Showing posts with label special. Show all posts
Showing posts with label special. Show all posts

Sunday, August 30, 2026

ARSP53 Eric Metaxas - Revolution

This text provides a summary of our Round Table discussion for August, 2026, with Michael Troy, host of the American Revolution Podcast. Our special guest is Eric Metaxas, author and the host of The Eric Metaxas Show. The conversation centers around Metaxas’s book, Revolution: The Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World. Troy and Metaxas explore the deep ideological, legal, and spiritual origins of the American Revolution, emphasizing that the physical conflict of the war was preceded by a profound transformation in the minds of the American colonists. The discussion spans key pre-war protests, the foundational roles of both celebrated and forgotten figures, and the unique theological and intellectual currents that made self-government possible. Finally, the transcript concludes with an interactive question-and-answer session with podcast participants, which has been meticulously summarized at the end of this document.

Metaxas's Motivation and the "Generalist" Perspective

At the outset of the discussion, Michael Troy asks Metaxas about his motivation for adding another volume to the already vast library of literature surrounding the American Revolution. Metaxas frames his work by identifying himself not as an academic, but as a "generalist". He explains that academic works, while spectacular and highly useful for research, are often too narrowly focused or dense for the everyday reader. Metaxas argues that his book has "no angle" other than the core thesis that every single American needs to know the story of the American Revolution.

With the 250th anniversary of the Revolution approaching, Metaxas felt it was the perfect time to compile the entire narrative from 1761 to 1783 into a single, highly captivating, and accessible volume. His primary goal was to write a "greatest hits" book that would spark a deep, lifelong curiosity in readers, prompting them to explore academic trilogies, subscribe to historical podcasts, and "catch the bug" of revolutionary history. Metaxas expresses immense gratification that his approach has resonated with the public, noting that the book had already spent eight weeks on the New York Times bestseller list by the time of the recording.

The Spark of Rebellion: James Otis and the Writs of Assistance

A significant focal point in the early part of Metaxas's book is James Otis Jr., a figure Metaxas notes is largely underappreciated by modern Americans. In discussing Otis's importance, Metaxas points to John Adams as his narrative "Virgil" or guide through the early revolutionary landscape. John Adams was present in a Boston courtroom in 1761 when James Otis delivered his famous argument against the British Writs of Assistance. Adams vividly remembered this moment as the true opening scene of the American Revolution, famously writing that "then and there the child independence was born".

Troy and Metaxas discuss the fascinating, complex, and sometimes personal motivations that drove Otis. Troy compares Otis to "John the Baptist," a voice crying out in the wilderness to prepare the way for the next phase of history. Prior to his radicalization, Otis worked within the colonial legal system, collecting customs duties. However, after his father was rejected for a prominent job by the royal governor, Otis experienced a sharp, angry turn against the administration, transforming into a fierce advocate for colonial rights.

Troy characterizes the British failure to keep Otis on their side as a classic imperial blunder, noting that the primary goal of a colonial empire is to keep powerful, influential locals satisfied rather than crossing them. Once crossed, Otis catalyzed a political spiral that no one could have foreseen. Despite his massive early influence, Otis eventually lost his nerve and withdrew from the spotlight, fearing that the British government would target him as the legal "ringleader" of sedition and rebellion. Metaxas expresses a deep desire to have written even more about Otis, lamenting the "torture" of having to slim his original draft down from a theoretical 1,200 pages to a more manageable 600 pages.

John Adams: The Anti-Politician and Record Keeper

The conversation repeatedly returns to John Adams as a central, deeply admirable figure who was the literal "opposite of what you think of as a politician". Troy and Adams's biographers note that Adams was not a "gladhander" or a "backs slapper". He did not get along easily with people, and if he believed someone was a jerk, he would tell them so directly to their face. To illustrate this unvarnished personality, Troy shares an anecdote from a biography of Button Gwinnett. When Gwinnett first arrived in Philadelphia to join the Continental Congress, Adams immediately bypassed pleasantries, walked straight up to him, and demanded to know whether he was voting for or against independence.

Despite his abrasive public persona, Adams's extensive private records—including his letters to his wife Abigail, his diaries, and detailed meeting notes—remain an invaluable historical treasure. Metaxas highlights how hilarious and revealing Adams's raw, private observations of his fellow delegates were. For example, in his diary, Adams described Delaware delegate Caesar Rodney as the "oddest looking man" he had ever seen, with a "head no bigger than a large apple". Adams also privately mocked Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the author of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, by sarcastically referring to him in private correspondence simply as "the farmer". It was this human, humorous, and deeply honest perspective that Metaxas made sure to preserve in his book.

The "Revolution in the Minds" and Pre-War Protests

Metaxas dedicates his first dozen chapters entirely to the events leading up to the outbreak of armed conflict in 1775. He strongly aligns with John Adams's famous assertion that there was a profound "revolution before the revolution"—a fundamental shift in the minds and hearts of the people before any blood was spilled at Lexington and Concord.

