America’s History Conference in Glen Allen, Virginia, 27–29 Mar.

America’s History, L.L.C., will hold its thirteenth Annual Conference of the American Revolution in Glen Allen, Virginia, on 27–29 March.

Here’s the lineup of speakers:

• Richard “Rick” Bell on “The American Revolution and the Fate of the World”
• Todd W. Braisted on “‘You must expect to hear me talked of as a monster of cruelty’: Colonel Francis Lord Rawdon and the Revolutionary War”
• Denver Brunsman on “Prisoners, Press Gangs, and the Battle for Sailors in the Revolutionary War”
• Iris de Rode on “Something New to Think About: The Dutch in the American Revolution”
• William “Larry” Kidder on “Defending Fort Stanwix: New York’s Frontier During the Revolutionary War”
• Stephen L. Kling (the Lorna Hainesworth Sponsored Speaker) on “An Underappreciated Victory: Bernardo de Gálvez’s Mississippi River Campaign Against the British in 1779”
• Mark Edward Lender on “War Without Mercy: Liberty or Death in the American Revolution”
• Charles P. Neimeyer on “Revolutionary Riverine Warfare: The War for Independence on America’s Rivers and Lakes”
• Gordon Blaine Steffey on “‘Trust Not Professions’: Feuding Founders and Diplomatic Disorder in the Arthur Lee–Silas Deane Affair”
• Andrew Waters on “Backcountry War: The Rise of Francis Marion, Banastre Tarleton and Thomas Sumter”

In addition to the conference, attendees can sign up for a bus tour on Friday, 27 March, visiting Ferry Farm, Gunston Hall, and Historic St. John’s Church to learn about “More Virginia Founding Fathers: Essentially Important for Independence” from Edward G. Lengel and site staff.

For more information and registration, visit this page.

“All occupations resemble one another in some way…”

Back on 17 January, the New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie drew a historical parallel in an essay for his newsletter:

Not since the British occupation of Boston on the eve of the Revolutionary War has an American city experienced anything like the blockade of Minneapolis and its surrounding areas by the federal government. . . .

All occupations resemble one another in some way, and it is striking to read descriptions and accounts of the occupation of Boston in light of events in Minnesota. “Having to stomach a standing army in their midst, observe the redcoats daily, pass by troops stationed on Boston Neck who occupied a guardhouse on land illegally taken it was said from the town, and having to receive challenges by sentries on the streets, their own streets, affronted a people accustomed to personal liberty, fired their tempers, and gnawed away at their honor,” writes the historian Robert Middlekauff in “The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763 to 1789.”

“Harrison Gray, a prominent merchant and a member of the council, told soldiers who challenged him one evening that he was not obligated to respond,” writes Richard Archer of the same period in “As if an Enemy’s Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution.” “They retaliated by thrusting their bayonets toward his chest and detained him for half an hour.”

Harrison Gray (shown above) was the province’s treasurer, a future Loyalist. Yet he had the same complaint as resistance leader Samuel Adams, who as “Vindex” complained in 1768:

when these gentlemens attendants [i.e., soldiers] take upon them to call upon every one, who passes by, to know Who comes there as the phrase is, I take it to be in the highest degree impertinent, unless they can shew a legal authority for so doing.

There is something in it, which looks as if the town was altogether under the government & controul of the military power: And as long as the inhabitants are fully perswaded that this is not the case at present, and moreover hope and believe that it never will, it has a natural tendency to irritate the minds of all who have a just sense of honor, and think they have the privilege of walking the streets without being controul’d.

The British army’s occupation of Boston ended in the Massacre. Bouie drew a parallel between that event and federal agent Jonathan Ross’s killing of Renée Good. When his essay appeared, two still-unidentified agents had not yet killed Alex Pretti.

Though there are similarities, I’ve been wary about analogizing the Massacre to this month’s events in Minneapolis. For instance, the eight soldiers in King Street were much more vulnerable than the heavily armed and armored federal agents shoving people around. And those soldiers weren’t grabbing people off the street just because they didn’t look white.

