Follow by Email

Monday, July 17, 2017

"They Performed the Manual Exercise and Filings" - The Independent Marines Prepare for War.

When war with England appeared inevitable, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress looked to the colony’s militia to serve as its military arm. The origins of the Massachusetts militia can be traced back to the reign of Edward I, when Parliament enacted legislation decreeing that every freeman between the age of fifteen and sixty was to be available to preserve the peace within his own county or shire. In the towns where the freemen were located, they were organized into military units known, by the virtue of their periodic training, as “trained bands”. However, when Parliament, under the rule of Charles II, revised membership requirements, established payment protocols and appointed officers, trained bands became known as militias. By the 17th century, militias had become one of the cornerstones of English society. Thus, when Plimouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were founded, the establishment of the militia followed naturally. In both colonies, every man over sixteen automatically became a member. Musters were frequent and mandatory, and punishments were doled out for being absent or not properly equipped. The governor maintained the sole authority to activate the militia in the time of crisis. Each time a new town sprung up, a militia company was formed. As the town expanded, additional companies often were created. When counties were formed, the various town militias within the borders of each county were organized into regiments. The governor held the sole authority to activate the militia in the time of crisis. However, with the elimination of the French threat as a result of the French and Indian War, the need for a militia decreased significantly. After 1763, companies and regiments of Massachusetts militia rarely assembled to drill and as a result, were of little military value. By the eve of the Boston Tea Party, a militia muster was not viewed as a military gathering, but rather as a sort of town holiday offering an opportunity for families and friends to get together.

The Massachusetts Provincial Congress recognized it had to “consider what is necessary to be done for the defence and safety of the province.” Quickly, it resolved to wrest control of the militia away from the group of loyalist officers who commanded it. To achieve this, the Provincial Congress first ordered the militias to “meet forthwith and elect officers to command their respective companies; and that the officers so chosen assemble as soon as may be . . . and proceed to elect field officers.” Congress also recognized the need to revitalize and further strengthen the colony’s militia system as quickly as possible. On October 26, 1774, the delegates set into motion the formation of minute companies within Massachusetts. As part of its resolution, it declared "[The] field officers, so elected, forthwith [shall] endeavor to enlist one quarter, at the least, of the number of the respective companies, and form them into companies of fifty privates . . . who shall equip and hold themselves in readiness, on the shortest notice from the said Committee of Safety, to march to the place of rendezvous . . . said companies into battalions, to consist of nine companies each."

Emphasis on proper military skill and supply was strongly encouraged by the delegates. On the same day as the creation of minute companies, the Provincial Congress resolved "That, as the security of the lives, liberties and properties of the inhabitants of this province, depends under Providence, on their knowledge and skill in the art of military, and in their being properly and effectually armed and equipped, it is therefore recommended, that they immediately provide themselves therewith; that they use their utmost diligence to perfect themselves in military skill; and that, if any of the inhabitants are not provided with arms and ammunition according to law, and that if any town or district within the province is not provided with the full town stock of arms and ammunition . . . that the selectmen of such town or district take effectual care, without delay, to provide the same."




Methuen and Haverhill appear to be the first two towns in Northern Essex County to take steps towards preparation for war. Approximately twenty days before the resolutions of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, a Methuen Company of Militia declared "Whareas milartrary Exercise hath been much nelicked we the Subcrbers being the first comptrey in methuen Do Covenant and Engage To from our Bevels in to a Bodey in order to Lam the manual Exercise. To be Subegat To Such officers as the Comptrey shall chuse by Voat in all constutenel marsher according to our Chattaers . . .[list of sixty eight men] . . . the ferst Compyney in Methuen meat att Mr. Eben Carlton's in order To Chuse officers, and thay chose Lieut. Benj'm Hall Moder ator, they Chose Mr. James Jones for thar Capt. Mr. Ichobied Perkins furst Leut. Mr. James Wilson Sonent Leut. Mr. Sam Messer Ens. Mr. Nath Messer Jr. Clark for said Compyney."

In Haverhill, the town took the extraordinary step of establishing an artillery company:

Haverhill Sept, 5th. 1774. We the Subscribers, sensible of the importance of a well regulated Military Discipline, do hereby covenant and engage, to form ourselves into an Artillery Company at Haverhill according to the following Articles, — First, That there shall be four officers (viz) a Capt, Lieut, Ensign and Sergeant, who is to act as Clerk, To be chosen by a majority of the Company when met together, 2d. That we will meet together (on the first and third Mondays of September, October and November following, and on the first and third Mondays of the six Summer months annually till the Company shall agree - to dissolve the same) for the exercise of Arms and Evolutions, And that the role shall be called two hours before Sunset, and the Company shall be dismissed at Sunset N. B. If it be fowl weather the Day appointed, the Company shall meet the next fair Day — 3dly. Any one neglecting Due attendance shall be subject to a fine of eight pence, for the use of the Company; unless on a reasonable Pica; excused by the Company, 4thly. That no new member be admitted without the vote of the Company, That each member shall be Equiped with Arms, Accoutriments and Dress, according to Vote of Company, 6thily. That each member shall be supply'd with one Pound of Powder and Twenty Balls ; to be reviewed twice a year ; upon the Days of a chusing Officers, to commence the first Monday in October, from that time, the first Monday in May and August annually.

However, the first Massachusetts independent organization to possibly prepare for war with England may have been Newburyport’s Marine Society. Independent organizations in 18th Century New England were private social or charitable organizations that were often composed of males from the upper echelon of a community. The Newburyport Marine Society was founded on November 5, 1772 by ship captains and merchants.

In September, 1774, the members formed their own military unit known as the “Independent Marines”. As with the Haverhill artillery company and the Methuen militia, it appears the Independent Marines were drilling well over a month before the Massachusetts Provincial Congress issued its orders.

According to the September 21, 1774 edition of Essex Journal and Merrimack Packet, “Wednesday last the independent military society in this town met at the town-house compleat in arms and ammunition: After having been reviewed by their officers chosen by the society, they performed the manual exercise and filings, after which they marched to the Mason's arms tavern, and there performed the evolutions; and from thence marched to Mr. William Tell's (a gentleman that has always not only talked, but acted upon the genuine principles of patriotism), who had prepared an elegant entertainment for the society; after spending a few very agreeable hours with a number of gentlemen (whom Mr. 'Feel had invited) in conversation, repast, and drinking a number of loyal and patriotic toasts, the society again rally, march to the town-house, and after firing three vollies lodged their arms. All was conducted with the greatest order and good humour.”

What is also interesting about this particular account is it describes the Independent Marines as being properly armed and equipped. The term “compleat in arms and ammunition” suggests the Independent Marines attended the September drill with muskets, cartridge boxes, packs and edged weapons (either bayonets or swords). In otherwords, the Independent Marines were fully equipped for war.

This is highly unusual. In September, 1774, most Massachusetts towns and independent military companies had not yet adopted measures to properly supply or equip its minute and militia companies. Newburyport did not address the matter until October 21, 1774 when it resolved to put itself on a wartime footing. “Voted that all the Inhabitants of this Town be desired to furnish themselves with arms and ammunition according to Law, and that they have, also, Bayonets fixed to their Guns as soon as may be.” It would be months later that its military companies actually received bayonets and cartridge boxes.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

"To Prepare Reasons for Our Present Conduct" - Lexington's Reaction to the Townshend Acts

We at Historical Nerdery have to make a confession...we have a secret history nerd crush on Boston 1775. If you haven’t visited Mr. Bell’s blog, please do so. It contains everything and anything relevant to Colonial New England. In short, the site is simply amazing.

