the forty-fifth degree of northern latitude, to be the boundary line between the said two Provinces of New Hampshire and New York.

In getting this ruling, what New York did not stress to the Privy Council was that there were thousands of people with New Hampshire claims already living on this land.  After receiving the Privy Council’s ruling, Gov. Wentworth stopped granting land patents, but no one seemed quite sure what the legal status was of all the people already living there, on land they had purchased from New Hampshire.

Legal Fight Over Land Grants

Although New York had sold some land patents in the same area, most were to speculators who had not attempted to settle there.  The residents, already living on land they had purchased and in towns they had built, asserted that their property remained their property - whether it was now part of New Hampshire or New York.  The Governor of New Hampshire was the King’s lawful representative in the colonies and had sold them the land for good money.  The fact that King through the Privy Council was adjusting colonial borders may have impacted who they would pay taxes to in future, but it would not impact private property ownership of the land.

Cadwalader Colden
(from Wikimedia)

New York, however, took the Privy Council’s decision to mean that all of the New Hampshire grants were invalid and that it was open season on selling all the land in the region.  The owners with New Hampshire land patents would either have to repurchase the land from New York or leave.  Acting NY Gov. Coldon saw an opportunity to make some quick money through massive land grants to New Yorkers before London sent a new permanent Governor.  Once the new Governor, Henry Moore, arrived in late 1765, he too began issuing patents, though he was slowed up for a time because the Stamp Act controversy prevented him from issuing land patents without Stamps.

When New York surveyors and others began checking out their new purchases, the New Hampshire land owners, accepting the fact that the King had declared they were living in New York, turned to the New York courts to validate their land claims.  New York Courts backed up New York claimants by refusing to allow any evidence of New Hampshire grants as proof that a landowner actually owned his property.  Without a New York grant, the claimant was deemed an illegal squatter.

Unable to get New York courts to validate their land claims and seeing NY issue claims that conflicted with theirs, the settlers with New Hampshire land grants organized town meetings and in 1766 sent a lobbyist and a petition to the Privy Council to validate their claims.

The Privy Council seemed to accept the settlers’ view, or at least sought to prevent any more conflicting land patents until it could reach a final decision.  The Council, through Secretary of State Hillsborough, issued instructions to the new Governor of New York, Henry Moore not to issue any more land patents in the disputed territory, that is the 20 miles along the west bank of the Connecticut River.  Gov. Moore received this instructions in late 1767, putting a stop to new land patents.  But since New York  had spent the three years prior issuing patents for much of this territory, the damage was already done.

Things remained relatively quiet for a couple of years, with nothing really getting settled.  Then, in 1769, NY Gov. Moore died rather suddenly, putting Lt. Gov. Colden back in charge once again.  Colden, eager to get more money from land patents, decided to take a more creative interpretation of the Privy Council’s instructions.  Most people had understood the orders to mean New York should not issue any land patents in the region.  Colden decided the orders simply meant that the specific lands granted by New Hampshire were off limits but the other land in the territory, not specifically granted to a private party already, could be sold to others.  In doing this, Colden also did not seem to pay much attention to what lands were actually already sold to private parties from New Hampshire and issued a bunch more conflicting claims anyway.

The Green Mountain Boys

Owners of the Grants now found themselves living without any protection from New Hampshire, and with a government in New York ready to confiscate their property.  London seemed to be no help in issuing a firm edict that they owned their land under their New Hampshire grants.  New York courts would not recognize them.  So legal and political options did not seem to be available.

Locals, however, were hardy frontiersmen who were not going to let a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats take away their land.  They formed local militias ready to defend their property against any attempts to seize it.  One of the largest militia groups, in Bennington led by Seth Warner, Remember Baker, and Ira Allen organized to prevent anyone from acting on any New York land claims.

Green Mounatin Boys (artist's conception from 1858)
(from Encyclopedia Britannica)

In October 1769 a New York Sheriff arrived with land surveyors to subdivide a farm claimed under the New Hampshire grants.  Local militia under arms forced the retreat of the New Yorkers out of the area.

Around this same time, Ira Allen’s brother Ethan, who had been a resident of Connecticut and Massachusetts, purchased property in the disputed territory.  His property claims originated from New Hampshire grants, meaning New York refused to recognize his claims.  Allen knew the lands he purchased were in conflict with a New York claim, which is probably why he was able to buy 1000 acres of land for just £12.

Ethan Allen took his land claims to a New York Court.  The three judge panel that heard his case consisted of judges who either owned disputed land under New York patents, or had close friends and family who did.  As you might guess, the courts did not rule in favor of the New Hampshire parties.

Allen joined the local militia movement and by force of his personality quickly became its leader.  This informal militia initially called itself the “New Hampshire Men.”  New Yorkers called them the “Bennington Mob” But after a newspaper labelled them the “Green Mountain Boys” the name stuck.

The Green Mountain Boys served as an unofficial government and army for the region.  They used violence and intimidation, not only against New York officials, but against anyone seen as collaborating with them.  When a fellow landowner tried to sell New York land claims to some of his neighbors, as a way of ending any disputed ownership of their lands, Allen arrested the man and tried him.  Found guilty, they sentenced the man to be tied to a chair all day in front of a local tavern.

In 1771 locals held a convention in Bennington, where they attempted to organize the movement into more of a government.  The Convention also published several pamphlets for reprint in newspapers, discussing the injustice of New York’s treatment of property owners.

Later that year, several New Yorkers with New York claims to land, attempted to build homesteads on land already occupied under New Hampshire grants.  The Green Mountain Boys forced them to leave at gunpoint, burning the homes they had begun to build.

New York Goes to War

As the militia violence pushed the two sides closer to all out war, officials needed a leader who could broker an acceptable political solution for both sides.  Instead, London appointed John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore as the new Governor of New York.  I’m going to talk about Lord Dunmore in more detail in a future episode.  But Dunmore was a Scottish noble with a military background who was looking to make money in the colonies. He got off to a bad start with his Lt. Gov. by demanding Colden go halvsies with him on all the land patent fees that Colden had sold in the past year.  Colden refused, and the two men were not able to work together.  Dunmore, however, wasted no time issuing his own land patents and collecting the fees on those.  He made no real effort to resolve the problems and in fact engaged in his own land speculation by buying some of the disputed lands issued by former governors.