When asked to identify the single pre-war protest that set everything in motion, Metaxas points to The Stamp Act of 1765. He explains that the Stamp Act revealed the deeply principled nature of the colonial leadership, who refused to pay a tax not because of the physical monetary burden, but because they believed Parliament had no constitutional right to levy it. The resistance was intense and visceral; colonists engaged in dramatic protests, which included tearing down the houses of royal officials brick-by-brick.

Troy points out why the Stamp Act provoked such a unique reaction compared to the earlier Sugar Act. The Sugar Act was an import tariff, which was viewed as an external trade regulation and fell under a legal framework the colonists had largely tolerated. The Stamp Act, conversely, was a highly visible, direct internal tax that affected daily life. Coming at a time when James Otis’s ideas had already prepared the intellectual landscape, the Stamp Act fell on "very dry kindle" and ignited a massive, unified colonial response.

When the British government backed down and repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, the colonists celebrated as if they had won a major war, completely unaware of the decade of conflict ahead. Metaxas shares a favorite story about Paul Revere, who designed a massive, ornate celebratory wooden obelisk on the Boston Common. Covered in wax-treated canvas and illuminated internally by 280 candles, this gigantic monument unfortunately caught fire and burned to the ground during the celebrations.

The swift repeal of the Stamp Act, driven largely by British merchants suffering from colonial boycotts, taught the colonists a critical lesson: if they united, they could successfully defy Parliament. Conversely, Parliament's subsequent Declaratory Act—asserting their absolute right to tax the colonies in all cases whatsoever—served as a permanent warning to the colonists to remain continuously vigilant.

British Missteps and the Rise of Military Governance

The British administration consistently miscalculated by trying to suppress colonial coordination rather than addressing their core grievances. A prime example discussed is the Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768, drafted by James Otis Jr. and John Adams to coordinate a unified colonial response to the Townshend Acts. When Parliament discovered the letter, they issued a heavy-handed ultimatum: the Massachusetts Assembly must rescind the letter immediately or face dissolution. In a historic act of defiance, the assembly voted 92 to 17 to refuse the order. The "Glorious 92" were instantly celebrated as heroes, and Paul Revere crafted a famous silver bowl to commemorate the vote.

By 1774, British policy shifted from passive administration to direct military coercion. Following the Boston Tea Party, General Thomas Gage was sent to Massachusetts as both the military commander and the royal governor, operating under the philosophy: "If we behave like lions, they will behave like lambs".

Gage immediately attempted to assert absolute control by moving the colonial capital out of Boston and banning local town meetings. When colonists defied his ban and held a town meeting, Gage arrested the leaders. However, his attempt to project strength backfired spectacularly when thousands of armed local militia men spontaneously marched on the jail and freed the prisoners. Gage was entirely unprepared for this level of rapid, organized, and armed civilian defiance, which demonstrated that the ideological shift in New England was already complete.

Geographic Focus and Forgotten Heroes

Troy observes that Metaxas’s book heavily emphasizes New England and the early years of the conflict, which aligns with traditional American historical memory. Metaxas agrees, explaining that while major physical battles took place in the Southern theater later in the war, New England was the true "epicenter" where the ideological divide began and the "war of ideas" was fought.

This focus also allows Metaxas to highlight the colorful, highly dramatic personal stories of individual patriots. He expresses dismay that major cultural projects, such as Ken Burns’s PBS documentary on the Revolution, relegate legendary heroes like Nathan Hale—who was executed by the British at just 21 years old—to mere seconds of coverage. Metaxas also champions the eccentric Connecticut General Israel Putnam, describing him as a wonderfully colorful and "crazy" character who once ordered his militia men to literally march chest-deep into the water to attack a British warship with muskets.

The Spiritual and Theological Roots of Liberty

A central theme of Metaxas’s work is the deep, often-overlooked religious underpinnings of the American experiment. He rejects the secular notion that the Revolution was an inevitable, purely political evolution, arguing instead that self-government was a radical, wild idea rooted in Christian theology and the Protestant Reformation.

Metaxas argues that the Great Awakening, primarily driven by the dramatic open-air preaching of George Whitefield, laid the indispensable spiritual "kindling" for the Revolution. Whitefield’s message was revolutionary: he preached that every individual could have a direct, personal relationship with God, bypassing ecclesiastical and royal hierarchies. This theological egalitarianism naturally led to the political conclusion that all human beings are equal under God, and that the King of England is not a divine sovereign.

To illustrate Whitefield's status as a saint of the revolutionary cause, Metaxas recounts an extraordinary event from 1775. Before embarking on their arduous campaign through the Maine wilderness to Canada, Benedict Arnold and his officers stopped in Newburyport, Massachusetts. They visited the church where Whitefield had preached his final sermon and was buried in a crypt beneath the altar. The officers asked the sexton to open Whitefield's coffin. Finding that his body had decayed but his clerical gown’s cuffs and collar remained intact, the officers cut the fabric into small strips to carry with them as holy relics to protect them on their military expedition.