Late last week, Boston 1775 posted two articles about the passage of the Townshend Acts. Of course, this inspired us to look at how Lexington reacted to the passage of this economic program.

In 1767, England faced a financial crisis. To defray imperial expenses in the colonies, Charles Townshend, the impetuous Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whom it was said, “his mouth often outran his mind”, suggested a series of laws directed at raising revenue from the American colonies. The Townshend Acts, as they became known, provided for an American import tax on paper, painter’s lead, glass and tea. The acts also tightened custom policies and revived the vice-admiralty courts. Although a minority within the House of Commons opposed such a measure, the majority rationalized it would “raise colonial revenue, punish the colonists for their ill-behavior after the repeal of the Stamp Act, and exercise the rights to which Parliament laid claim in the Declaratory Act.”

Once again, Boston stood at the forefront of opposition. On October 28, 1767, the citizens resolved, at a town meeting, to oppose the acts by refusing to import English goods and to encourage American manufacture instead. Lexington followed Boston’s initiative. On December 28, 1767, Lexington “Voted unanimously, to concur with the town of Boston respecting importing and using foreign commodities, as mentioned in their votes, passed at their meeting on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1767.”

However, by 1768, Boston was once again resorting to violence to indicate its opposition to British policy. In March, rioters went to “Commissioner Burch’s home and with clubs assembled before his door a great part of the evening, and he was obliged to send away his wife and children by a back door.” Inspector William Woolton returned home one evening to find “4 men passing him, one with a stick or bludgeon in his hand accosted him saying, ‘Damn your Blood we will be at you to Morrow night.” The victims of the mob begged Governor Bernard to apply for military protection so the Townshend Acts could be enforced. The governor struggled with the decision, but ultimately applied to the king for troops. At the same time, however, British merchants pleaded with Parliament and the King to repeal the act before they were brought to financial ruin. Yet their pleas went unanswered. In 1768, Governor Bernard was ordered to dissolve the Massachusetts legislature, and two full regiments of British regulars were dispatched to Boston to protect the custom officials and help to enforce the Townsend Acts.


Lexington’s inhabitants reacted with dismay. On September 21, 1768, they assembled “to take into their serious consideration the distressed state of the Province at the present day, and to pass any vote thereto.” Isaac Bowman, William Reed, Esq., and Deacon James Stone were selected “to prepare reasons for our present conduct.”

After much consideration, the three men presented a series of resolves to the town. The resolves looked for precedent to the act passed by Parliament during the first year of the reign of William and Mary, settling the succession of the crown and declaring the rights and liberties of their subjects. In particular, they appealed to the Massachusetts Royal Charter, for the authority to forthrightly defend their rights as Englishmen. The residents of Lexington, through their resolves, argued that it was explicitly stated in the charter of Massachusetts that as inhabitants of the colony they possessed “Certain rights, Liberties & privileges therein Expressly mentioned: Among which it is Granted, Established and ordained That all and every ye Subjects of Them, their heirs and Successors, which Shall Go to inhabit within Sd Province & territory, & Every of their children which shall happen to be born there . . . Shall have & injoy all the Liberties and Immunities of free & Natural Subjects . . .as if they & every of them were Born within the Realm of England.”

As was the practice at this time, the people of Lexington acknowledged “their firm & unshaken allegiance to their alone rightful Sovereign King George the Third.” However, they went on to assert “[That] the freeholders & other Inhabitants of the Town of Lexington will, at the utmost peril of their Lives and Fortunes, take all Legal and Constitutional measures to Defend and maintain ye person, Family, Crown and Dignity of our Said Sovereign Lord, George ye Third, and all and Singular the Rights, Liberties, privileges and Immunities Granted in said Royal Charter as well as those which are Declared to be Belonging to us as British subjects, by Birthright as all others therein Specially mentioned.”

The resolves concluded by condemning as infringement of the Royal Charter both the policy of levying taxes without consent of the people of Massachusetts or their elected representative, and the quartering of troops in Boston. “Therefore, Voted as ye opinion of this Town, that levying money within this Province for the Use and Service of ye Crown in other manner than ye same is Granted by the Great and General Court or Assembly of this province is in violation of ye Said Royal Charter: and . . .the Raising & keeping a Standing Army among them . . . without their consent in person or by representatives of their own free Election, would be an Infringement of their Natural, Constitutional and Charter rights.”

The resolves of 1768 represented a departure from the town’s earlier position as stated during the Stamp Act crisis. Gone was the tone of deferential disagreement, along with the expressed desire to avoid the violence that had plagued Boston. No longer was the argument focused primarily on the economic impact of British taxation policies. Although stopping short of justifying a resort to arms, the 1768 resolves demonstrated the town’s unwavering devotion to their constitutional rights and its willingness to defend those liberties at all costs within legal bounds. The residents noticed the change in tone as well. The report was debated and read several times before it was finally accepted with a unanimous vote. Still, Lexington knew they had taken a momentous step and now could not turn back. At the conclusion of the town meeting, they voted “to keep a day of prayer on the occasion, and left to the Rev. Mr. Clarke to appoint the time.”

Following the Lexington resolves, the town also adopted a boycott of all British goods. Women organized spinning bees to decrease dependence on imports. As the Boston Gazette observed on August 31, 1769 “very early in the morning, the young Ladies of [Lexington], to the number of 45, assembled at the house of Mr. Daniel Harrington, with their Spinning Wheels, where they spent the day in the most pleasing satisfaction: and at night presented Mrs. Harrington with the spinning of 602 knots of linen and 346 knots of cotton. If any should be inclin’d to treat such assemblies or the publication of them in a contemptuous sneer as thinking them quite ludicrous, such persons would do well first to consider what would become of one of our (so much boasted) manufactures, on which we pretend the welfare our country is so much depending, if those of the fair sex should refuse to “lay their hands to the spindle” or be unwilling to “hold the distaff.”

Monday, July 3, 2017

"The Most Calm, Decent and Dispassionate Measures" - Lexington's Reaction to the Stamp Act Riots

Following the conclusion of the French and Indian War, England attempted to curb the financial burden created as part of its war time effort of the 1750s.  The government implemented a series of economic programs aimed at having those it considered to have benefited most by the successful conclusion of the war, the American colonies, share in the burden of debt.

The first two revenue raising measures that Great Britain imposed on her American colonies were the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. The Sugar Act established tariffs on colonial trading and also attempted to curb the American practice of smuggling sugar and molasses from the West Indies by placing a three pence per gallon tax on foreign molasses. The act established a list of “enumerated goods” that could be shipped only to England, including lumber, and set forth procedures for the accounting, loading and unloading of cargo in port. Violations of the act were prosecuted in a vice admiralty court, where defendants would be denied the right to a jury trial and where the presumption was of guilt rather than innocence. The second revenue raising measure was the Stamp Act, which levied an unprecedented direct tax on almost every piece of public paper in the colonies. Newspapers, almanacs, deeds, wills, custom documents, even playing cards were among the many papers subjected to the tax. The Stamp Act went so far as to impose a tax upon tax receipts.