Lord Dunmore
(from Wikimedia)

Dunmore did not last long, getting a promotion to Governor of Virginia where he would cause even more problems that I will discuss in a future episode.  To replace Dunmore in New York, London transferred North Carolina Governor William Tryon, who we met back in Episode 35.  As you may recall, Tryon had to put down his own colonial insurgency in North Carolina when the Regulators rose up to protest government corruption in tax collection.  There, Tryon took a tough line, resulting in the Battle of Alamance, where he hanged the leaders and crushed the reform movement.

Tryon decided he would use the same playbook in New York that he had used in North Carolina: make a large show of force, arrest and hang the leaders, and the movement will crumble.  In 1771, Tryon declared Allen, Baker,  Warner, and several others outlaws. In 1772 a New York raiding party attempted the arrest of militia leader Remember Baker.  The surprise raid on Baker’s house led to intense fighting and several injuries.  As the New York posse returned with its prisoner, a militia party under Seth Warner overtook them and recaptured Baker.

Tryon was agreeable to working out a settlement.  But this attempt was doomed from the start since tried to reach a compromise while he left Allen and the other leaders out of the deal.  In the Governor’s opinion, these men were criminals and needed to be prosecuted.  As he had done in North Carolina, Tryon offered no amnesty for the leaders and refused to deal with them.  Instead, he reached out to moderates living in the area, who would get pardons.  New York would not issue new claims and would not attempt to evict anyone while both parties attempted to resolve issues in London.  Allen, who would have been hanged under this deal, made sure the locals rejected this offer.  The standoff continued.

Ethan Allen
(from find-a-grave)

Next, Tryon attempted to create a competing authority in the region by appointing local landowners to government offices.  By doing so, he hoped to swing local support to his appointees and away from the Green Mountain Boys.  To counter this, locals held another convention in Manchester, where they declared it a crime for any resident to accept a New York office, punishable by whipping or banishment.

Tryon attempted to enlist the support of British regulars in Canada under the command of Gen. Haldimand.  But Haldimand, remembering how Gen. Gage had been reprimanded for lending troops to New York in a land dispute against Connecticut a few years earlier, refused to get involved. Tryon made his request for Regulars directly to the new Secretary of State, Lord Dartmouth.  He got back a letter saying no, and that he really needed to resolve this by accommodating the claims of those with New Hampshire Grants and not to involve the military in this.  This was all part of Dartmouth’s kinder gentler approach to resolving colonial disputes.

In late 1772, the New Hampshire grant owners sent another delegation to London to seek official resolution of their disputes.  The group was well received, but no officials were willing to make any decisions.  As we will see in a future episode, by early 1773, they were more focused on other crises involving the East India Company and did not want to give much attention to some backwater colonial land dispute in New York, or New Hampshire, or wherever.  The delegation did seem to spur Secretary of State Dartmouth to send a request to Gov. Tryon to return to London to discuss why he did not seem to be willing to resolve this matter peacefully.

Gen. Frederick Haldimand
(from Wikimedia)

Before leaving though, in late 1773, the town of Clarendon grew with residents holding a rather shaky Massachusetts claim to the land.  It seems that the group was really pro-New York  but did not want to use New York claims that might get them in trouble with the Green Mountain Boys.  They got in trouble anyway.  Allen led a group of 100 armed men to the city to force residents to purchase New Hampshire claims.  The residents fled to Albany rather than face down what they called the Bennington Mob.

So before he left for London to convince Dartmouth that he could resolve these dispute peacefully, Governor Tryon used the Clarendon incident as justification to enact a new law in March 1774 similar to what he had used in North Carolina.  The law authorized the Governor to order the arrest of anyone guilty of rioting.  If the accused refused to surrender himself to authorities within 70 days, he would be deemed guilty and subject to immediate execution on sight.  Tyron immediately named Allen and seven other leaders under the new law.  In response, Allen and others informed the newspapers that they would execute anyone who tried to arrest them under this statute.

Tryon, however, never raised a militia to do battle and force the issue.  Shortly after passing the Riot law, Tryon left for London, where he would remain for a year.  During that time, the fighting at Lexington and Concord put all other issues on the back burner.  The day Tryon returned to New York in June 1775 was the same day George Washington passed through New York on his way to Boston to take command of the Continental Army.

Conclusion

The two sides of this land dispute moved their fight into the Revolution.  Most of the New York claimants were Tories who sided with the British government.  The Green Mountain Boys joined the Patriot movement almost immediately after Lexington, with their first major act to be invading New York and capturing Fort Ticonderoga.  But that is a whole new topic for a future episode.

Next week, London tries to tweak its tea import policies to bail out the failing East India Company, and at the same time break the colonial resistance to tariffs.

Next Episode 39: The Politics of Tea

Previous Episode 37: Committees of Correspondence and the Colony of Vandalia

Click here to donate

American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account.
Thanks,
Mike Troy

Click here to see my Patreon Page

You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option for people who want to make monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.  Thanks again!



Visit the American Revolution Podcast (https://amrev.podbean.com) for free downloads of all podcast episodes.

Further Reading

Web Sites

Hilland Hall and the early history of Bennington Vermont: http://northbennington.org/hiland_hall.html

Privy Council Order from 1764 declaring the land west of Conn. River to be part of NY: https://books.google.com/books?id=d25SAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA203#v=onepage&q&f=false

Procknow, Gene “Seth Warner or Ethan Allen: Who Led The Green Mountain Boys?” Journal of the American Revolution, 2014: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/05/seth-warner-or-ethan-allen-who-led-the-green-mountain-boys

Biography of Seth Warner: http://www.warnersregiment.org/Warner%20Bios.html

Baker, Ray Stannard “Remember Baker” The New England Quarterly, pp. 595-628, 1931: http://www.jstor.org/stable/359581 (free to read online with registration).