Furthermore, Metaxas explains that the Puritans viewed their journey to America through the lens of the Sinai Covenant. They explicitly cast themselves as the biblical Israelites escaping the "Pharaoh" (King George III) to enter the wilderness and establish a society governed directly under God's sovereignty.

Even the most secular and deistically-inclined founders, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, fully embraced this cultural imagery. When tasked with designing the national seal for the new United States, Franklin proposed an image of Moses parting the Red Sea with Pharaoh's army drowning, while Jefferson proposed an image of the Israelites being guided through the wilderness by the pillar of cloud and fire.

This biblical worldview framed their understanding of human nature and governance. Because the founders held a Christian view of humanity as inherently fallen, they recognized that a society without a king required deep internal moral restraint. Both George Washington (in his Farewell Address) and John Adams argued that religion and morality were the indispensable cornerstones of a self-governing republic. Without internal spiritual discipline, a society would inevitably degenerate into chaos, requiring a tyrannical enforcer—like a king—to restore order.

Summary of the Question and Answer Session

At the conclusion of the main discussion, Michael Troy opens the floor to the audience for questions. Below is a detailed summary of each question asked by the participants and the answers provided by Metaxas and Troy:

1. Mike Davis’s Question: The Scope of the Stamp Act

  • Question: Did the Stamp Act only apply to papers sold in the American colonies, or did it apply within Great Britain and Scotland as well?
  • Answer: Metaxas defers to Troy's specialized knowledge on this specific legal history. Troy responds that while various Stamp Acts were implemented at different times across different regions of the British Empire, the specific, highly controversial Stamp Act of 1765 was designed to apply strictly to the North American colonies. Troy explains the mechanics of the act: the tax stamp was pre-printed directly onto paper in England, forcing the colonists to import all their legal and publishing paper from Britain. This severely damaged colonial paper mills, which were legally barred from manufacturing their own paper for these purposes.
  • Metaxas adds that John Adams and other colonial leaders viewed the act as a deliberate, calculated attempt to suppress free speech. They recognized that the high cost of imported, pre-stamped paper would bankrupt colonial newspapers, thereby crippling the free exchange of revolutionary ideas. Troy confirms this interpretation, noting that the act explicitly targeted newspapers while conspicuously exempting books, proving it was designed to quiet immediate political dissent.

2. Bob Wong’s Question: Thomas Paine and George Whitefield

  • Question: Is there any historical evidence that Thomas Paine was directly influenced by George Whitefield’s ideas when he wrote his highly influential pamphlet, Common Sense?
  • Answer: Metaxas acknowledges that while he cannot confirm a direct, documented link between the two men, the ideological connection is highly plausible. He notes that he dedicates an entire chapter in his book to Common Sense, calling it an unprecedentedly powerful document that single-handedly transformed colonial public opinion in just 47 pages. Metaxas points out that Paine's central argument against monarchy relies heavily on the Old Testament narrative that having a human king is fundamentally sinful and contrary to God’s design. He argues that even though Paine famously drifted away from Christian faith later in his life, at the time of writing Common Sense, he was thoroughly immersed in and utilizing the theological concepts popularized by Whitefield and the Great Awakening.
  • Troy adds the important biographical context that Paine only arrived in America a couple of years before the war began, meaning his intellectual foundation had been primarily shaped by the political and philosophical climate in England.

3. Audience Question (via Troy): The Origins of James Otis’s Ideas and the Whig Movement

  • Question: What was the origin of James Otis’s radical ideas, and did he and Paine draw from a shared British source?
  • Answer: Troy and Metaxas explain that both Otis and Paine were heavily influenced by the English Whig (or "wig") movement, which was deeply hostile to royal overreach. Metaxas expresses his personal delight in writing about John Wilkes, a famously witty and eccentric British Whig politician who vocally supported the American colonists. They discuss how British Whig giants like William Pitt and Edmund Burke openly defended the colonists in Parliament, arguing that the Americans were not launching a wild, novel rebellion, but were instead defending the traditional, historic "rights of Englishmen" established during the English Civil War. Troy frames the entire American crisis as a geographic extension of the ongoing British political battle between the Whigs (who favored Enlightenment reforms and parliamentary supremacy) and the Tories (who championed absolute obedience to the King). In America, there was no substantial Tory presence, allowing the radical Whig ideology to become dominant.

4. Audience Question (via Chat): The Iroquois Confederacy and Democracy

  • Question: Did the participatory democracy of the Iroquois Confederacy influence the founders’ design of the American government?
  • Answer: Metaxas strongly and unequivocally rejects this theory, calling it "naive" and "wildly overstated". While acknowledging that popular documentaries (such as Ken Burns's series) promote this idea, Metaxas compares it to claiming that the organizational structure of the "five families of the mafia" served as a beautiful template for American democracy.
  • Troy agrees with Metaxas's skepticism, explaining that while the founders admired the abstract philosophical concept of man living in a "state of nature" without a king, they also agreed with Thomas Hobbes's assessment that a true state of nature is a state of constant, brutal warfare. The ongoing, violent inter-tribal conflicts among Native Americans served as a cautionary tale of what happens without a stable, structured sovereign government, rather than a model the colonists wished to replicate. Metaxas concludes by pointing out that while his Greek ancestors invented democracy, it was historically confined to tiny city-states; scaling participatory democracy to an entire continent required a brand-new, highly complex legal structure that the founders had to design themselves.