The Sugar and Stamp acts brought on an explosion of riots, boycotts and protests throughout the colonies, particularly in Massachusetts. At first, Massachusetts’ response was peaceful, with the inhabitants merely boycotting certain goods. However, resistance to the taxes soon became more violent. Under the guidance of Samuel Adams, Bostonians began a campaign of terror directed against those who supported the Stamp Act. It began on August 14, 1765 with an effigy of Andrew Oliver, the appointed stamp distributor for Massachusetts, being hung from a “liberty tree” in plain view by the “sons of liberty.” That evening, the Oliver’s luxurious home was burned to the ground. A chastened Oliver quickly resigned his commission. The following evening, incited by a rumor that he supported the Stamp Act, the home of Thomas Hutchinson, Lieutenant Governor of the colony, was surrounded by an unruly mob. When Hutchinson refused to accede to the demand that he come out and explain his position, the mob broke several windows and then dispersed. Two weeks later, on August 28, 1765, an even larger mob assembled and descended upon the homes of several individuals suspected of favoring the Stamp Act, including again that of the Lieutenant Governor. Hutchinson managed to evacuate his family to safety before the mob arrived. Then, as Hutchinson later described it, “the hellish crew fell upon my house with the rage of divels and in a moment with axes split down the door and entered. My son heard them cry ‘damn him he is upstairs we’ll have him.’ Some ran immediately as high as the top of the house, others filled the rooms below and cellars and others remained without the house to be employed there. I was obliged to retire thro yards and gardens to a house more remote where I remained until 4 o’clock by which time one of the best finished houses in the Province had nothing remaining but the bare walls and floors.”



The mob’s show of force had the desired effect. With Oliver’s resignation, the stamps could not be properly distributed. Additionally, no other stamp officer was willing to step forward to assume Oliver’s legal role. In short, Boston was crippled and could not enforce the act. The town standoff between Boston and the Crown continued through the fall and winter of 1765.

Lexington, being both close in proximity and tied economically to Boston, quickly became embroiled in the stamp crisis. A town meeting was held on October 21, 1765 to address the Stamp question, and determine what instructions should be given to William Reed, the representative of Lexington to the Massachusetts General Court. A committee was established, composed of the selectmen James Stone, Thaddeus Bowman, Robert Harrington, Benjamin Brown and Samuel Stone, Jr. Supervised by the Reverend Clarke, the committee drafted a series of instructions. Although stopping short of challenging Parliament’s right to pass laws regulating the American colonies, the instructions from Lexington did challenge the perceived results of the act:

"What of all most alarms Us is an Act Commonly Called the Stamp Act, the full Execution of which we Apprehend would divest us of our Most inestimable Charter Rights and Privileges, Rob us of our Character as Free and Natural Subjects, and of almost Everything we ought as a People hold Dear. Admitting that there was No Dispute as to the Right of Parliament to impose such an Act upon us, yet we Cannot forbear Complaining of it in itself considered, as unequal and unjust, and a Yoke too heavy for us to bear, And that not only as it falls heaviest on the poor, the widow and the fatherless and the orphan, not only will it embarrass the Trade and Business of this infant country . . . But more especially . . . it will quickly drein the Country of little Cash remaining in it, Strip Multitudes of their Property and reduce them to Poverty."

The committee further asserted that the act was in violation of the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to them as Englishmen, an opinion shared by many of the residents of Massachusetts. The prevailing view in Massachusetts during this crisis was that the power to tax rested not with Parliament, but with the colony’s General Court. Invoking the colony’s Royal Charter and the right to self-government guaranteed therein, the committee declared

"We humbly conceive this Act to be directly repugnant to those Rights and Privileges granted to us in our Charter, which we always hold sacred, as confirmed to us by the Royal word and Seal, and as frequently recognized by our Sovereign and the Parliament of Great Britain, wherein it is expressly granted to us and to our children--- That We shall have and enjoy all Liberties and Immunities of Free and Natural Subjects, within any of His Majesty’s Dominions, to all intents, and . . . Further, that the Full Power and Authority to impose and levy proportionable and reasonable Taxes, upon the Estates and Persons of all the Inhabitants within the Province, for the Support and Defense of His Majesty’s Government, are granted to the [Massachusetts] General Court or Assembly thereof . . . But by this Act a Tax, ---Yea, a heavy Tax, is imposed, Not only without and beside the Authority of Said General Court, in which this power, (which has never been forfeited nor be given up) is Said to be Fully and exclusively lodged; But also directly in opposition to an essential Right or Privilege of Free and Natural Subjects of Great Britain, who look upon it as their Darling and Constitutional Right never to be Taxed but by their own Consent, in Person or by their Representatives."

The resolution also chastised Parliament for its decision to eliminate the right to a jury trial by transferring prosecutions to admiralty courts. “By this Act we are most deeply affected as hereby we are debarred of being tried by juries in case of any breach or supposed breach of it, - a right which, until now, we have held in common with our brethren in England . . . This we apprehend will open a door to numberless evils which time only can discover.”

Yet, Lexington was not Boston. The citizens of the small dairy town rejected the use of violence and rioting. The resolutions even went to great lengths to “earnestly recommend . . . the most calm, decent and dispassionate measures for our open, explicit and resolute assertion and vindication of our charter rights and liberties . . . We take it for granted, therefore, that you will carefully avoid all unaccustomed and unconstitutional grants, which will not only add to the present burden, but make such precedents as will be attended with consequences which may prove greatly to the disadvantage of the public.”

With the riots receiving widespread coverage in London newspapers coupled with the successful boycott program undertaken by New York, Philadelphia and Boston, England finally yielded. Realizing the Stamp and Sugar Acts could never be enforced in America, the acts were repealed on March 4, 1766. However, before striking the laws, Parliament announced the Declaratory Act of 1766, which emphasized its authority to legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever.

Friday, June 23, 2017

"Purest Principles of Loyalty to My Late Sovereign" - Why Loyalists Remained Faithful to the Crown

Despite popular belief most loyalists did not support the crown out of blind loyalty or a misguided sense of patriotism. Instead, most chose to remain loyal due to a variety of personal, societal and religious principles. For some, religious teachings demanded loyalty to the Crown. For others, economic opportunity guided fealty to King George. For more than a few, cultural beliefs dictated support of the British government. Yet regardless of their respective motivations, the American loyalists found themselves quickly at odds with their “patriot” counterparts.

One guiding principle which influenced Tories to remain loyal to the Crown was religious beliefs. Regardless of religious affiliation, many loyalists followed interpretations of the bible and religious teachings that required solemn allegiance to the Crown. For Anglicans, many ministers firmly believed they were bound by oath to be loyal to the king. The Reverend Benjamin Pickman insisted he had to remain loyal out of the “purest Principles of Loyalty to my late Sovereign”. Fellow minister John Amory refused to support the American cause because: “ I could not with a quiet conscience...take an Oath that I would bear Arms against the King of Great Britain to whom I had already sworn Allegiance.” 


Likewise, not all Congregationalists supported the revolutionary rhetoric that was frequently espoused from the pulpit in New England. Isaac Smith justified his loyalty to the crown upon religious principles. He argued his position at Harvard and his profession as Congregational minister forbade him to be disobedient to his king or Parliament, because they obliged him to “liberal enquiry.”

Sandemanians, a pacifist sect of Congregationalists, believed that the bible commanded absolute loyalty to the Crown. Samuel Pike, a prominent Sandemanian, personified this belief when he declared in 1766 that every Christian must be a loyal subject to civil authority, even if that ruler was tyrannical. In turn, many Sandemanians became outspoken critics of the American cause and quickly became embroiled in the political crisis of the 1760s and early 1770s. The Sandemanians were the first to brand the Sons of Liberty and other political organizations as traitors to the Crown. Sandemanian minister Colburn Barrell declared that the Boston Massacre was the direct result of treasonous Congregationalist ministers who defied the laws of the land.