VIDEO: C-Span visits the Ethan Allen Homestead Museum, 2017: https://www.c-span.org/video/?434937-1

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Vermont Historical Society Collections of the Vermont Historical Society, Vol. 1, Montpelier: J. & J.M. Poland Printers, 1870.  This includes many useful primary documents as well as Ira Allen’s (Ethan Allen’s brother) History of Vermont.

Batchellor, Albert S. (ed) & Huse, Hiram A. (ed), The New Hampshire grants, being transcripts of the charters of townships and minor grants of lands made by the provincial government of New Hampshire, within the present boundaries of the state of Vermont, from 1749 to 1764. With an appendix containing the petitions to King George the Third, in 1766, by the proprietors and settlers under the New Hampshire grants, and lists of the subscribers; also historical and bibliographical notes relative to the towns in Vermont, Concord: Edward N. Pearson, 1895.

Chipman, Daniel Memoir of Colonel Seth Warner, Middlebury: L.W. Clark, 1848.

Collins, Edward D. A History of Vermont, Boston: Ginn & Co. 1903.

De Morgan, John The Hero of Ticonderoga or Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, Philadelphia: David Mckay 1896.

Hall, Hiland The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791, Albany: Joel Munsell, 1868.

Moore, Hugh Memoir of Col. Ethan Allen, Plattsburgh: O.R. Cook, 1834.

Sparks, Jared American Biography, Vol. 9, Boston: Little and Brown, 1902 - Includes Life of Ethan Allen and Life of William Ellery.

Thompson, Daniel P. The Green Mountain Boys, Boston: Benjamin Mussey & Co., 1853 (this is more of a fictionalized account of the events).

Wilbur, La Fayette Early History of Vermont, Jericho, Vt: Roscoe Printing Co. 1899.

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Knollenberg, Bernhard Growth of the American Revolution 1766-1775,  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1975.

Randall, Willard Sterne Ethan Allen: His Life and Times, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2011.

Wren, Christopher S. Those Turbulent Sons of Freedom: Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys and the American Revolution, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.

* (Book links to Amazon.com are for convenience.  They are not an endorsement of Amazon, nor does this site receive any compensation for any links).

Episode 037: Committees of Correspondence & Vandalia

Last week, Rhode Islanders attacked and sank the British navy ship HMS Gaspee.  Despite some isolated events like that, the colonies seemed to lack a united front after the removal of soldiers from Boston and the repeal of most of the Townshend duties.  Without continuing outrages from London, some radical patriots grew concerned that the majority of the colonial population would grow complacent.  The North Ministry used the calm to make many small tweaks to the power structure.  This would give London a much greater advantage the next time officials provoked a showdown.

Gov. Hutchinson

Gov. Hutchinson
(from Wikimedia)

Following the trial of the Boston Massacre soldiers, acting Massachusetts Gov. Hutchinson submitted his resignation to Secretary of State Hillsborough in London.  Hutchinson had decided he simply was not up to the task of enforcing law and order in the colony.

As his letter of resignation traveled across the Atlantic, another commission headed the other direction, granting acting Governor Hutchinson a commission as the actual Governor.  When his resignation arrived on London, Hillsborough refused to accept it.  London needed a man who knew the colony well and had shown his loyalty to the crown.  So congratulations Governor.  I’m sure the next few years will be so much fun for you!

Salary Disputes

In late 1771, London began paying Hutchinson’s salary directly.  Until then, most colonial legislatures had paid governors.  Although Parliament had repealed the Townshend duties, the part of the Townshend Act that called for direct payment of colonial officers remained in effect.  To many members of the public, it seemed perfectly reasonable that the crown would pay a crown appointed governor.  To the radicals in the legislature, it was another attempt to undermine their power.  A governor paid from London would have less incentive to stay in the good graces of the legislature.  He could also suspend the Assembly if it got unruly without risking his own income.  The following year, Hillsborough issued further orders paying the salaries of colonial judges, and other government officials.  It did not help matters that the much of the money to pay these officials came from the hated tea tax.

Lord Hillsborough
(from Tampa Bay History)

London officials also debated changing the colonial council in Massachusetts from an elected body to one appointed by the Governor.  This was the normal system in most royal colonies.  The Massachusetts Charter, however, called for an elected council.  The Council had been a barrier that prevented the Governor from acting on issues, like calling out the army to suppress riots.  The elected Council in Massachusetts almost always stymied the Governor.  Changing to an appointed council however, would require an amendment to the colonial charter.  Given the tensions, London officials decided not to pursue this reform at this time.

Still, Samuel Adams saw these changes as part of a broader effort bring the colonies more firmly under London’s control.  In another such move, Hillsborough had refused to accept Benjamin Franklin as the colonial agent for Massachusetts. While the Massachusetts Assembly had approved his agency, the Governor had not.  To Hillsborough, this meant Franklin had no legitimacy.  This was another subtle attempt to shift power to the King and his appointed ministers in the colonies, and away from the elected legislatures.

These were all minor disputes though.  For most colonists, London’s changes in government pay structures were insignificant behind the scenes matters.  They bothered some politically astute radicals but few others.  From late 1770 until early 1773, England and her colonies returned to relative normal.  The big sticking point for most was the non-importation agreements on tea.  We’ll get into that more in a few weeks.  But while it remained a political issue, it had very little impact on the economy overall.

During this time, several moderates began to drift away from the movement.  John Hancock reduced his association with the radicals.  Gov. Hutchinson, hoping to pull him back to the other side, gave him back command of the Corps of Cadets.  He also offered to help Hancock get a seat on the Governor’s Council.  Hancock though, declined the Council seat, saying he wanted to focus more on his business and less on politics for either side.

Similarly, men like John Dickinson in Pennsylvania and George Washington in Virginia, turned back to their professions.   Both remained members of their state legislatures.  That work though took a backseat to other matters, like land speculation and building their businesses.

Committees of Correspondence

Samuel Adams’ concerns that London apparently was making little changes all over the continent encouraged him to begin the Committees of Correspondence.  Men across Massachusetts and across the continent agreed to write each other regularly to let everyone know what political changes were happening everywhere.  This way, they could determine if minor changes were part of a larger coordinated long term attempt to control the colonies.  These committees also allowed the radicals to develop a coordinated response to any noteworthy activities and build joint strategies to resist them.  Over the next few years, the committees would expand, creating a communications network that helped the radicals organize beyond the confines of each individual colony.

