Jonas Clarke – Prophet or Wise Man?

Jonas Clarke - Prophet or Wise Man?

burning-of-stamp-act-boston-f9d0e2-640

 

In late October 1765, a town meeting was held and the town selectmen were instructed to draft instructions for the townspeople of Lexington with regards to the newly enacted Stamp Act.  This document was penned by the Rev. Jonas Clarke, who wrote many a document for Lexington and Massachusetts.

In the first paragraph of the Instructions to the People of Lexington, Rev. Clarke exhibits a profound sense of the liberty that the founders gave up their lives and fortunes for.  The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

“We have looked upon men as beings naturally free. And it is a truth which the history of ages, and the common experience of mankind have fully confirmed, that a people can never be divested of these invaluable rights and liberties, which are necessary to the happiness of individuals, to the well-being of communities, or to a well regulated state ; but by their own negligence, imprudence, timidity or rashness. They are seldom lost, but when foolishly forfeited or tamely resigned.”

The book William Diamond’s Drum points out that Rev. Clarke, after this first profound paragraph goes on to dissect the Stamp Act on constitutional grounds. The Act:
“Violated their charter
Violated the ancient rights of British subjects
Passed without a hearing
Deprived citizens of trial by jury
Violated to essential principles of the Magna Carta: indictments by the oath of honest men and trial by one’s peers
It spawned a class of informers, paid to report violators and cutting off any means of redress.”

Methinks the Rev. Clarke was one liberty minded man.

To read the complete document – which is really amazing – go here.  

Posted in Build up to Revolution | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Friends and Fellow Sufferers

Friends and Fellow Sufferers

In February, 1775, only two months before blood would be shed on April 19th, the second Provincial Congress of Massachusetts assembled at Cambridge. The main outcome of these meetings was the plan to “empower and direct” eleven men, including John Hancock and Joseph Warren, to, as they saw fit, put together arms and provisions for the militia. The purpose was “opposing” the Acts of Parliament designed to enslave the people of Massachusetts.

john-hancock-medium
3066_116938159305

They also published an inspiring address to the Inhabitants of Massachusetts

Friends and Fellow Sufferers;—
When a people, entitled to that freedom which your ancestors have nobly preserved as the richest inheritance of their children, are invaded by the hand of oppression, and trampled on by the merciless feet of tyranny, resistance is so far from being criminal, that it becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. Your conduct hitherto, under the severest trials, has been worthy of you as men and Christians, and notwithstanding the pains that have been taken by your enemies, to inculcate the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience, and by every art to delude and terrify you, the whole continent of America has this day come to rejoice in your firmness. We trust you will still continue steadfast, and having regard to the dignity of your characters as freemen, and those generous sentiments resulting from your natural and political connections, you will never submit your necks to the galling yoke of despotism prepared for you; but with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which Heaven gave, and no man ought to take from you.”

Those words ring true now as much as they did then.  Will we hear them from their graves?

Posted in Writing History | Leave a comment

Constitution Week 2020

As a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR) I am excited to present the video I contributed to for Constitution Week 2020.  If you haven’t heard of Elizabeth Powel, you’ll love her story.

Posted in The Constitution | Leave a comment

For Want of a Zippo

The retreat of the King’s troops from the battles of April 19th were not a simple matter of walking the miles back to Boston. General Heath’s moving circle of fire made the going slow and very hazardous for the Redcoats.

“During the whole of the march from Lexington the Rebels kept an incessant irregular fire from all points at the Column, which was the more galling as our flanking parties, which at first were placed at sufficient distances to cover the march of it, were at last, from the different obstructions they occasionally met with, obliged to keep almost close to it. Our men had very few opportunities of getting good shots at the Rebels, as they hardly ever fired but under cover of a Stone wall, from behind a tree, or out of a house; and the moment they had fired they lay down out of sight until they had loaded again, or the Column had passed.”

This narrative comes from the diary of Redcoat fusilier Frederick MacKenzie.