5. Mark’s Question: The Reformation and the Revolution

  • Question: What is the relationship between the Protestant Reformation (such as Martin Luther’s stand on human equality and the Peasants' Revolt of 1524–1525) and the American Revolution?
  • Answer: Metaxas enthusiastically agrees with Mark's premise, stating that the American Revolution is the direct, long-term fruit of the Protestant Reformation. He explains that the core Reformation doctrine—that every individual must read the Bible, think clearly, and answer directly to God rather than blindly obeying an ecclesiastical hierarchy—directly translated into political independence.
  • To prove this, Metaxas highlights that when the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts in 1630, they immediately established Harvard College (1636) and mandated that every single town set up a grammar school. This massive push for universal literacy was not a secular Enlightenment initiative, but a deeply religious Reformation requirement. While Martin Luther himself did not fully grasp the concept of religious liberty and reacted poorly to the Peasants' Revolt, Metaxas argues that it took approximately 150 years for these radical seeds of individual conscience to fully mature and blossom into the American experiment.

6. Ed’s Question/Comment: Oliver Cromwell’s Influence on Religious Liberty

  • Question/Comment: Oliver Cromwell’s declaration of religious liberty in England in 1650 (which allowed Jews back into England for the first time in 300 years) had a massive, often unappreciated impact on the Puritan culture that ultimately led to the American Revolution.
  • Answer: Troy notes that while Cromwell succeeded in temporarily breaking the power of the Anglican Church, he is historically remembered as a negative example of a military dictator. This historical memory created a deep, permanent fear among the founders that George Washington would inevitably become an American Cromwell.
  • Ed and Metaxas actively defend Cromwell's legacy, pointing out that he was a highly "reluctant dictator" who spent a decade fighting for parliamentary democracy, attempted to abolish the House of Lords, and became furious when Parliament tried to offer him the crown. Despite his negative modern reputation, his radical Puritan governance heavily shaped the independent political ethos of New England.

7. Jay’s Question/Comment: The Long-Simmering Roots of Independence and the 1763 Proclamation Line

  • Question/Comment: The roots of American radicalism go back a full century before the Revolution, starting with the Puritans who fled Connecticut to found highly independent colonies in New Haven, Newark, and Elizabeth Town. This created a culture of "if I don't like it, I'll just go somewhere else". This dynamic worked perfectly until the British issued the Proclamation of 1763, which legally blocked colonists from expanding past the Appalachian Mountains. This boundary stripped colonists of their economic opportunities, boxed them in, and made them realize they were viewed by London as marginalized, second-class citizens.
  • Answer: Troy and Metaxas fully agree with Jay's analysis, noting that the revolutionary mindset was indeed over a century in the making. Troy points back even further to Roger Williams, who championed absolute freedom of religion in Rhode Island as early as the 1630s. Troy explains that while people in Europe had spent the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment fighting for freedom, their rebellions were routinely crushed by highly entrenched, powerful aristocracies. America was unique because the vast geographic space and the absence of an established aristocracy allowed these radical ideas of individual liberty and self-government to grow completely unchecked for generations, making the ultimate explosion of 1775 inevitable once Britain tried to reassert its authority.
* * *


Learn more about Eric Metaxas at https://ericmetaxas.com 

Listen to The Eric Metaxas Show on YouTube, or subscribe on all major podcast platforms.

To see upcoming roundtable events, or listen to past recordings, go to AmRevRT.org

To participate live in future Zoom events, be sure to join as a member on Patreon, or sign up for my mailing list,


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.


Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, June 22, 2025

AR-SP34 Bunker Hill w/HUB History

This discussion, hosted by Jake Sconyers of the Hub History podcast and featuring Mike Troy of the American Revolution Podcast, commemorates the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, detailing the battle itself and discussing the American Revolution Podcast.  What follows is a summary of the discussion: 

The Battle of Bunker Hill: Context and Prelude The Battle of Bunker Hill, fought on June 17, 1775, was the largest Revolutionary War battle in the Boston area and the bloodiest for the British side. Following the April outbreak of war and the siege of Boston, the British initially expected the American provincial army to disperse. However, the arrival of British reinforcements in late May, along with three new senior generals—William Howe, Henry Clinton, and Johnny Burgoyne—changed the dynamic. These generals, who arrived on a ship named the Cerberus (a three-headed dog guarding the gates of hell in mythology, a detail not lost on anyone at the time), brought instructions from London for General Gage to take more aggressive action. Gage, having faced the Americans at Lexington and Concord, understood their resolve, but the new generals and London believed the militia were pushovers. There was also internal pressure on Gage, as the new generals were "gunning for his job," prompting him to be more aggressive.