Colonial legislatures had used committees of correspondence before, both for communications with London as well as with other colonies and towns.  Most were for a limited time and purpose though, such as coordination of opposition to the Stamp Act a decade earlier.

Many of the committees this time were created outside of the legislatures.  They did not have one specific purpose, but were designed to keep radical politicians all over the continent informed about policy changes and other concerns on any issue that might arise.  The Massachusetts Committee was not part of the State Assembly, but rather from the Boston Town Meeting.  This prevented the Governor from having any control over it.

Samuel Adams drafted Boston’s first letter in November 1772.  What became known as the Boston Pamphlet went mostly to other towns in Massachusetts.  However, it later circulated more widely and got published elsewhere.  It sought to gain consensus on 12 complaints:

The Boston Pamphlet, 1772
(from Mass. Historical Society)

1. “British Parliament has assumed power of legislation for the colonists without their consent.”
2. “Parliament has raised illegal revenues.”
3. “Tax collectors have been appointed by the Crown, a right reserved to the province.”
4. “Tax collectors are entrusted with power too absolute and arbitrary. Private premises are exposed to search.”
5. “Fleets and Armies are quartered on the townsfolk in time of peace without their consent.”
6. “Tax revenue has been used by King to pay provincial government officers, making them dependent on him, in violation of the charter.”
7. “General assemblies are forced to meet in inconvenient places. Activities of the council have been limited.”
8. “Colonists accused of crimes are to be tried in admiralty courts.”
9. “Restraints are placed against iron mills, hat manufacture, and transport; wool cannot be carried over a ferry; many other businesses are curtailed.”
10. “Colonists accused of destroying any British naval property are to be transported to England for trial.”
11. “Parliament is attempting to establish an American Episcopate.” (in other words bringing Anglican Bishops to America).
12. “Parliament is making frequent alteration of the bounds of the colonies, not according to charter.”

I had mentioned that Hancock had been moving away from the radicals.  However, he had served as moderator of the town meeting that approved the Boston Pamphlet.  As moderator, he had to sign it to indicate the meeting’s approval of the document. Had he refused to sign, he would have been shunned for his Tory sympathies.  Since Gov. Hutchinson and others considered the document seditious, signing meant another break with the establishment.  Forced to take sides, Hancock signed the document, meaning his name became associated once again as a leader in the patriot cause.

In Virginia, before the House of Burgesses could vote on the creation of a Committee, Lord Dunmore dissolved the House.  Most of the representatives moved across the street to a tavern, where they agreed as private citizens to create a group to correspond with other colonies.

One way or another, active committees began in eleven colonies, typically with the more radical political leaders in charge of them.  Most correspondents were members of the Sons of Liberty.  Letters supplemented newspapers as a way of learning intelligence.  It also gave leaders an opportunity to share ideas and coordinate opposition.  Probably most importantly, the committees gave like minded leaders throughout the colonies a chance to get to know one another.

Franklin Letters

Although not officially part of any committee of correspondence, Benjamin Franklin was still working as a colonial agent in London, despite Hillsborough’s refusal to acknowledge him.  Franklin regularly corresponded with various colonial leaders and officials in London as his work required.

Somehow, Franklin obtained a number of letters from Governor Hutchinson in late 1772.  It is still unclear exactly how he got them, but they appear to have come from an anonymous member of Parliament.  He also had a few letters from Lt. Gov. Andrew Oliver and other leading colonial Tories.  The letters bad mouthed opposition leaders and recommended that London had to limit British liberties in the colonies if officials ever wanted to restore order.  Similar letters had doomed Gov. Bernard’s administration a few years earlier.

Benjamin Franklin in London
(from Franklin Institute)

It does not appear that Franklin was trying to destroy Hutchinson.  He sent the letters to Thomas Cushing in Boston, with the instructions that Cushing keep them confidential and only share them with a few members of the patriot leadership.  Franklin’s purpose in sending the letters was to try to convince Patriot leaders that colonial problems were not the result of London officials inclined towards tyranny.  Rather, officials like Hutchinson were painting a poor picture of the colonial situation.  Patriots needed to get their side of the story to London, perhaps by providing more support and resources to their agent, Mr. Franklin.

Cushing, however, working closely with Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren, decided not to keep the letters confidential.  In the summer of 1773, they published the letters in the newspaper.  The release of the letters followed on Hutchinson’s speech to the Assembly a few months earlier, proclaiming that the Parliament was the supreme legislative authority, and that unless the colonies were considering something crazy like independence, they needed to get over themselves and accept Parliamentary authority.

Relations between Gov. Hutchinson and the the colony’s elected leaders were never good.  But the speech and the letters made things downright poisonous.

The Vandalia Colony

But despite the continued bickering among politicians, many moderates in the colony turned their focus back to business.  And for quite a few colonists, business meant speculation in western land.  This returns us to the issue that started much of this whole course of events: the colonists’ desire to settle the Ohio Valley.

We last left the Ohio Valley back in Episode 19, with the end of Pontiac’s Rebellion and King George’s Royal Proclamation of 1763 that colonists could not move west of the Appalachian Mountains.  The colonists were not happy about the decree then, and a decade later still wanted either to subvert it or get it repealed outright.

Several Pennsylvania Indian traders who had lost property during Pontiac’s Rebellion sought compensation.  Eventually the traders formed the Indiana Company to recover their losses. Owners received stock in the company based on the value of their losses.  Once they had the stock though, they were free to sell it to speculators. The value of the stock varied based on the chances that the owner or his assignee would ever get compensation from anyone.  Much of the stock ended up in the hands of a few wealthy speculators, including Samuel Wharton and sons in Philadelphia and William Franklin, Governor of New Jersey and son of Benjamin Franklin.

After officials in London refused to consider any requests, the group focused on the Indians.  They worked with Indian agent William Johnson, eventually hammering out the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768.  In that treaty, the Iroquois turned to their old favorite practice of trading land that other tribes inhabited.  In this case, the Iroquois sought to protect their land in Western New York by offering up land which covers what is today West Virginia, and some surrounding areas.