Remember, this Redcoat army was not at all familiar with the street fighting that was handed to them by the “shopkeepers and farmers” of the militias that day. Particularly infuriating was the rebels firing from inside the houses along the road – the front doors of these houses were mere feet from the road.

MacKenzie goes on, “If we had had time to set fire to those houses many Rebels must have perished in them, but as night drew on Lord Percy thought it best to continue the march.”

Later, he tells us more, “Those houses would certainly have been burnt had any fire been found in them, or had there been time to kindle any; but only three or four near where we first formed suffered in this way.”

So, if these Redcoats had only had trusty Zippo lighters, who knows how many houses would have survived along the way from Lexington back to Boston.

Posted in Retreating Redcoats | Leave a comment

The 13-Star Flag

The 13 Star Flag is the most common and popular colonial flag to this day, yet many people are unaware of its history. It became the official flag of the United States on June 14, 1777, now known as Flag Day. You may have seen many variations of this flag, such as the Betsy Ross Flag, the Cowpens Flag and the Guilford Courthouse Flag, and all are correct. The original Flag Resolution did not specify how the stars were to be arranged in the field of blue, so many different arrangements were used. You can learn more about the 13 Star Flag below. You can order your own 13 Star Flag as well.

13 Star Flag

 

 

13 Star Flag History

Prior to American Independence, a great many different flags were used by American colonists for military regiments and for shipping. These flags were usually variations of already existing British flags since the colonists were British subjects and the colonies were part of the British empire.

Once the colonists declared their independence, it became desirable for the new United States to have its own flag. Congress passed the Flag Resolution of 1777 on June 14th of that year. The Flag Resolution reads:

"Resolved, That the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation."

Notice that the resolution says the stars should represent "a new Constellation," but does not specify how they should be arranged. It does not say how many points the stars should have. It does not say how wide the stripes should be or how long the canton (the upper left corner) should be relative to the rest of the flag. It does not say whether the red stripes should come first, or the white. Because of this lack of specificity, 13 Star Flags of many varying designs were used for many years. Over time, certain versions became more common and eventually, Congress defined more clearly what American flags should like.

British Red Ensign FlagIt is generally agreed that the stars on the 13 Star Flag were chosen to represent the 13 colonies and that the stars replaced the British Union. The Union was the familiar symbol of the British flag which represented a "union" of the Cross of St. George, the symbol of England, which was a red cross on a white background and the cross of St. Andrew, the symbol of Scotland, which was a diagonal white cross on a blue background. The Union flag was created when Scotland and England joined as one empire in 1707.

Later the Cross of St. Patrick was added when Ireland joined the union in 1801. The Cross of St. Patrick was a diagonal red cross on a white background. The combining of the three crosses makes the British flag we are familiar with today. You can see the British Union symbol in the canton (upper left corner) of the British Red Ensign flag at the right.

Disagreement about the origin of the 13 Star Flag

It should be pointed out that there is a lot of disagreement among historians about the development of the American flag. There are discrepancies in every proposed timeline. There are facts supporting and facts against every traditional flag legend that you may have heard.

For example, the 13 Star Flag commonly called the Hopkinson Flag, with the stars in a 3-2-3-2-3 pattern, is sometimes called the "First American Flag," but there is no written documentation that has been found to indicate this. There is only circumstantial evidence, such as that Hopkinson was head of the Navy Board when the Flag Resolution was passed and that Hopkinson later submitted a bill to Congress asking to be compensated for creating the flag. Then on the other hand, there are facts that weigh against this view, such as that Congress denied paying Hopkinson based on the fact that "many" people had contributed to the flag's design and that there is no documentary evidence of what Hopkinson's flag drawings may have looked like.

Another American flag legend you may have heard regards the Betsy Ross Flag, the 13 Star Flag with the stars arranged in a circle. Many people take the Betsy Ross Flag legend as fact, but there is absolutely zero documentary proof of the story. That being so, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that makes her story seem likely, such as the fact that Betsy knew George Washington personally and another member of the secret flag committee that allegedly approached her was her husband's uncle, George Ross, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

George Washington after the Battle of Princeton by Charles Willson Peale

The original Flag Resolution of 1777 was first presented to Congress by the Marine Committee. So when the resolution was passed, it was considered as a regulation regarding naval affairs. This has led historians to question whether or not the 13 Star Flag was used mostly by the navy and rarely by the army, or whether it was used equally by both.