The British developed an offensive plan to capture two key areas of high ground: Bunker Hill to the north and Dorchester Heights to the south, to prevent Americans from bombarding Boston or its harbor. News of this plan leaked to the provincials via an anonymous merchant, prompting them to act first.

Jake Sconyers
American Preparations and Command The provincial army was a "complete mess," consisting of ununited militia groups from various states, nominally headed by Massachusetts's Artemis Ward. Despite higher-ranking generals, Colonel William Prescott, a veteran of King George's War and the Seven Years War (where he fought in the siege of Louisbourg and was even offered a commission in the regular army), was chosen to lead the ground operation.

Initially, the goal was to occupy Bunker Hill, but upon surveying the terrain, the forces decided to build their entrenchments on the more aggressive Breeds Hill, closer to the water for potential cannon fire against ships. They constructed a main redoubt, approximately 136 feet square, and breastworks (dirt walls) on either side. While they did not bring artillery overnight, cannons were brought in the morning, and a portal was improvised by firing a cannonball through the mud wall. The American forces, initially 1,200 men, dwindled to about 500 by morning due to desertions. These were largely exhausted farmers and civilians, not professional soldiers. Logistics were severely lacking, with no water, food, or consistent ammunition resupply.

Despite the disorganization, key officers made strategic adjustments on the field:

  • Colonel Stark (New Hampshire militia) recognized the American left flank along the Mystic River was exposed. He positioned his men behind a picket fence and supplemented them with field cannons, admonishing them to hold fire until the British were very close (about 30 feet), a tactic similar to the famous "whites of their eyes" instruction.
  • General Israel Putnam focused on placing artillery on Bunker Hill to protect the American right flank, deterring a British attack from that direction. He even taught infantrymen to operate cannons in real-time, using soup ladles to load powder due to mismatched cannonball sizes.
  • Major General Joseph Warren, though titular head of the provincial congress and suffering from migraines, arrived before the main British attack and served as a volunteer infantryman, commanding about 50 men. Crossing Charles Town Neck was dangerous due to British chainshot fire.

The British Assaults The British were aware of the American activity overnight but decided to wait until daylight to attack. General Howe, the senior officer, opted for a direct frontal assault over Clinton's flanking strategy. Initially, 2,300 troops were committed, with reserves joining throughout the day, bringing the total to 3,000-3,500. Before the infantry assault, British ships and a battery at Cops Hill fired on the American defenses, but this artillery bombardment was largely ineffective, causing only one American casualty. The British also burned Charles Town to dislodge American sharpshooters.

  • First Assault: General Howe ordered a two-pronged attack. Brigadier General Robert Pigot led a frontal "feint" on the redoubt to distract, while the main British force aimed for Stark's men on the American left flank. Stark's disciplined fire, holding until close range and firing in volleys from three rows, decimated the British lines, with some units suffering 90% casualties. Prescott's men at the redoubt used similar tactics, causing heavy British losses. Both prongs were repelled.
  • Second Assault: Happened quickly after the first, with "full-throated assaults" on both the center and flank. General Howe personally led this wave, miraculously escaping injury while many officers around him were shot. Despite significant casualties, the British again faced devastating fire from the entrenched Americans.
  • Third Assault: By this point, the American defenders in the redoubt had dwindled to about 120, and most were critically low on ammunition, resorting to using gunpowder from broken artillery shells or even pebbles as projectiles. General Howe changed tactics:
    1. He sent his soldiers up in three columns instead of lines, making it easier to maintain formation on the uneven terrain and presenting less of a target line.
    2. He ordered soldiers to remove their heavy packs.
    3. Crucially, he ordered them not to load their guns but to fix bayonets and charge, relying on the Americans' lack of ammunition and bayonets. The Americans, though exhausted, showed "amazing discipline," holding fire until the British were within 15 feet. The initial volley was "relentless" and "devastating," causing the British assault to stall. However, Major John Pitcairn's Marines, leading the charge, broke through after Pitcairn himself was shot and killed. With the redoubt breached and out of ammunition, most Americans retreated, using muskets as clubs to hold off the British. Joseph Warren, fighting in the rear guard with Colonel Prescott, was shot in the head and bayoneted multiple times, his body "completely obliterated". Stark's men also retreated, and the heaviest American casualties occurred during the mad rush to escape across Charles Town Neck, under fire from the British Navy. The British did not pursue further, having achieved their objective of taking Bunker Hill.

Aftermath and Legacy Technically a British victory, as they gained the Charles Town Peninsula and set up defensive lines on Bunker Hill. However, the cost was staggering. It was the bloodiest battle for the British in the Revolutionary War, with over 1,000 casualties (dead or wounded) out of 5,000-6,000 total troops in Boston. Many wounded later died due to poor medical care. The heavy losses forced the British to abandon their plan to take Dorchester Heights.