Nonetheless, it’s hard not to be reminded of the past. Bouie concluded, “I think the administration is more likely to break…and learn, as the British did in Boston, that Americans are quite jealous of their liberties.”

“This rule narrows the concept of patriotism and patriotic education…”

Back in September, the U.S. Secretary of Education, former wrestling entertainment magnate Linda McMahon, announced that “Patriotic Education” would be a “supplemental priority” in the department’s grants.

The department’s press release defined that as “a civic education that teaches American history, values, and geography with an unbiased approach.”

However, the Federal Register’s proposed rule for this initiative, which carries more legal weight, offered a different definition of “Patriotic education”:

a presentation of the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles; a clear examination of how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history; and the concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified.

Words like “ennobling,” “admirably,” and “beneficial and justified” are obviously value judgments, contradicting the press release’s claim to seek “an unbiased approach.”

I believe the U.S. of A.’s founding principles are indeed inspiring and ennobling, and I wish the country had done and would do a better job of following those principles. It certainly hasn’t done so “throughout its history,” implying there have been no reverses. Not everyone shares my idea of those principles, furthermore.

The federal government invites citizens to comment on proposed rules. Many historical organizations spoke out about this one and urged their members to do so. I’ll quote the American Historical Association’s talking points because I think they’re sensible and well put.

Students deserve an honest and full account of US history. This funding priority promises to support the teaching of “accurate and honest” content. We consider this goal profoundly important, and this is why we are concerned about efforts to scrub historical content from federal websites, remove factual signage at historic sites, and attack curatorial decisions at Smithsonian museums, alleging that this history is insufficiently celebratory in its depiction of the United States. . . .

We do not need to think alike in order to find common purpose; the founders of the United States found common purpose amid multiple conflicts and divisions. The proposed Department of Education priority states that “a shared understanding of our political, economic, intellectual, and cultural history—including our national symbols and heroes” is a prerequisite for informed patriotism. The founding generation of the United States did not have a shared understanding of their history, their symbols, or their heroes; nor have subsequent generations. US patriotism is diverse and multifaceted and it is capacious enough to include even those who are critical and skeptical about patriotism.

The Department of Education’s rule asserts that there can only be one interpretation of an event, an assertion that runs contrary to the practice of history and the importance of allowing people to engage in civil deliberations. Disagreement also is a strength of our political system and not a flaw. The US Constitution’s First Amendment recognizes this when embracing freedom of assembly, petition, press, religion, and speech. . . .

This rule narrows the concept of patriotism and patriotic education, with a disproportionate focus on the Founding Era, a period when most Americans could not vote, when many were enslaved, and before the US Constitution explicitly embraced “equal protection.” American history does not stop in 1800, and it should be presented in a way that allows students to explore multiple periods, consider various perspectives, and draw their own informed conclusions. . . .

The commemoration of the 250th anniversary of American independence must provide opportunities for all Americans to learn from our shared history, one that includes recognition of the complex challenges, aspirations, and struggles across this history to enact a more perfect union.

The comment period has passed, though this federal website says citizens are still posting their responses. In fact, it looks like most comments have arrived this month. I don’t know when the department might issue a rule and apply it to educational grants.

Historical Signage Removed at Independence National Park

Back in September, I shared news reports of the Trump White House complaining about signs at the Presidential House site in Independence National Historical Park.

That mansion, now gone, was the home of Presidents George Washington and John Adams in the 1790s. During Washington’s time, it was a site of enslavement—and of self-liberation.

Two of the Washington’s staff, Oney Judge and Hercules Posey, escaped from bondage at that house and made their way to free lives in New Hampshire and New York, respectively. (Boston 1775 readers might recall this blog played a tiny part in documenting Posey’s presence in New York.)

In erecting brick walls to show the outline of the mansion, the National Park Service also developed detailed signage to interpret the history of that site for visitors. That’s standard N.P.S. procedure, with the material going through many reviews for accuracy.