It would seem logical that since the resolution was presented by the navy that the navy was using the flag. There is evidence, however, in both letters and in paintings of the era that the 13 Star Flag was used on the battlefield. Artwork from Charles Willson Peale and Jonathan Trumbull, both preeminent artists of the day, showed 13 Star Flags in their battlefield depictions. Some historians have claimed that these flags are anachronisms, meaning they are accurate depictions, but out of the proper time slot. This seems unlikely, however, because both painters were known for studying their subjects meticulously to try to depict them accurately.

Peale painted many founding fathers and actually painted George Washington seven times. Peale's portrait of Washington called George Washington after the Battle of Princeton is said to be one of the most accurate physical portrayals of Washington. This painting shows Washington after the Battle of Princeton. Peale was personally present at this battle and fought on the front lines during the climax of the battle. The 13 star Betsy Ross flag can be clearly seen in the background. The problem is that this battle took place 6 months before the Flag Resolution. Was the 13 Star Flag already being used before the resolution was passed? Some scholars think so. Others disagree. More about the Betsy Ross Flag here.

Surrender of General Burgoyne by Jonathan Trumbull

Many documentary sources indicate widespread use of the 13 Star Flag beginning in the fall of 1777, matching the date of the Flag Resolution's passage in June of that year. Such a painting is Jonathan Trumbull's Surrender of General Burgoyne which took place in October, 1777. The 13 Star Flag is clearly seen in the picture. Trumbull, however, painted the 13 stars in varying patterns in different works, leading some scholars to question whether Trumbull was painting from first hand knowledge, or simply adding in what was popular at the time he made the paintings.

Other facts make the question of whether or not the 13 Star Flag was used extensively by the Continental Army seem less clear. One such source is a series of letters written between George Washington and Richard Peters, who was then the Secretary of the Board of War. In the letters, Peters is trying to get General Washington's approval for which flag he desires to be used for the army. The problem is that this exchange takes place two years after the Flag Resolution was passed. If the flag was decided upon by Congress in 1777, why is George Washington still trying to decide which flag to use 2 years later? This lends credibility to the idea that the 13 Star Flag was used mostly by the navy in the first few years.

You can read the three letters between Washington and Peters here:

All of these discrepancies make proving many points of the flag's development very difficult. Some things are certain, others are clouded in mystery. Consequently, all we can do is to inform you of the various relevant facts concerning each 13 Star FlagOrder Historic Flags here.

Posted in Writing History | Leave a comment

The New England Restraining Act

On March 30, 1775, the New England Restraining Act was made law with the signature of King George III. The Act restricts the New England colonies from trading with any other country besides Great Britain or her colonies and prevents colonists from entering the North Atlantic fisheries. These measures were enacted as a punishment to the colonies for their ban on trade with Britain after the institution of the Coercive Acts and other resistance to Parliament.

king-george-iiiColonial relations with Great Britain had been deteriorating gradually since the Stamp Act of 1765. The Tea Act of 1773 brought things to a head with a small tax placed on imported tea. Though the tax was small, the colonists were firm in their belief that Parliament did not have the right to tax them since they had no representation there. Instead, they believed the proper bodies to institute taxes on them were their own elected legislatures.

The citizens of Boston responded to the Tea Act by dumping 42 tons of imported tea into Boston Harbor in December, 1773, an act known as the Boston Tea Party. When news reached Parliament, it responded by passing the Coercive Acts, a series of acts to punish Boston which closed the harbor, shut down the Massachusetts government, moved trials of government officials out of the colony, required the housing of British troops on private property and extended the boundaries of French speaking, but British held, Quebec, which was viewed as a threat by the colonists.