Bunker Hill had a profound impact on both sides' strategies:

  • For the British: It disabused Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne of the notion that American militia were pushovers, confirming Gage's warnings. It made them much more cautious, keeping them on the defensive in Boston until their final evacuation. Clinton himself reportedly remarked that "one more victory like this and it's all over for us British".
  • For the Americans: It significantly boosted morale, proving that militia would stand and fight toe-to-toe with regulars. American officer Nathaniel Greene famously quipped, I would love to sell the British another hill at a similar price.


If you want to learn more about the Hub History Podcast, go to HUBhistory.com


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, July 4, 2021

AR-SP11 Live Show - Independence Day 2021

In this special episode recorded live on Independence Day, I discuss the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence.  Because this was a live and unscripted episode, I just have some notes I used to prepare for the talk.  The notes may differ at points from exactly what I discussed.

In the years leading up to the war, there was virtually no talk of independence.

The colonies recognized the need for British military protection and benefitted from the British markets for trade.  The policy of "salutary neglect" gave colonies the freedom to develop as they wished.

Even in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, attitudes about independence changed little.  The Stamp Tax and its repeal, the Townshend Acts, and the Tea Act all provoked protests, petitions, and trade boycotts, but not calls for independence.

Colonists wanted a restoration of rights, not independence.  They wanted things to go back to the way they were before the French and Indian War.  Britain had some trade rules in place, which were often ignored, kept a governor in most colonies who worked with elected legislators, and Britain provided the backup support needed in case of military threat from other countries or natives.

What was the big deal over the tea tax?  It was a minimal tax, and British changes to import laws made tea much cheaper for colonists even with the tax.  But then, that was the idea.  British leaders wanted to make it as attractive as possible to pay the tax.  Once the colonists paid, it, the principle was established.  After that, the British could raise the taxes higher and higher and higher until they were sucking all the excess wealth out of the colonies, much like they already did in places like Ireland and Bengal.  Once colonists accepted even a nominal tax, there was no fighting over a principle, only haggling over price.  That is why activists would not allow anyone to pay the tax.  That is why it got dumped in Boston Harbor.

The Boston Tea Party is what really drew the wrath of Britain, primarily on the Massachusetts Bay colony alone.  Britain’s retaliatory coercive acts, aka intolerable acts, stripped Massachusetts of most political power to run its own colony.  

First Continental Congress 

The First Continental Congress met to discuss how to respond as a united group.  Talk was over political compromise and use of trade restrictions with Britain “boycotts” of British goods.  However, there was no talk of independence.  One delegate who surveyed other delegates on the question sent his conclusions home in a letter to a friend:

I was involuntarily led into a short discussion of this subject by your remarks on the conduct of the Boston people, and your opinion of their wishes to set up for independency. I am as well satisfied as I can be of my existence that no such thing is desired by any thinking man in all North America; on the contrary, that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquility, upon constitutional grounds, may be restored, and the horrors of civil discord prevented.

- George Washington to Robert Mackenzie, October 9, 1774

The Congress sent petitions to the King and Parliament requesting protection of their traditional rights and they way things had worked in the past so well for so long, ending with :

We therefore most earnestly beseech your majesty, that your royal authority and interposition may be used for our relief, that a gracious answer may be given to this petition. 

That your majesty may enjoy every felicity, through a long and glorious reign over loyal and happy subjects and that your descendants may inherit your prosperity and dominions till time shall be no more; is, and always will be, our sincere and fervent prayer.

With that, the First Continental Congress disbanded, with plans to meet again the following spring in case further measures were needed.

Second Continental Congress

By the time the second Continental Congress met in May 1775, Lexington and Concord had already put the continent at war. Near the end of the year, Thomas Paine released Common Sense.  It introduce the idea that a tiny island should not rule large continent.  It also attacked the idea of monarchy - -Why do you get to make the rules just because your Dad got to make the rules before you? These events had a big impact, but even war did not move the vast majority of the population to favor independence.

Who really was pivotal to moving colonists to favor independence?  It was King George III.  His open rejection of the petitions and calls on Parliament to suppress the rebellion with military force ended any hope of reconciliation.

John Adams later said that it was King George who had the greatest impact on colonial opinion favoring independence.  Patriots hoped that would see the contention caused by Parliament’s new policies and would broker a settlement agreeable to all.  Even if they knew the King generally backed Parliament’s actions in private, turning to him gave him the opportunity to back the government out of what was becoming a big problem and providing a face saving way for the government to back down.  When the King came out squarely against compromise. the choice became complete submission, or independence.

Even so, the Second Continental Congress was not ready to declare independence, even though they agreed to take over the war and send George Washington to command the new Continental Army.

By early 1776, most of the conservatives had left Congress.  Most of them joined loyalist groups.  Many moderates, however, remained.  They wanted to continue to resist, but were not ready for Independence. 

The debate there was largely between radicals who wanted independence now, and those who thought we should wait and see if we could work out another solution.