Last week, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that N.P.S. workers had acted under orders to remove all those signs. All that remains now is a list of the people documented as enslaved in President Washington’s household, etched in cement. (And I have no idea how long that list will remain visible.)

I first read complaints about commemorating slavery at Independence N.H.P. over twenty years ago on the Revlist discussion group. I pointed out that this was also a story of people gaining their liberty and independence, so what park could be more fitting?

The objector was unwilling to recognize that freedom for black Americans was more significant than comfort for white Americans. That same attitude is evident in the current trumpery from the White House.

This President’s respect for historical fact is evident in his June 2024 comment on Washington owning slaves: “Actually I think he probably didn’t.” Likewise his 4 July 2019 statement about how the Continental “Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports,…”

After years of complaints that any community’s removal or alteration of a statue or monument was tantamount to erasing history, this administration is literally erasing history from a public site. But only a particular sort of history. 

“How should patriotic Americans think about political violence”?

On 15 January, Prof. Johann Neem shared an essay titled “The Problem of Violence in Authoritarian America.” Here’s a sample:

No American should be shot so easily or blithely. In a country where, as Tom Paine put it, the law is king, we are entitled to due process. Instead, we have become victims of state violence encouraged by the Trump regime’s policies, statements, and values. Trump has permitted federal agents to use illegal amounts of force; ICE agents now regularly assault Americans on the streets, in their cars, and in their homes. . . .

As Trump expands his rule, we must ask ourselves unsettling—and unsettled—questions about the role of violence: How should patriotic Americans think about political violence, and what might we learn from our Revolutionary political tradition?

At first glance, the answers to these questions are easy: violence in a constitutional democratic republic is never permitted. Democracies require citizens to embrace disagreement and accept the outcome of free, fair elections.

But we are no longer living in a free state. Under Trump, the Constitution is no longer active. The rule of law has ended. Donald Trump has deployed lies, violence, and lawlessness to amass power. As I have written before, Trump’s violation of his oath of office means that he is no longer the constitutional president of the United States. We Americans are now subjects of an arbitrary regime ruled by a tyrant. Under Trump, the federal government has become the enemy of the American people. We are subject to force, not law. . . .

In our current context, conversations about violence are complicated because our political tradition recognizes the legitimacy of violence against tyrants but denies the legitimacy of violence by tyrants. Two and a half centuries ago, when the colonists found themselves in a similar situation, the leaders of the patriot cause had to explain why they had embraced violent resistance against their own government. They did so in Continental Congress’s 1775 “Declaration…[on] the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.”

The situation was fraught. America’s resistance leaders in Congress had hoped to resolve differences between the colonists and England peacefully through meetings, petitions, and boycotts. Yet as Americans faced an increasingly hostile British government, patience was running out and the people got ahead of the opposition’s leaders. In April 1775, patriotic Minutemen at Lexington and Concord showed up to prevent British soldiers, then occupying Boston, from seizing arms in the Massachusetts countryside. Soon after, Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain Boys and colonial militiamen stormed Fort Ticonderoga.

Similarly, today, we see incidents in which protestors are getting increasingly unwilling to stay out of ICE’s way as Trump’s agents cross line after line that protects Americans from arbitrary force, arrest, and imprisonment, as the Cato Institute recently concluded. Most protestors are peaceful and obeying the law—but deciding what counts as lawful becomes harder when federal agents act violently and unlawfully. . . .

As our patriotic forebears 250 years ago understood, we too have a responsibility to our children and future generations who deserve to live in a free country. Violence is always a last resort. But at some point, some people in some city may be pushed to cross a line that most of us never want to cross. Just as [the] Continental Congress struggled with how to respond, so will we. The answer of what to do next is not easy or simple. The question we must all start asking ourselves, then, is how we will respond if that time comes, hoping and acting all along to prevent it from arriving.

Over a week later, as I type this, we see multiple videos of how I.C.E. agents approached, shoved, tackled, beat, maced, and finally shot observer Alex Pretti several times, killing him on the street. Along with the shooting of Renée Good, that made I.C.E. agents responsible for 66% of all homicides in Minneapolis so far this year.