Roman Catholics, often seen as the scourge of the British Empire, quickly found themselves being forced to side with the Crown. Following the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars, many Catholic priests who resided in the upper regions of New York Colony openly welcomed black slaves and local Mohawks into their parishes and churches. With the passage of the Quebec Act of 1774, the practice of the Catholic faith was no longer subject to restrictions in certain regions of North America. The concept of Roman Catholics openly practicing their religious beliefs in New York, let alone with slaves and “savages”, deeply concerned their Congregationalist and Anglican neighbors. Members of the New York Provincial Congress quickly warned, “the indulgence and establishment of Popery all along the interior confines of the Protestant Colonies tends not only to obstruct their growth, but to weaken their security.”

Yet religious principles were not the only motivating factor to remain loyal to the crown. Often, economic dependency and patronage dictated one’s loyalty. Political appointees like William Woolton, Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver naturally sided with the British government because their respective colonial posts ensured potential profit. For many merchants, siding with the rebel mobs almost guaranteed financial ruin. Joseph Hooper, also known as “King Hooper”, of Marblehead was heavily dependent on trade with England. John Amory feared economic losses if he ended his business relationships with England. Amory was among the merchants who protested against the “Solemn League and Covenant of 1774,” suspending all commercial business with Great Britain. A business trip to England, which he coincidentally made during the Battle of Lexington, branded him a “Tory” in the eyes of his countrymen.

However, loyalty to the Crown so as to preserve economic profit was not limited to wealthy businessmen. Many tenant farmers of Albany, Ulster and Tryon Counties, New York were heavily dependent upon their loyalist land lords for continued economic success. In short, if rebel policies and practices drove their masters to financial ruin, economic destruction would surely follow for the tenants as well.

Likewise, economic opportunity in the form of recruitment bounties attracted many to the loyalist cause. Bounties were offered to prospective recruits; however, more important was the promise of freehold land. As early as 1775 recruiters for the Royal Highland Emigrants, a corps of loyalist Scot Highlanders, promised 200 acres of land to prospective soldiers. In March 1777 the governor of Quebec promised loyalists who “shall continue to serve His Majesty until the rebellion is suppressed and peace restored ... His Majesty's bounty of 200 acres of land.” In May 1781, when recruiting was more difficult, recruits were promised the same land after only three years of service and were given six guineas for enlisting. Recruiters in Bergen County, New Jersey, were even more generous, promising 200 acres of land for each adult male, 100 acres for his wife, and fifty acres for each child. Promises of land were also made by loyalist officers. Ebenezer Jessup, lieutenant-colonel of the King's Loyal Americans and a large landowner, pledged 24,000 acres of his land to those who “would serve faithfully during the War ... and 20,000 more to such of my officers as shuld merit the same by their good conduct.” 



A desire for public safety and order also influenced many colonists who remained loyal to the Crown. Looking back at the origins of the American Revolution, key players such as Jonathan Sewall viewed the original conflict not with the Stamp Act Crisis or the attempt by the British government to collect on its debt from the French Wars. Instead, many loyalists saw the Writ of Assistance case as the ignition of conflict. To many loyal to the Crown, the Writ of Assistance case was viewed as an attempt by ambitious politicians to overthrow the political establishment and replace it with a lawless or populist mob.

Most loyalists detested the mob rule that spread from Boston and New York City to the countryside and abhorred the lack of order. As tensions grew between the colonies and England, many colonists attempted to remain neutral. However, as radicals seized power, neutrality became impossible. Dr. William Paine gave up his neutrality and declared himself a loyalist after he experienced "too many abuses" and "insults" from Patriots. Samuel Curwen, Judge of Admiralty, complained Whig “tempers get more and more soured and malevolent against all moderate men, whom they see fit to reproach as enemies of their country by the name of Tories, among whom I am unhappily (although unjustly) ranked.” The Reverend Samuel Seabury of Westchester, New York, lashed out at the patriot mobs who routinely and illegally entered and searched loyalist homes:

Do as you please: If you like it better, choose your Committee, or suffer it to be
Chosen by half a dozen Fools in your neighborhood – open your doors to them
let them examine your tea canisters, and molasses-jugs, and your wives and 
daughters pettycoats – bow and cringe and tremble and quake – fall down and 
worship our sovereign Lord the Mob . . . and shall my house be entered into 
and my mode of living enquired into, by a domineering Committee-man? Before
I submit I will die, live you and be slaves.


For many loyalists in the New York region, especially those of Scottish descent, loyalty to the Crown was determined by cultural beliefs. Following the conclusion of the French and Indian War, many Scottish veterans from the 42nd, 77th, and 78th Regiments settled in the Albany area. Almost immediately, these newcomers clashed with their Dutch neighbors who sided with the rebels. In a society where clan ties were often paramount, many Scottish residents in the Albany area viewed King George III as their Laird or clan chieftain. As a result, most refused to sign “association” documents or loyalty oaths put forth by the Tory Committee due to the fact such documents were viewed as breaking an oath of allegiance to the King. As Captain Alexander McDonald, formerly of the 77th Regiment, warned “I am determined to be true to the trust reposed in me and discharge my duty with honour . . . as long as I live.”

Finally, for those colonists who attempted to remain neutral or initially sided with the “patriot” cause, the Declaration of Independence instead drove many individuals over to the side of the Crown. Seen as either a radical document or an extreme reaction to the dispute with the Crown, men such as Justus Sherwood, renounced their affiliation with the American cause and took up arms for the King.


Sunday, June 18, 2017

Ale Flip Recipe

Happy Father's Day!

Nothing says "I love you dad" like plying him with Ale Flip! To make this 18th drink that was extremely popular in Newburyport, you'll need:

Boston shaker or 2 pint glasses
1 1/2 fl. oz. (3 tablespoons) rum
1 tablespoon molasses
1 large egg
8 fl. oz. (1 cup) dark beer such as brown ale, porter, or stout
Freshly grated nutmeg for garnish



Pour the rum and molasses into one of the pint/shaker glasses. Crack the egg into the other glass and beat well with a fork. Warm the beer in a small saucepan over low heat just until it begins to froth and steam; don’t let it come to a boil.

Pour the beer into the glass filled with rum, then pour the egg into the beer. Continue to pour the drink back and forth between the pint glasses until smooth and well-blended, then transfer to a mug or other clean and heat-safe drinking glass.

Grate fresh nutmeg over the flip and serve immediately.

Huzzay!

Monday, June 12, 2017

"To Cruise Against the Enemies of the United States" - The Privateer General Arnold

The Privateer General Arnold was a two hundred and fifty ton merchant vessel that was converted into a privateer in early 1778.  It was owned by Nathaniel Tracy of Newburyport and authorized on April 16, 1778 by the State of Massachusetts "to cruise against the enemies of the United States."  She was commanded by Captain Moses Brown and was armed with 18 guns.

This ship was NOT the same General Arnold that was destroyed in Plymouth Harbor during a blizzard in December, 1778.

The privateer departed Newburyport in early May on its first cruise.  Shortly thereafter, an accident occurred.  According to Captain Brown, "The first gun that was fired burst and killed or wounded all my officers"   As a result, Brown and his crew were forced to return to Newburyport.