There was still a hope that once London realized that this had become a shooting war, they might still be willing to come to a political settlement.  Olive Branch Petition was that final effort to work out a deal.  Of course, many were by this time ready to declare Independence.  But they knew they had to be united on this matter.  No one wanted to be the Divided States of America.  Without a united front, Britain would easily put down a regional rebellion then turn the screws on everyone else later.

Historians generally credit John Adams with leading the pro-independence fight in Congress, but that may be largely because Adams wrote the first history of what happened and we all tend to make ourselves the heroes of our own stories.

In May, 1776, Adams attempted to push through an independence resolution in an underhanded way.  introduced a resolution in the Continental Congress calling on the colonies, 

where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.

That did not seem to raise too much fuss.  After all, where government had broken down due to problems, it made sense to create something to make it work.  A few days later, Adams attempted to add a preamble to the resolution:

Whereas his Britannic Majesty, in conjunction with the lords and commons of Great Britain, has, by a late act of Parliament, excluded the inhabitants of these United Colonies from the protection of his crown; And whereas, no answer, whatever, to the humble petitions of the colonies for redress of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain, has been or is likely to be given; but, the whole force of that kingdom, aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruction of the good people of these colonies; And whereas, it appears absolutely irreconcilable to reason and good Conscience, for the people of these colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the crown of Great Britain, and it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of government exerted, under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of their enemies; therefore, resolved, &c.

Essentially, this preamble made clear that recent events required new government because a series of abuses made it impossible to have a government that was not independent of the King. This caused great dissention and even caused the Maryland delegation to walk out.

It was not until a few weeks later when Congress decided to address the question of independence directly.  On May 15, the same day Adams tried to introduce his controversial preamble in Philadelphia, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution for Congress to consider.  On June 7, Richard Henry Lee offered the resolution to Congress: 

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

In May 1776, Adams wrote a letter to James Warren, President of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, assessing where each of the colonies stood.  He thought that New England, - Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island -  would support independence.  The southern colonies, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were also all likely supporters.  The middle colonies, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, at the time still had instructions to oppose independence.

After Lee made his resolution, Congress tabled it for three weeks so that delegates could confer with their local leaders back home and decide whether to change their instructions.  In the meantime, a drafting committee began work on a declaration in case a vote for independence passed.

I want to take a look at each of those middle states, and how they got to voting for Independence by the beginning of July.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania was a proprietary colony.  There was no Provincial Congress, only radical committees. Committee of 100 which had no real legal basis for existing, represented the radical elements who supported the war and independence.  The colonial Assembly was dominated by Quakers: Pacifists who supported King.

Radicals like Charles Thomson were pushing for Independence, In May 1776 they attempted to vote in a pro-independence slate into the legislature, but lost.  High Quaker turnout, and many patriots had already left to serve in the Continental Army.  No absentee ballots.  

By the way, Thomson kept amazingly detailed notes about all the political machinations that went on in Congress, not only at this time but throughout the entire time Congress met before the implementation of the Constitution.  Near the end of his life, he took these notes and tossed them into his fireplace.  He decided that it would be better for history to remember Congress as idealistic heroes rather than wheeler-dealers and that his insider information would destroy that view.  So Thomson, great radical patriot, not so much a friend to historians.

Quakers were not shrinking violets.  They saw the support of their King and ministers as a religious duty.  On January 20, 1776, the Society’s Elders issued a public declaration which said in part 

the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein: . . . but to pray for our king, and the safety of our nation, and good of all men: That we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; under government which God is pleased to set over us.

Despite losing the election, the radicals were not deterred.  Responding to a resolution from the Continental Congress that colonies without “government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs” should establish new ones.  A few days after this May 15 resolution, a group of 4000 radicals met in front of Independence Hall (then, the State House).

The radical mob, which listened to speeches by some radical delegates, including Thomas McKean wanted, not only independence, but a completely new government for Pennsylvania.  They called for a constitutional convention to replace the Assembly.  The Committee of 100 then called for an election of delegates to a convention.  What legal basis did the committee have for this? Well none really.  They were simply counting on the people to support it and for the government to have no power to obstruct it. 

Although momentum seemed to be in favor of the radicals, the leaders set up the convention to ensure the result.  First, they gave equal representation to each county.  This gave far more power to the less populated western counties where radical sentiment was far more popular.  Second, they required all delegates to forswear allegiance to the king and to support whatever government the people chose.  So Quakers or Tories unwilling to consider the possibility of ditching the King could not participate.  Third, opened up voting to any male over the age of 21 who had been assessed for taxes.  With no minimum property requirement, this increased the adult male voter pool from 50% to 90% across the State.

Seeing the radicals make a move toward ending the Assembly, many representatives began to move toward the radical camp.  Pennsylvania formally withdrew its instructions to its Continental Congress to oppose independence, but did not issue new instructions either.  A majority of the delegation still opposed independence 4-3.  In the end, two of the opponents, John Dickinson and Robert Morris, left before the vote, allowing the delegation to support independence by a vote of 3-2.  Both men realized the change was going to happen soon.  Even if they were not ready to cast a vote, they saw the value in allowing Pennsylvania to join the other colonies in backing Independence.