The day before those agents killed Pretti, tens of thousands of local citizens braved harsh winter weather to march peacefully against federal oppression (shown in the photo at top). As Neem says, it’s hard to see Americans remaining committed to such peaceful protest if the forces of trumpery try to maintain their tyranny. 

Talking about “The Spark” on The Object of History

Last April I spoke at the U.S.S. Constitution Museum by invitation of the Paul Revere House on the topic “The Reasons for Revere’s Ride.”

I decided not to stick to the events of 1774–75, or even 1765–75. I dug further back into why Boston, of all the parts of the British Empire, was the epicenter of resistance to the Crown’s new revenue measures.

My first reason was: Puritanism, and its effects. Later came: General Economic Anxiety. And a crucial ingredient for heightening the crisis: Crown Crackdowns.

That talk wasn’t recorded, and I started thinking about turning it into an article. But before I could get around to that, folks at the Massachusetts Historical Society invited me to speak about the same question for their podcast, The Object of History.

Here’s what the M.H.S. has just announced for “The Spark: How Boston Ignited the American Revolution”:

Season 5 of The Object of History is dedicated to topics related to the American Revolution. On this first episode, we ask several historians for their thoughts on why Boston helped light the spark of the American Revolution. Was there something unique about Boston's community or geography that made it prone to a rebellious spirit?

We sit down with J. L. Bell, Historian of the Revolutionary Era in Massachusetts, Garrett Dash Nelson, President & Head Curator at the Leventhal Map & Education Center at the Boston Public Library, and Kathryn Lasdow, Assistant Professor of History and Director of Public History at Suffolk University, to answer this question.

And here’s the link.

“A Fine Train of Artillery” Talk in Cambridge, 29 Jan.

On Thursday, 29 January, I’ll contribute to the discourse about Col. Henry Knox’s artillery trek with the talk on “‘A Fine Train of Artillery’: Henry Knox and the End of the Siege of Boston” at the Longfellow House–Washington’s Headquarters National Historic Site in Cambridge.

In the past few months I’ve already shared my take on the myths and realities of the Knox saga, and on Knox’s political profile before the war and how that might have contributed to his rise to command the artillery regiment.

For this new talk, therefore, I’m focusing on what Knox accomplished on his first military mission and how that affected the siege of Boston. Here’s our event description:

On January 18, 1776, Gen. William Heath wrote, “Col. Knox, of the artillery, came to camp. He brought from Ticonderoga a fine train of artillery.” Those 58 guns would nearly double the size of the Continental artillery force. But Gen. George Washington and his commanders still had to figure out the best way to use their new ordnance before they could drive the British military out of Boston.

Gen. Washington’s first proposal appears in his 18 February letter to John Hancock as chairman of the Continental Congress:

The late freezing Weather having formed some pretty strong Ice from Dorchester point to Boston Neck and from Roxbury to the Common, therby affording a more expanded and consequently a less dangerous Approach to the Town, I could not help thinking, notwithstanding the Militia were not all come In, and we had little or no Powder to begin our Operation by a regular Cannonade & Bombardment, that a bold & resolute Assault upon the Troops in Boston with such Men as we had (for it could not take Many Men to guard our own Lines at a time when the Enemy were attackd in all Quarters) might be crown’d with success . . .

from a thorough conviction of the necessity of attempting something against the Ministerial Troops before a Re-inforcement should arrive, and while we were favour’d with the Ice, I was not only ready, but willing and desirous of making the Assault; under a firm hope, if the Men would have stood by me, of a favourable Issue; notwithstanding the Enemy’s advantage of Ground—Artillery—&ca.

An infantry charge across the flat ice of the inner harbor against the British army’s fortified batteries on the Common and in the South End. What could go wrong?

This talk is due to start at 6 P.M. It’s free and open to the public, but because of limited seating the site asks people to register in advance. We’re working on how to record and/or livestream the talk as well.

Knox Trail Commemorations on 24–26 Jan.