The ship was refitted with new guns which apparently were worse than the originals.  "They  proved my guns, and burst four more of them"  After some delay, Brown was able to secure proper cannons and set sail in early August.  "Cruised three months and took a brig, which was re-taken, and returned in November."




By February, 1779, the General Arnold was already on its third cruise.  It appears the ship had multiple engagements and secured several prizes.  Sailing master Thomas Greele described one such encounter.  "March 28th Sunday at 6 A. M. St Michaels bore S. S. E. distant nine or ten miles. Saw a sail under St. Michaels which gave us chase. At ten she came up with us and proved to be the British ship Gregson, a Liver pool privateer, mounting twenty twelve pounders and one hundred and eighty men. After an action of two hours and fifteen minutes, she sheared off and made sail; but we could not come up with her as our spars, rigging and sails were much cut up; her loss unknown but from appearances it must have been deplorable indeed."

Two months later, Captain Brown and his crew was cruising off the coast of Spain.  "April 4th took the ship William, Capt. John Gregory, from Gibralter, bound to New York; put Mr. Samuel Robinson on board as prize master. . . April 19th anchored in Corunna, in Spain, refitting till May 19th."

On May 20, 1779, the General Arnold attacked the Nanny off the coast of Cape Finisterre, Spain.  Its captain, Thomas Beynon, described the encounter.  "The following are the particulars of an engagement we had with the General Arnold, Captain Moses Brown, of eighteen six pounders and one hundred men on the 20th of May off Cape Finisterre. Saw a ship in chase of us, and being resolved to know her weight of metal before I gave up your property I prepared to make the best defence I could. Between 8 and 9 o'clock he came along side with American colors, and three fire pots out, one on each fore yard arm and one at his jib boom end. Hailed and told me to haul down my colors. I desired him to begin and blaze away for I was determined to know his force before I gave up to him. The battle began and lasted two hours, our ships being close together, having only room to keep clear of each other. Our guns told well on both sides ; we were soon left destitute of rigging and sails. As I engaged under top sails and jib, and we were shattered below and aloft, I got the Nanny before the wind, and fought an hour that way, one pump going, till we had seven feet of water in the hold. I thought it then almost time to give up the battle, as our ship was a long time in re covering her sallies, and began to be water logged. We were so close that I told him I had struck and hauled down my colors."

Shortly after surrendering, the Nanny sunk.  "By the time we were out of the Nanny, the water was up to her lower deck. When Captain Brown heard the number of men I had he asked me what I meant by engaging him so long. I told him I was then his prisoner and hoped he would not call me to account for what I had done before the colors were hauled down. He said he approved of all I had done and treated my officers and myself like gentlemen and my people as his own."

However, the General Arnold did not emerge unscathed either.  According to Beynon, "The privateer [General Arnold] was in a shattered condition; his fore yard shot away in the slings and lying on her fore castle and a piece out of his main mast, so that he could make no sail until it was fixed: all his running rigging entirely gone, and a great part of his shrouds and back stays. None of his sails escaped except his main sail."

Despite the damage sustained, the privateer was still able to capture two more vessels off the Spanish coast on May 30th and June 1st.  Unfortunately, on June 2, 1779, the General Arnold encountered the 50 gun ship HMS Experiment.  The privateer was in no condition to fight.  As Sailing Master Greele correctly surmised the General Arnold "was captured by His Britannic Majesty's ship, Experiment, fifty guns, Sir James Wallace, commander. So ends our cruise."

Captain Brown and his crew were first taken to Madeira, Portugal and then to Savannah, Georgia.  Upon arrival, they were confined to a prison hulk.  They were released in 1780.  Brown returned to Newburyport in January, 1781.


Friday, June 2, 2017

"With the Design, Probably, To Spread Infection" - Rumors of Biological Warfare During the Siege of Boston

When General George Washington assumed command of the American army in July, 1775, one of his primary concerns was preventing his troops from being exposed to the smallpox virus. From Washington's perspective, "smallpox is in every part of Boston. The [British] soldiers who have never had it are, we are told, under inoculation, and considered as a surety against any attempt of ours to attack. If we escape the smallpox in this camp, and the country around, it will be miraculous. Every precaution that can be is taken, to guard against this evil, both by the General Court and myself."

Although smallpox was present in 1775 Boston, it did not reach the catastrophic levels Washington believed existed. Nevertheless, the general and his staff were concerned that the British army could utilize the disease as a biological weapon. Historians and period accounts have suggested British authorities occasionally explored the use of smallpox as a means to weaken or eradicate enemies. For example, evidence suggests Lord Jeffery Amherst authorized a plan to expose Native Americans to smallpox. General Thomas Gage allegedly approved a bill in 1763 for "Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians." In 1777, a British officer suggested to defeat the American rebellion the military should "dip arrows in matter of smallpox, and twang them at the American rebels.... This would ... disband these stubborn, ignorant, enthusiastic savages.... Such is their dread and fear of that disorder." 



Of course, many colonists believed the British army planned to intentionally introduce small pox to the Massachusetts population. One Boston resident noted as early as January, 1775 that "soldiers try all they can to spread the smallpox but I hope they will be disappointed." Seth Pomeroy wrote in May 1775, "If it is In General Gages power I expect he will Send ye Small pox." On December 3, 1775, Robert H. Harrison noted that "four [British] deserters have just arrived at headquarters giving an account that several persons are to be sent out of Boston . . that have lately been inoculated with the smallpox, with the design, probably, to spread infection to distress us as much as possible."

Washington received reports in early December, 1775 that the British army was exploring germ warfare to weaken the American siege. However, the general suspected that any biological attack was not to designed to decimate the Massachusetts countryside but rather cripple the American army outside of Boston. On December 14, 1775, Washington complained to John Hancock, that "smallpox rages all over the town. Some of the military [British] as had it not before, are now under inoculation. This, I apprehend, is a weapon of defense they are using against us."

Washington's suspicions were corroborated when he received a report that "General Howe is going to send out a number of the Inhabitants. ... A Sailor says that a Number of these coming out have been inoculated with the design of Spreading the Small pox through this Country and Camp." Three days later, the general grimly reported to Congress "the information I received that the Enemy intended spreading the smallpox amongst us, I could not suppose them capable of; I now must give some credit to it, as it has made its appearance on several of those who last came out of Boston."

Fortunately, Washington was proactive in combating the spread of the disease. Less than twenty four hours after his arrival outside of Boston, the general cautioned soldiers against travelling to infected areas "as there may be danger of introducing smallpox into the army." By July 20th, Washington noted in correspondence to Congress that he had "been particularly attentive to the least Symptoms of the Small Pox, hitherto we have been so fortunate, as to have every Person removed so soon, as not only to prevent any Communication, but any Apprehension or Alarm it might give in the camp. We shall continue the utmost Vigilance against this most dangerous Enemy."

Lieutenant Colonel Loammi Baldwin was ordered to "prevent any of your officers from any intercourse with the people who ... came out of Boston . . . there is great reason to suspect that the smallpox is amongst them, which every precaution must be used to prevent its spreading." The efforts appeared to have been somewhat successful as General Horatio Gates later commented to Artemas Ward that Washington had "taken every possible precaution in his power ... to prevent the Enemy from communicating this infection of the Small pox to this Army."