With treaty in hand, the Company sent agents to London to obtain royal approval.  Since the land was west of the Alleghenies, they needed the Privy Council to amend the Royal Proclamation of 1763, you remember, the King’s promise to the Indian tribes that he would keep European settlers from moving into the very land that European colonists now wanted to settle.  The Company hoped to convince officials in London that the Iroquois agreement to give the land would eliminate any concerns about Indian opposition.  Never mind that none of the tribes actually living on the land had approved the deal.

Proposed Colony of Vandalia
(from Wikimedia)

The agents worked with Benjamin Franklin, who was already well connected as a colonial agent in London.  Since his son William had major investments in the company, Benjamin had a strong interest in advancing this project.

Although he never had a good relationship with Lord Hillsborough, Franklin knew that getting this done would require the approval of the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.  Hillsborough met with the agents and seemed surprisingly approving.  He even encouraged the group to ask for more land to make it the size of a real colony.  The group planned to create a new royal colony, with a crown appointed governor and an elected legislature.  Like earlier colonies the group would bear all the costs and risks of settling the colony.  Unlike earlier colonies, the group would also make a one time payment of over £10,000 as well as an annual quitrent to London based on the number of acres granted.

Everything seemed to be headed in the right direction.  The Indiana Company merged with the Illinois Company, and provided shares to the Ohio Company of Virginia, both of which had competing claims to the land.  They took on several partners in London, including Thomas Walpole, son of a former Prime Minister and an important member of Parliament himself.  They changed the company’s name to the Grand Ohio Company.  Initially, they planned to name the colony Pittsylvania, after William Pitt.  Later, however, they adopted the name Vandalia, in honor of Queen Charlotte, who was descended from the Vandal tribes of Europe.

In 1772 with their petition before the Privy Council, Lord Hillsborough issued a report recommending that the Council reject the petition.  The report stunned everyone involved.  It is unclear why Hillsborough turned on the group.  It may have been that he adopted the concerns of Gen. Gage that the inland colony would run the risk of another Indian uprising.  He also expressed concerns about allowing colonists to set up inland colonies where it would be harder for the military to control them, away from the British Navy.  It may have been because the group failed to give Hillsborough any shares in the company, in other words a bribe, to let it go forward. Benjamin Franklin though, suspected Hillsborough of setting up the group for failure from the beginning, just because he was a pompous jerk who liked to mess with people.

Whatever the reason, the group’s effective lobbying and other politically influential London investors got the Privy Council to overrule Hillsborough and approve the plan anyway.  And this is the main reason I decided to discuss the Vandalia project now.  Hillsborough was so flustered by the Council’s decision to reject his recommendation that in August 1772, he resigned as Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.  The Colonies happily received news of his resignation.  Probably no one was happier than Benjamin Franklin, who never liked the man.

The Grand Company of Ohio would spend the next few years trying to get final authorization for the colony.  But infighting between stockholders and competing claims by other colonial land speculators, including George Washington, continued to delay the project.  After the outbreak of hostilities in 1775, the project had to be put on hold and went nowhere. Nearly a decade later, in 1781 Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Wharton tried to resurrect their claims before the Continental Congress, arguing that the now independent United States was bound by the contractual rights to the land that Britain had given the investors.  This was around the same time Virginia was ceding its claims to most of what we consider today the midwest.  But Virginia maintained its claims to most of the land that would have become this new State of Vandalia and objected strongly to the competing claims.  Congress rejected the claims of the Ohio Company investors and ratified Virginia’s claims to the land.  All of the investors lost their money, unless they had sold out earlier to speculators.

Dartmouth takes control

Back in London, William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth replaced Hillsborough as Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.  Dartmouth had been a member of the House of Lords since 1750, when, at age 19, he inherited his grandfather’s title.  His father had died when he was only a year old.  His mother remarried a widower named Lord North, who had a son Frederick.  William’s step-brother would grow up to be Prime Minister Lord North.  Since nepotism was a big part of the British government, North had no trouble appointing his step-brother to this key position in his ministry.

Earl of Dartmouth
(from Wikimedia)

Dartmouth seemed much more accommodating of colonial interests.  Unlike Hillsborough, he did not seek not to crush them into submission.  Instead, he would try to work out political compromises that would satisfy all.  Dartmouth, by London terms, was a moderate who had supported the repeal of the Stamp Act.  He had also contributed to the establishment of a college for Indians in New Hampshire, which still bears his name today.

Franklin and others thought that Dartmouth’s replacing Hillsborough would lead to better relations between England and the colonies.  Sadly, things would not work out that way, but in 1772, everyone remained optimistic about the new appointment.  Dartmouth, at least seemed much more reasonable and accommodating.

Next Week, The dispute over the border of New Hampshire and New York flares up again as residents of both colonies attempt to assert their property claims. This gives rise to a militia army known as the Green Mountain Boys.

Next Episode 38: The Green Mountain Boys

Previous Episode 36: Sinking the HMS Gaspee

Visit the American Revolution Podcast (https://amrev.podbean.com) for free downloads of all podcast episodes.

Further Reading

Web Sites

The Boston Pamphlet of 1772: http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm

Committees of Correspondence: http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/committees-of-correspondence

Franklin's Hutchinson Affair: http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/hutchinson-affair

Franklin Tract Relative to Hutchinson Affair: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0227

Smith, John L. "Benjamin Franklin, America's First Whistleblower" Journal of the American Revolution, 2013: https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/benjamin-franklin-americas-first-whistleblower

Anderson, James D. "Vandalia: The First West Virginia?" West Virginia Archives and History (1979), pp. 375-92: http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh40-4.html

Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Colonies: http://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/ColonialAppeals

Marshall, Peter, "Lord Hillsborough, Samuel Wharton and the Ohio Grant, 1769-1775"
The English Historical Review, 1965, pp. 717-739: http://www.jstor.org/stable/559309

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Bailey, Kenneth The Ohio Company of Virginia and the westward movement, 1748-1792, Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1939.

Cushing, Harry (ed) The Writings of Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, New York: GP Putnam's Sons, 1906.