Even though the Coercive Acts were focused on Massachusetts, all of the colonies saw the Acts as a precedent that could be extended to their own colonies. They responded with mass promises not to import any more British goods until the Acts were repealed. Most of the colonies began actively recruiting and training their own armies to confront Britain if the need arose. Most of the colonies sent representatives to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia to deal with the crisis as one.

boston-tea-partyParliament's response to all this preparation was to pass the New England Retraining Act, which was signed by the King on March 30, 1775. This Act forbade Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut from trading with any other countries but Great Britain or her colonies. The idea was to strangle the colonists into a position of desperation so they would drop their opposition and consent to Parliament's demands. The Acts also forbade them from using the North Atlantic fisheries off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, a heavy blow to the colonists, who were dependent on the food and income from the fisheries.

The New England Restraining Act focused on the New England colonies because the rebellion was centered there. In April, however, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina were added to the Act when it was learned that they were also participating in the boycotts and raising armies. The Act, tough as it was, was never really enforced and never amounted to much because the war broke out in Lexington on April 19th, causing Britain to escalate to the point of making war on her own people.

This post is reproduced from our sister site – Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com

Posted in Writing History | Leave a comment

New England: Clearing up the Confusion for the Rest of Us

I’m not from there.  I’m from out West – Colorado to be specific.  Never been back east except to fly through on my way to Germany in my Army-wife days.  I could tell you stories about that one night in Trenton, New Jersey, though.  Trust me.

But that’s for another time and another place.

I’ll state for the record that I only “got” this a few years ago, looking at this flag. 

join-or-die-flag

I know some of my online friends like J.L. Bell (boston1775.blogspot.com) and Liz Covart (Ben Franklin’s World) are laughing at me about now.  Go ahead.  I can take it.

Hmmm.  There aren’t 13 colonies on this flag.  What’s the deal?  Surely as well-versed in 1775 as I am I can just guess. Ahem.

SC and NC – okay, those are no-brainers.

Then there’s V – Vermont?  Virginia?

And M – Massachusetts – yeah, that was a prominent one.  Oh, wait, Maryland.

NJ and NY are good, right?

That leaves NE.  North. . .  New. . .

Okay, I’ll admit, this exercise took about 30 seconds in my head looking at this flag.  Then I realized I needed Google.

On this flag, we have – from the tail forward – South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and. . . NEW ENGLAND.

So what was New England?  To be precise, it was (and still is, I hear) Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  (Since my Revolutionary War decendants came from Connecticut, you'd think I'd know this.)

So, count them up and you have 7 colonies and New England, which was 6 more.

Maybe I’m the only one who didn’t know this.  But before I talk about the New England Restraining Act in the next post, I realized that it wouldn’t hurt to clear up any confusion. 

(And here's to someday getting to see Battle Road for myself.)

Posted in Writing History | Leave a comment

Fighting for a Reputation

As you read in the last blog post, I have just released Patriot's Day – a little book that was published in 1895 – that tells the story of Lexington and Concord on April 19th, 1775. 

Ezra Ripleyl_Page_08The next book I'm going to put out was written in 1827 and is titled History of the Fight at Concord, on the 19th of April, 1775 by Ezra Ripley. 

The subtitle tells a deeper story of this book.

WITH A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OP THE MILITARY OPERATIONS AND INTERESTING EVENTS OF THAT EVER MEMORABLE
DAY ; SHOWING THAT THEN AND THERE THE FIRST REGULAR AND FORCIBLE RESISTANCE WAS MADE TO THE BRITISH SOLDIERY, AND THE FIRST BRITISH  BLOOD WAS SHED BY ARMED AMERICANS, AND THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR THUS COMMENCED.

Here are a few of the opening paragraphs. 

INTRODUCTION.

It may be thought singular, that, at this late period, a particular account of the Fight at Concord, on the memorable 19th of April 1775, should now for the first time make its appearance. Some apology may be thought due to the public for neglecting so long a matter of acknowledged importance, which, we apprehend, will be manifest in the following statement.