New Jersey

New Jersey was in a period of transition.  The colony had a strong loyalist population and could really go either way.  Royal Governor William Franklin had ended the legislative session in January.  The Provincial Congress in the state simply took over the functions of government. 

When the governor attempted to call the Assembly into session again in June 1776, the Provincial Congress finally reacted by replacing the royal government in June and supporting independence.  They sent the governor to be imprisoned in Connecticut and called for the creation of a new Constitution.  This was a power play by the patriots.  It was not clear that the colony’s population would go along.  However, it was enough to get the New Jersey delegation to support independence.

Delaware

Delaware appeared to be most in favor of independence among the middle colonies.  Delaware’s status as its own colony was under question since they were still technically considered part of Pennsylvania.  Delaware had long had its own separate assembly, but were owned by the Penn family and under the control of Pennsylvania’s proprietary governor.

Northern Delaware tended to support independence while southern Delaware leaned loyalist.  On June 15, the Assembly declared itself independent of both Britain and Pennsylvania, but did not instruct delegates on how to vote.

At the July 1 vote, the Delaware delegation split, with Thomas McKean voting for independence and George Read voting against.  McKean had to send for the third delegate, Caesar Rodney who was also serving as a militia officer in lower Delaware putting down a loyalist revolt.  Rodney made a famous midnight ride through a thunderstorm to tip the Delaware delegation in favor of Independence in the July 2 vote.  His arrival was celebrated as delegates broke into song and dance at his arrival.  At least that is how it is portrayed in the Musical 1776.  Actual events may have been less dramatic.

Both Rodney and McKean were from southern Delaware.  As a result of voting for independence, both men lost their seats in the next election.

Maryland

The Maryland delegation walked out of Congress on May 15 when Congress debated the controversial preamble that had smacked of supporting independence.  The Maryland Convention received Congress’ resolution.  It then unanimously voted not to create a new government and reaffirmed its loyalty to the King.  

The planter class in Maryland were more strongly loyalist.  The patriots mostly came from merchants in the port cities.  Samuel Chase became the biggest advocate to get the convention to change its views.

On June 21, the Provincial Convention in Maryland recalled its delegates to discuss the matter, but wanted an assurance that Congress would not vote on independence while they were away.  Since Congress planned to begin debate on July 1, this was a problem.  In the end, the convention approved independence after learning that Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware would support it.  The need for unanimity was a strong one in many of the reluctant colonies.

New York

Unlike most other colonies, loyalists had also participated in the Provincial Congress as well.  This gave them more influence in selecting delegates to the Continental Congress who opposed independence, as well as keeping the Provincial Congress itself from going too far.  

New York was also facing an imminent invasion.  A leader even open to the idea of independence might have second thoughts if he believed that the British army would reassert control over the colony a month later and begin looking for leading traitors to arrest and hang.

Conservatives in New York tried to slow the momentum toward independence.  After receiving word that the Continental Congress would debate the matter.  The Provincial Congress voted that it could not support independence until it took a vote of the people in its colony, and that it could not take a vote, because, well that British invasion that is about to happen.  The Congress ended its session on June 30 without changing its instructions to delegates to vote against independence.

New York was the only colony to abstain from the July 2 vote for independence.  When the New York Congress learned that all twelve other colonies had voted in favor, it reconvened on July 9 to approve of independence.  This allowed the final version of the declaration to add the word “unanimous.”

July 4

So if independence was supported on July 2, what happened on July 4.  Well, during the whole debate over independence, Congress had created a committee to draft a declaration in case the Congress voted in favor of independence. 

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson.  As the junior member of the committee, Jefferson got stuck writing the first draft.  On July 4, the committee presented the declaration for final approval.

The committee had finished with its draft by late June and presented it to Congress after the July 2 vote for independence.  Congress took a couple of days to debate the final wording, which it agreed to on July 4.

John Dunlap produced the first written copy on July 5 and other newspapers began printing it over the next few days.  there was no official version to be sent to London.  This was a declaration to the world, not a petition.  British officers in American obtained copies from local papers in the days following its general distribution.  

The signed copy that we consider the “original” was not laid before Congress until August 2 for signatures.  By that time, New York had gotten on board, so the final version included the word “unanimous”.  Most members signed it on Aug. 2, but some did not get around to signing it until much later.

Because July 4 was the date written on the Declaration itself, it became the date when Americans celebrated independence ever since.  245 years later, we still celebrate that important moment.

Guests: 

Jason Mandresh and I discuss Founder of the Day, which looks at the various men and women who worked to win the Revolution.  We also discuss William Franklin, Benedict Arnold, and interesting American Revolution tours.

Lee Wright and I discuss History Camp, which will hold the virtual History Camp - American next week.

Links to Discussion Items

- - -

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution   Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271


American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast


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. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20), Zelle, or popmoney (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"



Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)