Cushing, Harry (ed) The writings of Samuel Adams, Vol. 3, New York: G.P. Putnum's Sons, 1907.

Hosmer, James Samuel Adams, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. 1913.

Hull, Anna L. The proposed colony of Vandalia, Univ. of Illinois, thesis project, 1914.

Hutchinson, Thomas & Hutchinson, John (ed) The History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, from 1749 to 1774,  London: John Murray 1828.

Hutchinson, Thomas & Hutchinson, Peter Orlando (ed) The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. 1884.

Spencer, Henry Constitutional conflict in provincial Massachusetts,  (1905) (contains a thorough background on disputes over the charter and salaries of officials prior to the revolutionary era).

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Galvin, John Three Men of Boston, Potomac Books, 1976

Isaacson, Walter Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, New York: Simon & Schuster (2004).

Knollenberg, Bernhard Growth of the American Revolution 1766-1775,  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1975.

Smith, Page A New Age Now Begins, Vol. 1, New York: McGraw-Hill 1976.

Zobel, Hiller The Boston Massacre, New York: WW Norton & Co. 1970.

* (Book links to Amazon.com are for convenience.  They are not an endorsement of Amazon, nor does this site receive any compensation for any links).

Episode 036: Sinking the HMS Gaspee

Last week, we looked at a few of the internal colonial disputes in the Carolinas.  Those issues involved fights between the people and the colonial government.  This week, Rhode Island takes on the British Navy directly by sinking the HMS Gaspee.

Trade Enforcement

Following the repeal of the Stamp Act and most of the Townshend Acts, Parliament focused its attempts to assert authority over the colonies through tougher trade enforcement.  Smuggling had always been common in the colonies, as historically London had not made much of an attempt to enforce trade laws.  Almost no colonists argued that Parliament lacked authority to create and enforce some trade laws, but strict enforcement of existing laws made profitable trade almost impossible.

After the end of the Seven Years War, the British began focusing more on enforcement.  It began as a way to raise revenue, but by 1770, enforcement seemed more about asserting authority than raising any money.  As we saw back in Episode 29, London had placed an American Board of Customs in Boston, responsible for enforcing trade laws and collecting tariffs.  It then sent in Regulars to back up the board, leading to the Boston Massacre (See, Episode 33) and pulling the soldiers out of the city.

The withdrawal of troops did not mean that officials had given up on trade enforcement.  The North Ministry, and Parliament, with the agreement of the King, all felt that colonists could no longer get away with ignoring the laws of the Empire.  Even if authorities had to watch their step on land, the British navy still controlled the seas.

British Dockyard at Woolwich,18th Century (from ipfs.io)

Throughout the 1700s, Britain had been regularly at war with one country or another.  The down time between wars presented its own problems.  A peacetime military was expensive.  Yet keeping ships and crew active meant they would be ready for the next war. Otherwise, ships sat in dock, rotting away.  Sailors found other jobs, and officers sat at home on half-pay with little to do.  Putting a few naval vessels to work controlling smuggling seemed like a better alternative.  It kept the ships and men active, raised some revenue, and reminded the colonies who was in control.  Since the end of the Seven Years War, the Navy headquartered in Halifax, deployed dozens of ships patrolling around all the major North American ports.

Despite increased enforcement, many merchant ships still found smuggling profitable, either bringing in goods from foreign ports in violation of trade laws, or simply trying to avoid customs duties.  If caught, officials could seize a ship and its cargo.  If condemned by the Admiralty Court it would be sold at auction, along with additional fines for the ship’s owner.  Since the officers and crew of the naval vessel capturing such a prize received a share of the sales price, they had good incentive to pursue smugglers with zeal.

Rhode Island’s Radicals

Although Boston was the largest port in New England, the coast was dotted with many ports, large and small.  Merchant vessels could land at any of them, or even try to offload their ships via smaller boats at some remote beach.  Rhode Island had a busy port at Newport, and also had a fair share of merchants who made every effort to avoid paying tariffs, or who wanted to trade with foreign colonies in violation of British trade laws.

The people of Rhode Island had a history of challenging British authorities in their waters.  In 1764, following passage of the Sugar Act, a British Navy ship, the HMS St. John  patrolled the waters around Newport looking for smugglers.  While the ship was docked in Newport, some event happened, that is rather vague.  Different accounts say that some of the ship’s crew stole property.  Others say the crew came ashore either to impress local sailors or to capture deserters, resulting in a massive brawl with local sailors on the docks.

Fort George, Newport Harbor (from NewportHistory.org)

As local authorities attempted to make arrests, the St. John attempted to leave port.  Locals occupied Fort George on an island in Newport Harbor.  From there they fired the fort’s cannon at the St. John.  No one was hit, and the locals fled the island before a larger navy ship came in range.  But the incident made clear that colonists in Rhode Island were not afraid to attack authorities if provoked.

The following year, in June 1765, shortly after passage of the Stamp Act, the HMS Maidstone landed a press gang in Newport harbor.  Locals fought with the press gang.  A mob of about 500 men seized the launch craft that had landed, dragged it to the commons, and burned it.

I’ve already mentioned the Liberty, the ship authorities seized from John Hancock in Boston.  The seizure had led to the Liberty riot of 1768 that I discussed back in Episode 29.  By 1769, the British navy was using the HMS Liberty to enforce trade laws.  The crew of the Liberty forced two small Connecticut boats to land at Newport for suspected smuggling violations.  The Captain of the boats accused the crew of the Liberty of abusing him and his men.  Witnesses from Providence had seen the Liberty fire on the unarmed boats after the captain apparently resisted allowing the navy to board his ships.  An outraged mob formed, forcing the crew of the Liberty off of the ship.  They took the ship out into the harbor and set it on fire.

In all of these cases, authorities attempted to bring criminal charges, but no one would identify any of those involved.  Like Boston, the local courts in Newport were stacked with people who would not indict or convict anyone for criminal acts against the hated authorities.  Further, if anyone attempted to cooperate with prosecutors, they might find themselves with a new suit of tar and feathers, or some other punishment.  As a result, locals felt comfortable using violence against the navy when provoked.