During nearly half a century, it was, as we supposed, the universal belief that the first regular and forcible resistance to the invading British soldiers was made at Concord North Bridge; —that there the fire of the British was first returned by the Americans; —that there the first British blood was shed; and of course that there commenced the war that terminated in the Independence of the United States. We had no idea that any persons ever would or could seriously entertain a different opinion. We had supposed that public records, numerous historical sketches, and common consent were sufficient to perpetuate material facts and prominent characters. When therefore, the "History of the Battle of Lexington," appeared in 1825, we were surprised. Nothing could have been more unexpected. That pamphlet has made impressions on the minds of many, unfavorable, in some respects, as we believe, to the truth, and to some worthy and patriotic characters. The same causes which originated these errors, have given rise to opinions and publications in Great Britain and the United States equally erroneous. A large portion of the people do not possess the means of better information ; and those who do, have been unwilling to come forward in a controversy very unpleasant and attended with many difficulties.

******   And a bit further on   ******

We have no objections to the historical account given by Major Phinney of the march of the British troops from Boston to Lexington, their outrageous behavior while there, &c. except so far as relates to the returning of the fire of the British. This we mean to controvert, and to shew by testimony and evidence that cannot be resisted nor rationally disputed, that the inhabitants of Lexington, very recently, have made an unjust claim upon the public faith ;—that they have appropriated to themselves facts and honors to which they had no right, and have thereby attempted to wrest from the inhabitants of Concord and adjacent towns, the legitimate honors which their brave and patriotic fathers achieved and bequeathed to them.

Typical New England rivalry?  Looks like. 

I hope you'll enjoy Patriot's Day.  It is truly a little treasure.  I'll let you know when this one is ready. 

Posted in History of the Fight at Concord Book, Writing History | Leave a comment

Patriot’s Day by Geo. Varney

It’s with great pleasure that I announce that we at Battle Road Books have produced a replica of this wonderful little book:  Patriots’ Day by George Varney

Our goal at Battle Road Books is to keep the history of the Revolutionary War alive and vibrant and easily accessible.  We also don’t think you should pay an arm and a leg just to read these old books.

Patriot's Day

On the left is the original book.  It’s a little book – I’m finding that many of the old books I’m buying are small – just a bit smaller than 5″x7″.  On the right, of course, is the “reincarnation.”  It is not a scanned copy – have you seen those? – they’re a mess.  Nope.  We lovingly went through every page of this book and made each page as close to the original as possible.

It is a book that was produced in 1895, written by George Varney, as a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.  I love this book and am thrilled that you’ll be able to love it too.

Here’s the Preface:

PREFACE

The bill abolishing the practice of appointing annually a day of ”fasting and prayer,” having passed the Massachusetts House of Representatives, received the approving vote of the Senate on March 16, 1894, and was on the same day signed by the governor, Frederic T. Greenhalge. The bill also established the nineteenth day of April as an annual holiday. The latter, therefore, is the legitimate successor of Fast Day, which had come to be observed chiefly by its desecration.

The first proclamation of the new holiday was issued on the eleventh day of April, 1894, and gave it, most appropriately, the name Patriots’ Day. Neither the statute nor the proclamation prescribed any definite form of celebration; consequently, there is ample scope and freedom for the preferences of communities and organizations in its observance. The proclamation was as follows: —

”By an act of the Legislature, duly approved, the nineteenth day of April has been made a legal holiday.

”This is a day rich with historical and significant events which are precious in the eyes of patriots. It may well be called Patriots’ Day. On this day, in 1775, at Lexington and Concord, was begun the great war of the Revolution; on this day, in 1783, just eight years afterwards, the cessation of war and the triumph of independence were formally proclaimed; and on this day, in 1861, the first blood was shed in the war for the Union.

”Thus the day is grand with the memories of the mighty struggles which in one instance brought liberty, and in the other union, to the country.

”It is fitting, therefore, that the day should be celebrated as the anniversary of the birth of Liberty and Union.

”Let this day be dedicated, then, to solemn religious and patriotic services, which may adequately express our deep sense of the trials and tribulations of the patriots of the earlier and of the latter days, and also especially our gratitude to Almighty God, who crowned the heroic struggles of the founders and preservers of our country with victory and peace.”