By this date 250 years ago, Col. Henry Knox had checked in with his commander, Gen. George Washington, in Cambridge.

The artillery that Knox had moved from Fort Ticonderoga was, Gen. William Heath wrote, “ordered to be stopped at Framingham.”

Those guns needed to be mounted and equipped for use, a process that would take a few more weeks.

This weekend, the commemoration of Knox’s artillery train will continue with events in several Massachusetts towns.

Saturday, 24 January, noon to 2 P.M.
Demonstration of Knox’s Noble Train
Bidwell Park, Stockbridge

This display of costumed educators from Fort Ticonderoga, a non-firing reproduction cannon, and two friendly oxen is part of “A Day In Revolutionary Stockbridge (1775-1783),” which runs from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. and marks several moments during the war.

The Mission House will be set up as a tavern with tea, hot chocolate, and baked goods. At the town library, Dennis Picard will discuss eighteenth-century food. Outside the library, Prado del Lana will show her Lincoln Longwool sheep. At the Bidwell Museum and Procter Gallery, museum staff will discuss cooking and other domestic tasks.

Multiple first-person historic interpretations are scheduled from 10 A.M to 1:30 P.M.:

• Theodore Sedgwick preparing for the Elizabeth Freeman case (Bement Room)
• Anna Bingham and Abigail Dwight discussing taverns and doing business as women (Red Lion Inn small parlor)
• Thomas Williams, highest-ranking military officer from Stockbridge to die during the war, recounting the siege of Boston (various locales)
• Timothy and Rhoda Edwards, storekeepers, community leaders, and relatives of Col. Aaron Burr (Mission House)
• Members of the 2nd Massachusetts Regiment (various locales)

The afternoon will bring two larger presentations:

• Stockbridge Committee of Safety court scenario (2 to 3 P.M. in the library lobby)
• Gregg Duffek and JoAnn Schedler on Mohican Veterans (3 to 4 P.M. in the Bement Room)

Cards with a map and a list of programs will be available at the Stockbridge library and Red Lion Inn. For what’s currently planned, see this page.

Saturday, 24 January, 11 A.M.
Noble Train of Artillery: The Knox Expedition
Bartlett Park and Jacobs Hall Masonic Lodge, Marlborough

The Marlborough Historical Society commemorates Knox’s mission with the town’s own newly acquired cannon and J. Archer O’Reilly III portraying the general and secretary of war. Organizers ask attendees to register in advance so there will be enough refreshments for all.

Sunday, 25 January, 1:30 to 3 P.M.
“Were so lucky as to get the Cannon out of the River”: Henry Knox and His Noble Train of Artillery
Westford Museum

Alexander Cain will discuss Knox’s journey and its impact on the Continental Army’s firepower and the American cause. At Fort Ticonderoga, the colonel selected 58 artillery pieces, including immense 12-, 18-, and 24-pounders. Once they were ready, some of that artillery was positioned on Dorchester Heights, forcing the British evacuation of Boston. Cain explores Knox’s mission transformed the Continental Army’s firepower while embodying the ingenuity and determination that defined the American cause. Learn more about this presentation.

Sunday, 25 January, 4 to 6 P.M.
Henry Knox: Presentation and Cannon Firing
Martha Mary Chapel, Wayside Inn, Sudbury

Local writer Steven Glovsky explores the improbabilities and inconsistencies of Henry Knox’s story, leading up to his undertaking the transport of urgently needed cannon in the winter of 1775–76. The presentation will be followed by cannon fire from Crane’s Third Artillery.

Monday, 26 January, 7 to 8:30 P.M.
Ethan Allen, Benedict Arnold and the Gibraltar of North America
Aeronaut Brewing Company, Somerville

The Somerville Museum presents the first of two talks by Dan Breen on the subject of “Henry Knox and His Noble Train of Artillery” in the sociable space of a brew pub. This evening will cover the story of Fort Carillon/Ticonderoga, its improbable capture, and Col. Knox’s arrival six months later. The second installment, scheduled for 9 February, will complete the tale with “The Noble Train Arrives: Knox, Washington and the End of the Siege.”