Photograph by Jack Boudreau
     
As the siege progressed, the threat of smallpox remained an issue for Washington. Even as the British army prepared to evacuate, the general expressed some reservation that the enemy may coordinate a biological attack. A spy reported to the general in March, 1776 "our Enemies in that place had laid several schemes for communicating the infection of the small-pox, to the Continental Army, when they get out of town." In response, Washington ordered "that neither officer, nor Soldier, presume to go into Boston, without leave.... As the enemy with malicious assiduity, have spread the infection of the smallpox through all parts of the town, nothing but the utmost caution on our part, can prevent that fatal disease from spreading thro' the army, and country, to the infinite detriment of both. . . Therefore no officer or soldier may go into Boston when the enemy evacuates the Town."

Two days after the British fled from Boston, Washington ordered Israel Putnam and one thousand Continental Soldiers to occupy a key position outside of the town. The general was so concerned about exposure that he also specified that all of the troops assigned to Putnam must have already had smallpox and thus were immune to the virus.
.     

Monday, May 22, 2017

"With a Company-Wide Space Between the Two" - Two Lexington Companies?

An analysis of the various accounts and reports of the Battle of Lexington suggest that the battlefield must have been a visual mess as the British column approached. The combination of darkness, spectators gathered in small clusters and militiamen coming and going from the common must have contributed to Major Pitcairn and Lieutenant Sutherland’s false impression that a large number of armed provincials were drawn up on the common.

However, despite the confusion, there is an account that suggest Captain Parker's Company was sufficiently disciplined and drawn up in military order. Specifically, Ensign Henry De Berniere of the 10th Foot provided an account of the Lexington men being drawn up in two divisions "with a company-wide space between the two."

Of course, based upon De Berniere's account, this begs the question: is it possible that there were two companies of Lexington militia on the common on April 19th? Most likely the answer is "no".



"Lexington Green" by Don Troiani

Almost a month after the battle Daniel Harrington recounted that when the militia mustered earlier in the morning, “the train band or Militia, and the alarm men (consisting of the aged and others exempted from turning out, excepting upon alarm) repaired in general to the common, close in with the meeting-house, the usual place of parade; and there were present when the roll was called over about one hundred and thirty of both.”

Unfortunately, Harrington is silent as to whether the alarm list and training band mustered together or as separate entities. When the militia assembled for a second time just before the Battle of Lexington, Harrington makes no reference to a second company. Instead, those who mustered are merely referred to as “the remains of the company.” 

Likewise, not a single deposition signed by spectators and Lexington militiamen makes reference to more than one company mustering on the field.

Of course, Loyalist and Boston resident George Leonard, who accompanied Percy’s relief column as a scout and was not a witness to the Battle of Lexington, indirectly suggested in his deposition that another company, perhaps unattached to Parker's Company, was nearby.

“That being on horseback . . .he several times went forward of the Brigade; in one of which excursions he met with a Countryman who was wounded supported by two others who were armed . . .the Deponent then asked what provoked [the regulars] to do it . . . he said that Some of our people upon the Regulars . . . he said further that it was not the Company he belonged to that fired but some of our Country people that were on the other Side of the Road.”

However, Leonard’s deposition is in direct contradiction with a statement given by James Marr, of the 4th Regiment of Foot, to the Reverend William Gordon. According to Marr, “when they and the others were advanced, Major Pitcairn said to the Lexington Company, (which, by the by, was the only one there), stop, you rebels! And he supposed that the design was to take away their arms.”



So what did the ensign actually see? Henry De Berniere probably observed a well drilled militia company that had been organized into platoons or divisions by its commanding officer.

There is no doubt Parker and his men were actively drilling in the months leading up to the battle. Period accounts document at least six occasions, as recent as the night before the battle, that the Lexington Company was drilling and performing maneuvers.

Interestingly, one period drill available to Captain Parker instructs officers of companies with more than forty men to divide the company into divisions, “in which case the captain leads the first, and the ensign the third, the lieutenant bringing up the rear. In general, the rule is, that the chief or commanding officer leads the whole, the second in command brings up the rear and the others lead the intermediate divisions.”

It is likely that Captain Parker followed this instruction and organized his company into “divisions” on the Lexington Common. This decision is corroborated by Lieutenant Colonel Smith's report on the engagement. "I understand, from the report of Major Pitcairn, who was with them, and from many officers, that they found on a green close to the road a body of the country people drawn up in military order, with arms and accoutrement, and, as appeared after, loaded."

Thursday, May 18, 2017

It's Too Hot...

It's too hot to blog today.  So we'll be at the beach...playing in the sand...in Victorian clothing.


Image of a family with the Plum Island Lighthouse (Newburyport, Massachusetts) behind them (c.1900). This particular lighthouse was built in 1898.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Shrub, Rattle Skull and Fish House Punch! (Oh My!)

Admittedly, the nerds of Historical Nerdery have been busy dealing with their students and moody teenage soccer players.  So our apologies for the delay in posting.

To make amends, and in recognition of the warm weather that will arrive in Massachusetts later this week, here are some historically themed cocktail recipes we highly recommend!

Enjoy!



Shrub

2 oz. of dark rum
Club soda
½ oz. of Shrub syrup

NOTE: To make the shrub syrup: In a medium bowl, mash the berries with the sugar and let sit for one and a half hours. Strain through a fine sieve into a clean bowl, pressing on the fruit to extract as much liquid as possible. Stir in vinegar and pour into a bottle or jar and refrigerate. The syrup can be kept in the fridge for up to two months.

Rattle Skull

2 oz. of dark rum
2 oz. of brandy
Juice of ½ a lime
1 pint of dark beer 



Fish House Punch

Ice
3/4 ounce dark rum
3/4 ounce Cognac
3/4 ounce peach brandy
1/2 ounce Simple Syrup
1/4 ounce fresh lime juice
1/2 ounce fresh lemon juice
1 lime slice
1 maraschino cherry

Shandy Gaff   

5 oz of beer
5 oz of ginger beer or ginger ale

Flip

1 egg
1 tsp of brown sugar
2 oz. of golden/dark rum
Whole nutmeg
Combine egg, sugar, and rum in a shaker with ice.  After shaking hard, strain into a chilled glass.  Garnish with freshly grated nutmeg.

And why not a 20th century bonus recipe as well...

Mary Pickford

1.5 oz white rum
1.5 oz pineapple juice
1 tsp grenadine
6 drops Maraschino liqueur








Thursday, May 11, 2017

"Sinful Pleasures and Vicious Courses" or Those Munro Girls...

According to Robert Gross, author of The Minutemen and Their World, on the eve of the American Revolution one out of three first born children were conceived out of wedlock. In the 1740’s, nineteen percent of all first births were prenuptial conceptions. From the 1740’s onward, births less than nine months after marriage steadily increased. By 1774, forty-one percent of all first born children were conceived out of wedlock.

Lexington youth were no exception to this growing trend and according to period accounts, their promiscuous behavior drew the attention of the Reverend Jonas Clarke. The influential minister was so alarmed by the immoral conduct that he preached a sermon directed towards the town's youth. Entitled A Sermon Preached in the Evening to the Youth, Clarke warned against the "sinful Pleasures and vicious Courses to which there are so many and such strong and alluring Temptation in this Part of Life. . . young People . . . were surrounded by the alluring Snares, Wiles, and Temptations."




Clarke urged his young audience not to be “tempted and allured away from God and their Deity to Sinful Pleasure and vicious Courses to their Shame and Sorrow, and finally to their Destruction" and encouraged them to “choose other courses.”