William Dudingston

Naval officers tended not to be the most politically sensitive individuals.  A ship’s captain ruled his crew by fear.  He kept his men in line by flogging or other painful punishments for infractions of the rules.  Officers tended to show the same authoritarian contempt for civilians as well.  British crews were not afraid to use violence against civilian crews that displayed any resistance to their orders.  Even for legitimate merchants, a stop at sea could delay a voyage for hours.  A decision to force the ship into docks could mean a delay of several days.  The level of harassment, or strict adherence to the rules, was a largely a matter of discretion for the ship’s captain.  Different officers handled their responsibilities in very different ways.

Lt. William Dudingston, commander of the Gaspee, quickly gained a reputation as being one of the worst, at least from the perspective of the colonists. Dudingston was in his early 30’s.  He came from minor Scottish aristocracy, that had fallen on hard times.  He took command of the Gaspee in 1768 and had been using Philadelphia as a base as he patrolled the waters up and down the east coast.

HMS Gaspee (from gaspee.org)

It’s not clear why Dudingston acted especially aggressively in his enforcement of trade regulations. Perhaps he was bucking for promotion.  Perhaps he appreciated the prize money from seized vessels.  As a Lieutenant, he made only £100 per year.  In some years, he nearly doubled his annual income with prize money from seized ships and cargo.  Whatever the reason Dudingston went after everyone.  Even the most politically powerful families and operators of the smallest ships did not escape his strict enforcement of customs laws.

Dudingston also apparently had an attitude, treating all civilians with contempt.  On several boardings, his men beat up ship captains and crew, presumably for resisting in some way.  He quickly developed a reputation for harassing local ships, boarding even small packet boats moving around the bay, demanding papers and wasting everyone’s time.  A British board of inquiry later described it as “intemperate, if not reprehensible zeal to aid the customs service.”

While in the waters around Philadelphia, Dudingston apparently got into several fights.  There is one article about him beating up a fisherman, unprovoked, though the article is written by the fisherman, so we only have that side of the story.  Given that there are many such stories, though, it seems that Dudingston was quite comfortable beating up locals if he thought they did not give him the respect he deserved.

The Gaspee 

The HMS Gaspee itself was a rather small schooner with a crew of only around 20-25 men and six cannon, as well as a few swivel guns.  It was built as a small fast ship, designed to run down merchant vessels, not fight with other ships of war.  It was able to move at a good speed for the day, travel through relatively shallow water and was sufficiently armed to intimidate any merchant vessel it encountered.

The Admiralty had ordered the Gaspee and five similar ships built in the colonies in 1764 for the purpose of customs enforcement.  The Gaspee had been in continuous use since that time, patrolling waters from Nova Scotia to Philadelphia.  It only had one other commander before Dudingston took command in 1768.

Patrolling Rhode Island

In early 1772, Dudingston began to focus his attention on the waters around Newport.  In addition to treating merchants and captains with contempt, he liked to show his contempt for local government officials.  Naval vessels patrolling colonial waters typically presented their credentials to local authorities before searching and seizing merchant vessels.  Dudingston never bothered with this.

Nathanael Greene
(from Wikimedia)

Some who had encountered the Gaspee at sea claimed that there was nothing to identify it as a naval vessel.  Some merchants initially thought they were being attacked by pirates.

In February, the Gaspee seized the Fortune a small sloop illegally carrying sugar and rum from the West Indies.  Dudingston determined this was illegal smuggling and ordered the ship and its cargo seized.  There was nothing particularly remarkable about this seizure other than the fact that the ship was owned by the Greene family, a wealthy and powerful merchant family in Rhode Island.  One of the owners was Nathanael Greene, a future General in the Continental Army.  Some point to this event as one that help set Greene on the path toward joining the patriot cause. The Gaspee spent the spring harassing ships, even small fishing vessels, often seizing ship and hauling the occupant to Boston for trial.

As merchants began reporting more seizures of ships, they looked to the colonial government for some relief.  Unlike most colonies, Rhode Island had an elected governor, who had to be responsive to the people, or suffer the consequences at the next election.

Adm. John Montegu
(from Royal Museum Greenwich)

Rhode Island Governor Joseph Wanton sent Dudingston several letters demanding he produce his commission to engage in Customs service.  As an elected Governor, Wanton was more inclined to back the popular will rather than dictates from London.  It also meant that British officers saw him as a colonial political hack rather than a representative of the crown.

Dudingston simply forwarded the Governor’s letters to Admiral Montegu, his commander in Halifax without responding directly.  Montegu backed him up, essentially telling the Governor that Dudingston was doing his duty, and that the Governor should do his duty by assisting the Navy, not annoying its officers.

Both the Governor and Admiral sent copies of all correspondence back to London trying to get support for their positions.  But before London could act, the colonists decided to put an end to the Gaspee’s activities.

The Attack

On June 9, 1772 a small packet sloop named the Hannah made a run from Newport to Providence.  The Gaspee attempted to approach and board her.  The Hannah’s Captain Benjamin Lindsey, knew the Bay much better than Dudingston.  He took the Hannah over a shallow area that his ship could clear but the larger Gaspee could not.  The Gaspee became stuck on the sandbar.  The Hannah escaped while the Gaspee waited for high tide.

Captain Lindsey arrived in Providence and informed others about what happened.  They sent out a town crier to call a meeting of locals.  A group of men assembled at a tavern to discuss how to deal with the Gaspee once and for all.

Burning of the Gaspee (from navalhistory.org)

Around 10:00 that night, a group of armed men in eight longboats rowed out to the Gaspee, using muffled oars to avoid detection.  A sentry aboard the still grounded Gaspee hailed the men, who did not respond.  However, the sentry’s actions alerted Lt. Dudingston who appeared on deck only half dressed to demand an answer from the approaching boats.  The response he got was a bullet in the gut.

Some accounts say the attackers announced that the Sheriff was in the party and that he had a warrant for Dudingston’s arrest.  They shot Dudingston only after he refused to allow the party to board and serve the warrant. They only shot Dudingston after he struck one of the attackers with his sword.