It is earnestly and devoutly to be desired that the sentiments of this proclamation shall imbue every breast; that patriotism shall more and more take the form of

religion, holding relation, not to one nation only, but to all the peoples of the earth; that the happy time may come when justice, forbearance, and magnanimity will so prevail among men that violent and destructive differences between individuals, communities, states, and nations will be prevented by wise tribunals chosen and empowered to adjudicate disputes and establish peace and amity in all lands.

For the incidents and data of this presentation of the opening conflict of our Revolutionary War, I am indebted in part to several works, a list of which may be found on the last page of this volume.

The illustrative views, except the view of Lexington Green, the two flags, and the diagrams of Concord and Lexington, are from photographs made since 1875; and most of the objects remain the same to the present date.

The view of the conflict at Lexington is from a copper-plate engraving made previous to December, 1775, and accurately represents the scene as preserved also by history and tradition. A room in the building at the left (Buckman’s Tavern) was used by John Hancock as an office while the Provincial Congress held its sessions in Concord. The large building in the middle is the first church, with the belfry on the ground nearby, as it stood at the time. Another illustration in the poems is from a recent photograph of the same belfry as it now appears.

It should be explained that the patriots’ guns were not pointed as shown in the picture until the British had opened fire. In the background appear the ranks of the main body of the ”Regulars” on the march towards Concord, nearly seven miles to the right of Lexington Green, or  ”Common” as it has been called in recent years.

Boston, April 3, 1895.

Posts taken from this book:

The Scar of Lexington”

A Minuteman’s Story of the Concord Fight

Stories Heard on Father’s Lap

Stories Heard on Grandpa’s Lap

Posted in Patriot's Day book, Writing History | Leave a comment

Brown Beauty – hero of Lexington and Concord

Brown Beauty – hero of Lexington and Concord – It could be said.

We know that Paul Revere, on that famous night, was rowed across Back Bay to meet up with rebel forces in Charleston.  There, waiting for him, were Whigs that provided him with a horse. 

The horse belonged to Samuel Larking, a fisherman and chair maker from Charleston.  It was requested by John Larkin, a very wealthy merchant and deacon from Charleston.  Often history tells us that it was “Deacon Larkin’s horse.”  Apparently it was his father’s.

Paul Revere StatueThere are many versions of the story with a number of names for this equine hero.  Among them, Sparky.  That doesn’t sound very heroic.  The Larkin family history says the horse was named Brown Beauty.  Still, not all that heroic a name.  Seems like it should have been William Wallace or something.  But I digress.

Though we don’t know for sure what breed of horse Brown Beauty was, she was likely a Naragansett.

Horse Show Central’s article says this, “Brown Beauty was probably of a breed of horse that was very popular at that time on the East Coast. Instead of the jarring two-beat trot, the Narragansett offered a smooth four-beat saddle gait, favored for its speed and comfort. In addition the breed had an amiable, courageous temperament vital in times of crisis. The Narragansetts were a direct derivative from Old English Ambler (palfreys) which had been taken across the Atlantic by the pioneers and later became extinct in Britain; and of course are the forerunners of today s American Saddlebred.” 

The Narragansett is now extinct. 

What happened to Brown Beauty?

Well, the horse was confiscated by the Redcoats that captured Paul Revere – um, no, he didn’t make it to Concord.

Legend has it that the sergeant that stole the horse from Revere rode her to death that night.  At any rate, the horse was never returned.

But Brown Beauty wasn’t the only Larkin family loss in 1775. 

According to the Larkin Genealogy page, “During the Battle of Bunker Hill, some British troops marched through the Boston suburb of Charlestown, Massachusetts, where the Larkin families lived. John's brother, Ebenezer Larkin (1740-1794), fired a musket from a window of his home at the British troops, who in reprisal, burned the Larkin homes to the ground. John Larkin and his family fled, unscathed, to Cambridge where they lived in a house once occupied by General Washington and later by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.”

Posted in Battle of Concord, Battle of Lexington, Paul Revere, The Players | Leave a comment