“Also embarked Colonel Richard Prescott”

In late 1774 the British 7th Regiment, known as the Royal Fusiliers, was stationed southwest of Montréal, guarding the frontier of the British Empire.

But its commanding officer, Col. Richard Prescott (shown here), wasn’t with them.

The 17 October New-York Gazette reported:

On Thursday Morning last Major General [Frederick] Haldimand embarked on board the Transport named the Countess of Darlington, attended by Major of Brigade [Thomas] Moncrieff, Capt. Thomas Gamble, Assistant Quarter-Master General, Captain [Dietrich] Brehm, Aid de Camp, and Captain [Francis] Hutcheson;

with General Haldimand also embarked Colonel Richard Prescott of his Majesty’s Royal Fusileers, a Company of the Royal Artillery, with a large Quantity of Ordnance Stores for Castle-William.

Also headed to Boston were the 47th Regiment, three companies of “the Royal Regiment of Ireland” (18th), an artillery company, and artificers to build barracks.

Those transport ships arrived on Sunday, 23 October, as reported four days later in the Boston News-Letter. This was part of Gen. Thomas Gage’s military build-up after the “Powder Alarm.” Indeed, by the end of the year the 7th would be one of the few regiments in North America not stationed inside Boston.

Col. Prescott was still in Boston when the war began because on 12 June 1775 Gen. Gage wrote to the Secretary of War, Viscount Barrington, that “Colonel Prescot, now declared Brigadier,…is going to Canada to Assist General [Guy] Carleton.”

In addition, this 1905 publication by the Canadian Archives stated that Gage sent the same news that day to Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary of State: “The Colonel Prescott goes immediately to Canada to assist General Carleton, for I hear the Rebels, after surprising Ticonderoga, made Incursions, and committed Hostilities upon the Frontiers of the Province of Quebec…” I haven’t found a copy of that letter in Gage’s papers at the Clements Library, but its online database and transcriptions are still a work in progress.

Thus, through the first half of October 1774 Col. (later Gen.) Richard Prescott was in New York, where Hugh Gaine printed A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston, as discussed here.

Prescott then sailed north. Eight days after he arrived, booksellers Cox and Berry advertised that pamphlet for sale in Boston.

As a senior officer in Gage’s force, particularly one not engrossed in the daily duty of his regiment, Prescott had the motive and opportunity to pen advice from a “Veteran” to younger officers. He was much closer to the situation in Boston than his younger brother Robert.

When William Tudor, Jr., recorded that people said A Letter from a Veteran was written by “General Prescott,” he most likely meant Richard Prescott.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The Younger General Prescott

Bibliography abhors a vacuum.

Once William Tudor, Jr., suggested in print that “General Prescott” deserved credit for writing the 1774 pamphlet A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston, cataloguers didn’t want to ignore that suggestion. It was better to share some possibly correct information than to leave a blank, right?

No matter that Tudor didn’t seem certain, or offer a reason to believe that attribution. He was a solid researcher, for the early nineteenth century. His parents had been in Boston before the war. His mother, Delia Jarvis, was from a Loyalist family who knew British army officers. So his info might have been accurate.

In the early twentieth century, bibliographers started to surmise that “General Prescott” might mean Robert Prescott (1726?–1815, shown above), a veteran of the Seven Years’ War who eventually became governor general of the Canadas. Most of those attributions remained tentative, but his was the only name put forward, so gradually it came to seem more solid.

I’m skeptical. In 1774, when A Letter from a Veteran appeared in New York, Robert Prescott was almost certainly in Britain, living on his half-pay pension as a lieutenant colonel mustered out of the 72nd Regiment. He hadn’t served on the North American mainland since 1760.

While it’s conceivable that Lt. Col. Prescott followed the political debates over America closely, wrote an essay responding to American Whig arguments and analyzing the cultures of different colonies, and sent it across the Atlantic to be published, that seems unlikely.