Of course, Clarke's sermon must have fallen on deaf ears as the promiscuous behavior of several young adults from Lexington eventually played out in the Middlesex County Court. All of these hearings addressed the birth of "bastard" children born outside of wedlock. 

In the 18th Century the birth of illegitimate children were treated as criminal in nature and punished by the imposition of a fine.

For example, "Sarah Mead of Lexington in the County of Middlesex, spinster, being presented for the crime of fornication on file comes into the court and pleads guilty and says she was delivered of a bastard female child born of her body in Lexington aforesaid on the 13th day of January last, which child is still living, and she charges Thomas Nunning of Bedford in the same County, husbandman, with being the father of said child... Sept. 8, 1772."

Likewise, "Lydia Simends of Lexington in the County of Middlesex, spinster, comes into court and confesses she has been guilty of the crime of fornication at said Woburn... whereof she there afterward had a bastard male child born of her body on the 15th day of September last which child is still living. The court having considered her offense ordered that the said Lydia five shillings to be disposed of as the law directs and that she pay fees and costs, standing committed til performed. March 8, 1774."

Curiously, it appears that four girls from two Lexington Munro families appeared before the Court on five occasions. Rachel Munro, daughter of Marrett Munro, was fined for "fornication and says she was delivered of a bastard child at Lexington on the first day of December last (which child still living) and she charges Thomas Godding ofLexington, cordwainer, with being the father of said child.... Date March 12, 1765." Four years later she was back before the Court again. "Rachel Munro, spinster, presented for the crime of fornication, resulted in birth of bastard girl on Nov. 30, 1769. Pleads guilty and charges Benjamin Bodge of Charlestown as father. Case dated April 2, 1770."

Rachel's younger sister Bethia also appeared before the Court in 1775. "Bethia Munro of Lexington in the County of Middlesex, single woman, comes into the court and confesses she has been guilty of the crime of fornication in said Lexington whereof she there afterwards had a bastard male child born of her body on the 24th day of February 1775 which child is still living and she charges Samuel Bowman of said Lexington with being the father of said child. The Court orders that Bethia Munro pay a fine of six shillings to be disposed of as the law directs and that she pay fees and costs, standing committed til performed."

Two of Thomas Munro's daughters were also hauled before the Court. "Sarah Munro [of Lexington], spinster, presented for the crime of fornication, resulted in birth of bastard girl on Dec. 20, 1767. Pleads guilty and charges Wm. Swaney of Charlestown." 

Finally, "Abigail Munro, crime of fornication resulted in the birth of bastard girl on Oct. 27, 1769. Pleads guilty and charges Jonathan Peirce of Lexington. Case dated Nov. 27, 1770."
















Friday, May 5, 2017

"A Schooner of Forty-Five Tons . . . Intended for the Enemy in Boston" - Interdiction of British Supplies by Massachusetts Privateers

In our last post, we discussed efforts by the Massachusetts Committee of Safety to prevent provisions from reaching the British Army trapped in Boston.  Today we'll examine accounts detailing the activities of Massachusetts privateers.

It appears that by early fall of 1775, privateers from Newburyport, Beverly, Salem and Plymouth were actively cruising the waters off of Massachusetts Bay in search of supply ships destined for Boston.  Many of these privateers traveled in "wolf packs" that varied in size from a few ships to over twenty.  One such wolf pack from Newburyport consisted of twenty-five vessels and over 2800 men.  A second Newburyport armada boasted thirty vessels.   

According to reports from the Essex Gazette, Massachusetts privateers were far more successful in cutting off supplies than their land based counterparts.  As early as September 9, 1775, the newspaper reported that "Last Saturday a privateer belonging to Newburyport carried into Portsmouth a schooner of forty-five tons, loaded with potatoes and turnips intended for the enemy in Boston."  

Two months later, the Lee, a privateer under the command of one Captain Manly, captured the British vessel Nancy.  According to a December 7, 1775 description, "Captain Manly, in the Lee, a vessel of war, in the service of the United Colonies, carried into Cape Ann a large brig called the Nancy which he took off that place, bound from London to Boston, laden with about three hundred and fifty caldrons of coal; and a quantity of bale goods, taken by Captain Manly, was carried into Salem. She is about two hundred tons burthen, and is almost a new ship."  

Of course, the Nancy was a military ordinance supply ship from Woolwich, England and also contained several brass cannons and a large quantity of arms and ammunition. 




Interestingly, that same account hints that Massachusetts privateers were becoming problematic for the British.  "Several vessels loaded with fuel, provisions of various kinds, &c, bound to Boston, have been carried into Salem and Beverly within a few days past." 

A few weeks after the capture of the Nancy, the Essex Gazette announced Captain Manly had struck again.  "Captain Manly has, within a few days past, taken another valuable prize, a sloop from Virginia bound for Boston, loaded with corn and oats; fitted out and sent by Lord Dunniore."    

On Christmas Day, a Plymouth based privateer successfully intercepted a supply sloop from New York.  "On the 25th of December last [1775] was taken by a Plymouth privateer and carried in there a small sloop from New York, Moses Wyman, Master, laden with provisions fur the ministerial army in Boston, consisting of thirty-five fresh hogs, one hundred barrels of pork, fifty barrels fine New York pippins, twenty firkins hog's feet, some quarters of beef, turkeys, &c., &c."  

Less than six months after Massachusetts privateer operations commenced, eight captured vessels had already been brought into Newburyport.  One period account from March 6, 1776 describes the fifth vessel captured.  "A few days since, the Yankee Hero sent into Newburyport another prize, a fine brig of about two hundred tons burthen, laden with coal, cheese, &c, bound for White Haven, for the use of the ministerial butchers, under the command of General Howe, Governor of Boston. This is the fifth prize out of eight which sailed states from the above port, and we are in hopes of giving a good account of the three remaining."

Even as the British army was preparing to evacuate Boston, the famed Captain Manly was still harassing Crown shipping lanes.  On March 14, 1776 "a transport brig of sixteen guns, laden with naval stores and provisions bound from Boston for the ministerial fleet at the southward  was taken. A ship of two hundred and forty tons also captured by Captain Manly about this time was shipped with six double fortified four-pounders, two swivels, and three barrels of powder, while the cargo consisted of one hundred and seventy-five butts of porter, twelve packages of medicine with largo quantities of coal, sourkrout, &c, besides a great number of packages for the officers in Boston. She also brought out sixty live hogs, but only one of them was alive when she was carried in."

Privateering proved to be quite profitable for Massachusetts coastal towns.  At the height of the war, almost one hundred privateer vessels hailed from Newburyport alone.  According to historian George Clark, over a period of four months (November 1775 to March 1776) the number of British vessels captured en route to Boston "amounted to thirty-one, their tonnage to 3,045 tons."  

 

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

"For the Prevention of Any Provisions Being Carried Into the Town of Boston" - Early War Efforts to Cut Off Supplies From Boston

Following the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the Massachusetts Grand Army surrounded Boston and began to lay siege to it. The Massachusetts Committee of Safety quickly recognized that in order to drive the British army from Boston, it had to starve them out. 

On May 7, 1775, the Committee passed a resolution ordering selectmen and Committee of Correspondence members for Chelsea "to take effectual methods for the prevention of any Provisions being carried into the Town of Boston." 