Whatever the initial encounter, the men then stormed the ship before the crew could mount any resistance.  They forced the crew below deck. At first, Dudingston remained on deck, bleeding to death.  But after a short time, they removed him below deck and treated his wounds.   They also removed some of the ship papers.  The attackers then collected Dudingston and his crew, and removed them from the ship.  They left them on the shore near Pawtuxet Village, the nearest settlement to the ship.

Later that night, shortly before dawn, the attackers set the Gaspee on fire.  The burned it to the water line.  The exploded powder magazine assured the ship’s complete destruction.

The Consequences

Now, burning a naval vessel and shooting a British officer were not things that authorities took lightly.  Such an attack was treason.  Earlier attacks on British naval property had not involved shooting an officer.  So the Gaspee incident created a whole new level of concern about law and order in the colonies.

Gov. Wanton, eager to stay in the good graces of those in London, but not overly concerned about bringing the criminals to justice, issued an reward offer of £100 to anyone with information leading to the arrest of anyone involved.  Later, King George issued a proclamation offering a reward of £500. Although many were well aware of those involved, no one came forward to implicate anyone. Even if someone objected to the attack, knew the perpetrators, and wanted the reward money, they knew that snitching would result in a mob attacking them and destroying their property, if not causing bodily harm.  No one seem willing to risk that for the possibility of even a rather generous reward.

Gov. Joseph Wanton
(from Wikimedia)

Lt. Dudingston refused to speak with any local officials about the attack.  He probably did not trust them to do anything anyway. Since he had lost a ship, he faced an automatic court martial.  He knew any statements he made could be used against him.  Dudingston’s court martial took place a England a few months later.  The Court completely acquitted him and Dudingston received a promotion to Captain shortly thereafter.  Dudingston did apply for a pension that year. His wound required time for rest and recuperation.

A month after the attack, one of sailors on the Gaspee got a job on another ship and recognized Aaron Briggs as one of the men who had seized the Gaspee.  The ship’s captain got Briggs to confess and to implicate two other leading merchants.  Gov. Wanton attempted to arrest Briggs, but the captain refused to allow the Sheriff to board his ship.  I suspect the Captain feared that once in the hands of the colonists, Briggs would recant or suddenly disappear.

The King ordered a Royal Commission in Rhode Island to resolve this matter.  The Commission was supposed to find out who was involved and ship them back to London for a treason trial.  After six months investigating the matter it came up relatively empty.  It even dropped charges against Briggs.  It turned out the Captain had extracted a confession from Briggs by threatening to hang him if he did not confess.  Under such circumstances, the Commission deemed the confession invalid.  Further, the Commission could not identify a single person involved in the incident.

One of the big problems for the Commission is that Gov. Wanton served as one of the commissioners.  He attacked every witness and seemed to shut down every line of investigation as best he could.  As an elected Governor, he knew his political future meant trying to keep prominent citizens from getting caught up in a legal mess over this incident.  He wanted the matter to go away as quickly as possible.

In the end, the Commission reprimanded virtually everyone involved.  The Governor for not pursuing the criminal investigation with enough zeal (prior to his sitting on the commission), the Captain who extracted Brigg’s confession and then refused to turn him over to lawful authorities, and Dudingston for exercising too much zeal in enforcing customs laws.  The Navy, however, did not seem to blame Dudingston for anything.  After a mandatory court martial for losing his ship, the Navy acquitted Dudingston and soon promoted him to Captain.  He would return to active duty in 1776 and go on to become an Admiral years later.

While very little came from the incident directly, the Gaspee affair created even more divisions between England and the colonies.  London saw the incident as yet another egregious example of colonists’ refusal to accept lawful authority, instead engaging mob rule.  The incident increased colonial fears that England was willing to remove accused criminals to London for trial, denying them the right to a local jury trial.  The sinking of the Gaspee itself turned out to be a relatively isolated incident in 1772.  It did not inspire any copycat attacks on the Navy, nor did London overreact by implementing punitive measures against the colony.  This allowed the relative calm to continue for another year and a half.

Next Week: We take a look at the Committees of Correspondence, and the Colony of Vandalia.

Next Episode 37: Committees of Correspondence & the Colony of Vandalia

Previous Episode 35: Carolina Regulators and the Battle of Alamance

Visit the American Revolution Podcast (https://amrev.podbean.com) for free downloads of all podcast episodes.

Further Reading:

Web Sites

For anyone interested in learning more about the Gaspee, this is the most thorough and authoritative website on the topic: http://www.gaspee.org

The Story of the Gaspee Attack: http://www.gaspee.info/history/GaspeeStory.htm

The Gaspee Affair: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Gaspee_Affair.html

Armstrong, Benjamin F. “An Act of War on the Eve of Revolution” Naval History Magazine, 2016: https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2016-02/act-war-eve-revolution

Watch Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse discuss the Gaspee Affair on the floor of the Senate (June 9, 2015): https://www.c-span.org/video/?326431-3/discussion-1772-gaspee-affair


William Dudingston: http://www.gaspee.org/WilliamDudingston.htm

Admiral John Montagu (1719-1795): http://www.gaspee.org/JohnMontagu.htm

Bryant, Samuel W. “HMS Gaspee - The Court Martial” Rhode Island History, 1966: http://www.rihs.org/assetts/files/publications/1966_July.pdf

Park, Steven “Revising the Gaspee Legacy” Journal of the American Revolution, 2015: https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/07/revising-the-gaspee-legacy

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Bartlett, John A history of the destruction of His Britannic Majesty's schooner Gaspee, in Narragansett Bay, on the 10th June, 1772, Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1861.

Staples, William R. The Documentary History of the Destruction of the Gaspee, Providence: Knowles, Vose, and Anthony,1845.

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bunker, Nick An Empire on the Edge, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, 2015.

Knollenberg, Bernhard Growth of the American Revolution 1766-1775,  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1975.

Nelson, James George Washington’s Secret Navy, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Park, Steven The Burning of His Majesty's Schooner Gaspee: An Attack on Crown Rule Before the American Revolution, Yardley, PA: Westholme, 2016.

Raven, Rory Burning the Gaspee: Revolution in Rhode Island, Charleston: History Press, 2012.

* (Book links to Amazon.com are for convenience.  They are not an endorsement of Amazon, nor does this site receive any compensation for any links).