On 8 Sept 1775 Robert Prescott was called back into service, now lieutenant colonel in the 28th Regiment. He reached New York with the 1776 invasion force. After fighting on the mainland and in the Caribbean, he gained the rank of general in 1781. And his military and administrative career would continue. He never appears to have claimed A Letter from a Veteran as his own, or to have published other political essays. 

Is there any better candidate for “General Prescott”?

Robert’s older brother Richard Prescott (1725–1788) gained the rank of general a few years before him, early in the Revolutionary War. Richard’s regiment, the 7th or King’s Fusiliers, was in North America in 1774. So is Richard more likely to have been the author of A Letter from a Veteran?

The main problem with that hypothesis is that in 1774 the 7th Regiment was stationed in western Canada, practically as distant from New York as London was.

TOMORROW: A paper trail.

“It was attributed to General Prescott”

After the British army and the New England provincials went to war in April 1775, people stopped worrying about political pamphlets like A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston.

John Adams broke off his “Novanglus” essays. The New York printer Hugh Gaine struggled to remain politically balanced, literally printing on both sides of the conflict. Most prewar essays fell into obscurity.

Nearly half a century after A Letter from a Veteran appeared, William Tudor, Jr. (1770–1830, shown here), wrote about it in The Life of James Otis, of Massachusetts:

A few of the officers felt an esteem for the people, and were reluctant to engage in a civil war, which they knew would bring great misfortunes upon the country, and as they supposed, overwhelm it. There was to much folly and disgusting arrogance in many of the subalterns, and careless ignorance about the whole subject of dispute, that one of their superior officers published a small pamphlet, entitled, “A letter from a Veteran to the Officers of the army encamped at Botton.” It is remarkably well written, and while it justifies his own government, reproves the frivolity and rashness that treated the Americans with contempt. It was attributed to General Prescott.

Tudor didn’t state a source for this information, and the expression “It was attributed” suggests he wasn’t completely sure about it.

That book might have given the pamphlet more visibility. James Fenimore Cooper took a passage from A Letter from a Veteran (imperfectly cited) as a chapter epigraph in his 1825 novel Lionel Lincoln: or, The Leaguer of Boston. His protagonist was a British army officer with conflicting loyalties.

Tudor’s emphasis on how A Letter from a Veteran “reproves” British officers who showed contempt for Americans might also have given people a false sense of its overall argument. It expressed very little sympathy for New Englanders.

In 1860 a catalogue of the Massachusetts Historical Society library attributed A Letter from a Veteran to, of all people, Col. William Prescott, the commander of the provincial redoubt at Bunker Hill.

That made no sense. William Prescott was never a high officer in the regular British army or, so far as I see, any sort a general. He wasn’t a political writer, and he certainly wouldn’t have published a criticism of New England religious zealotry.

Nonetheless, the attribution to William Prescott was repeated in other American publications for the rest of the nineteenth century.

TOMORROW: General Prescott and General Prescott.

“The supposed Author of a Pamphlet”?

The pamphlet titled A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston didn’t specify an author, printer, or place of printing, simply the date of 1774.

The earliest mention of this publication that I’ve found is an advertisement from the bookselling firm of Cox and Berry in the 31 October Boston Post-Boy. (Price: “6d. Sterling.”)

Edward Cox and Edward Berry were British by birth, and Isaiah Thomas wrote they went back across the Atlantic during the war. So it makes sense that they would sell a pamphlet said to be by a British officer for other British officers. 

Nobody claimed that the Letter from a Veteran was actually printed in Boston, however. The 10 November New-York Journal stated: “[Hugh] Gaine, has lately published, or at least sells, a pamphlet, called ‘a Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army, encamped at Boston.’”

An item in the 8 December New-York Journal listed A Letter from a Veteran first among “Several pamphlets…lately published by Mr. [James] Rivington and Mr. Gain.”

Modern analysis has confirmed that supposition. In a bibliography supplied to the Colonial Society of Massachusetts in 1956, Thomas Randolph Adams wrote that A Letter from a Veteran “has been assigned to Gaine because all but one of the eleven type ornaments used in this pamphlet are also found in the Laws…of the City of New York also printed by him in 1774.”