Unfortunately, the resolution proved to be difficult for the town as Chelsea selectmen lacked the authority to order the Massachusetts Army to mobilize. Likewise, some residents believed the execution of the order would have a negative impact on their livelihoods. William Harris, a manager at Oliver Wendell's farm on Hog's Island, later confided that he was "very uneasy, the people from the Men of War frequently go to the Island to Buy fresh Provision, his own safety obliges him to sell to them, on the other Hand the Committee of Safety have threatened if he sells anything to the Army or Navy, that they will take all the Cattle from the Island, & our folks tell him they shall handle him rufly."



The Committee of Safety recognized Chelsea could not go it alone and revisited the issue on May 14, 1775. After some debate, it was decided that the best way to prevent provisions from falling into enemy hands was to remove them altogether. Hence, the committee instructed “that all the live-stock be taken from Noddle’s Island, Hog Island, and Snake Island, and from that part of Chelsea near the seacoast, and be driven back.”  In turn, the Committee ordered “Committee of Correspondence and Selectmen of the Towns of Medford, Malden, Chelsea, and Lynn, and that they be supplied with such men as they shall need, from the Regiment now at Medford.”  

The "regiment now at Medford" was the 1st New Hampshire Regiment under the command of John Stark.  Unfortunately, Stark reported that his unit could not carry out the mission because it was too poorly equipped.  After receiving this news, the Committee of Safety resumed debate on how to best undertake interdiction operations.   

Meanwhile the British  army began to dispatch forage parties to Grape Island.

Provincial leaders scrambled to find a way to prevent further such raids and stop the flow of supplies into Boston.  The Committee of Safety drafted a new resolution to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress on May 23, 1775.  The Committee urged the Provincial Congress to use its authority to secure resources on the harbor islands and Massachusetts seacoast.  The next day, the Committee issued a second resolution, stating "Resolved, That it be recommended to Congress immediately to take such order respecting the removal of the Sheep and Hay from Noddle’s Island, as they may judge proper, together with the stock on adjacent islands."

In compliance with the Committee of Safety resolutions, Major General Artemas Ward, commander-in-chief of the army surrounding Boston, convened a council of war to discuss removing or destroying all supplies on Noddle’s and Hog Islands.  From this meeting a plan would be formulated regarding the removal of resources from some of the nearby Boston Harbor islands.  Unfortunately, the end result of the plan would be the Battle of Chelsea Creek. 


Tuesday, April 25, 2017

"Turn Out! Turn Out! Or You will All Be Killed!" - The Great Ipswich Fright

Two days after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, widespread panic set in among the residents of several North Shore Massachusetts towns. Known as the "Ipswich Fright", this psychological phenomenon led to the mass abandonment of homes and the evacuation of Essex County residents into New Hampshire.

Local tradition suggests that on the morning of April 21, 1775, A British naval cutter anchored at the mouth of the Ipswich River. In response, the local alarm list mobilized but did not engage the enemy. No fighting ever broke out between the ship's crew and the militiaman. Nevertheless, an unfounded rumor began to spread inside the town that British regulars had landed and were laying waste to everything before them. With most Essex County minute and militia men away at the Siege of Boston, a massive panic set in.  The rumor quickly spread to other towns.



A few hours later, it reached as far away as Newburyport. A minister named Carey was holding a meeting when alarm rider Ebenezer Todd interrupted the meeting and announced "“Turn out, turn out, for God’s sake,” he cried, “or you will be all killed! The regulars are marching on us; they are at Ipswich now, cutting and slashing all before them!”

The fright continued west to Haverhill and Andover.  An early 19th century account of the incident suggests an alarm rider instructed Haverhill residents to "Turn out! Get a musket! Turn out . . . the regulars are landing on Plum Island!"



As panic set in, many residents began to gather their valuables and fled as far north as Exeter and Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  Many Essex County residents overwhelmed ferries as they tried to cross the Merrimack River.  Period accounts suggest Amesbury, Salisbury and Rowley were completely abandoned by its residents.

The residents were so overcome with fear and despair that they began to turn on each other in order to secure their escape. According to one period account "a Mr. ___, having placed his family on board of a boat, to go to Ram island, for safety, was so annoyed with the crying of one of his children, that he exclaimed, in a great fright, 'do throw that squalling brat overboard, or we shall all be discovered!'"  

Some residents refused to flee. One Newbury account suggests an elderly resident took up a defensive post at his front door, loaded his musket and declared he intended to “shoot the devils" when they arrived.

The panic continued well into the early morning of April 22, 1775.  By then, residents of Exeter had begun to suspect the entire ordeal was an unfounded rumor.  In turn, the town dispatched an alarm rider towards Newburyport with a message that the account of a British army invading Essex County were false.  

Shortly thereafter, many residents returned to their homes.  

Friday, April 21, 2017

"You Would Have Been Shocked at the Destruction" - The Aftermath of April 19th in Lexington


Last week, Historical Nerdery posted about the civilian evacuation of the Lexington area on April 19, 1775. Today, we'd like to share some accounts regarding the destruction of Lexington property by the British troops. 


In addition to suffering the highest casualty rate of the American forces for on that day, Lexington also suffered extensive property damage. Several homes were burned or destroyed and while others were looted. Andover minute man Thomas Boynton noted "after we came into Concord road we saw houses burning and others plundered and dead bodies of the enemy lying by the way, others taken prisoners."

Another Andover soldier, James Stevens, recalled "we went in to Lecentown. We went to the metinghous & there we come to the distraction of the Reegerlers thay cild eight of our men & shot a Canon Ball throug the metin hous. we went a long through Lecintown & we saw severel regerlers ded on the rod & som of our men & three or fore houses was Burnt & som hoses & hogs was cild thay plaindered in every hous thay could git in to thay stove in windows & broke in tops of desks."

According to the Reverend William Gordon, "you would have been shocked at the destruction which has been made by the Regulars, as they are miscalled, had you been present with me to have beheld it. Many houses were plundered of every thing valuable that could be taken away, and what could not be carried off was destroyed; looking-glasses, pots, pans, etc. were broke all to pieces; doors when not fastened, sashes and windows wantonly damaged and destroyed. The people say that the soldiers are worse than the Indians."



Lydia Mulliken lost everything when her house and clock making shop were burned to the ground. The only surviving valuables were the silver that she had hidden in a stone wall behind her house. Lydia's daughter, Rebecca Mulliken, particularly mourned the loss of “a pocket which with great pride she had embroiders with crewels." The Loring family also lost everything, including all household furnishing and every stitch of linens and clothing. Fifer Jonathan Harrington's family lost “an eight-day clock, clothes, books, moose-skins and other articles.”

Upon returning home, some Lexington residents discovered their residences had also been vandalized and defiled. A "Mrs. Muzzy" discovered that British soldiers had broken her mirror, valuable crockery, fired bullets into the wall and left the floor smeared with blood. When Anna Munroe returned to her family tavern, she quickly noted that the retreating soldiers had eaten her freshly baked bread, broken into her supplies, and consumed all the alcohol in the shop. Her household linens were used as bandages for wounded soldiers. She also discovered the soldiers had piled up her furniture, including a mahogany table, and set it on fire in an attempt to burn the tavern down.

Pursuant to 18th Century law, the illegal breaking and entering into a home was a capital offense punishable by death. Thus, from Lexington's point of view, the plundering and burning of homes was not only highly offensive, it also served to fuel their anger even further.

In the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, many Lexington residents started to compile a running list of lost, stolen or destroyed property. Ultimately, claims for compensation for property lost or destroyed were submitted to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. Those petitions can be viewed here.