As for the author, people had different ideas at the time. On 17 November the New-York Journal published an open letter signed “A Friend to the Liberties of Mankind” which started:

To D——r ————‚ the supposed Author of a Pamphlet (which has made its appearance within a few Days) intitled, A Letter from a Veteran to the Officers of the Army at Boston…

That letter then began “Revd. Sir.” It sneered that the “Veteran” hadn’t really been educated as “a soldier” but had simply “assumed” that identity. (I quoted that article’s criticism of the whole “infamous Piece” yesterday.)

Obviously, the “Friend of the Liberties of Mankind” believed the author of A Letter from a Veteran was a minister with a doctorate. The Rev. Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler fits that description, and he was writing other pro-Crown pamphlets at the time. But later when he listed his political publications for the Loyalists Commission, Chandler didn’t claim to be the “Veteran.”

TOMORROW: A postwar attribution.

“To incense the Soldiery against the People of the Massachusetts Bay”?

Yesterday I quoted from a pamphlet titled A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston, which appeared in the fall of 1774.

Readers of the time recognized that its author was encouraging those officers to carry out stern measures against the Patriot resistance—but to be polite about it.

An essay in the 17 November New-York Journal called the publication “infamous” and said:

the Writer makes use of every Argument in his Power, to incense the Soldiery against the People of the Massachusetts Bay; and to stimulate them to shed the Blood of their Fellow Subjects, in America: without the least Reluctance, or Remorse.

However, because A Letter from a Veteran was obviously written by an educated, erudite person, and because its argument was founded on British Whig principles, other colonial politicians didn’t feel they could just dismiss it as war-mongering propaganda.

In The Other Side of the Question; or, A Defence of the Liberties of North-America, Philip Livingston (shown here) anonymously wrote:

Not long since I saw a Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army at Boston: I pray the author to receive my thanks, for the great pleasure enjoyed in the reading of it. I think I could easily perceive in it, the traces of that manly, generous, brave, and free disposition; which mark the character of the Soldier and the Gentleman.

If, to his share some little errors fall,
View his kind heart, and you forgive them all.

Livingston then proceeded to say the Veteran’s pamphlet was so much better than his main target, the Rev. Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler’s A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans on Our Political Confusions, that “comparisons are odious.” 

John Adams also felt a need to reply to A Letter from a Veteran. He did so in his first, third, and fifth “Novanglus” letters, in the midst of his lengthier responses to “Massachusettensis.”

Adams praised the “Veteran” for “his honesty,” “his taste, and manly spirit.” He called the anonymous author “honest amiable” and “frank.” Of course, Adams thought that author was all wrong in his conclusions: the principles they agreed on should apply fully to the American colonies and offered a solid basis for resistance.

In Political Ideas of the American Revolution (1922), Randolph Greenfield Adams said A Letter from a Veteran “has a good deal more merit than Adams allowed.” Most recently, Mark Somos in American States of Nature (2019) said the writer offered “a trenchant criticism of political theory, and of the American revolutionaries’ application of it to real life.”

TOMORROW: So where did this pamphlet come from?

“Hopes for the deluded Inhabitants of New-England”?

Looking at the Rev. Charles Inglis’s political writing in 1774 led me to another pamphlet from that year: A Letter from a Veteran, to the Officers of the Army Encamped at Boston.

This political essay started off by reiterating a lot of British Whig understandings. But about halfway through it veered into an argument that the political leaders of New England had gone far beyond those principles, driven by the same fanaticism as their Puritan ancestors.

The author concluded that Massachusetts deserved to be restrained by force—though he also cautioned his fellow army officers from going too far themselves, or behaving impolitely.

Here’s a sampling:

THE Principles of Mr. [John] Locke, are noble, benevolent, and in general true, or ought to be so; but the Application of them to particular Cases, is wild and Utopian; even in Idea and in Practice, dangerous to the extremest Degree. Adopted in private Life, they would introduce perpetual Discord; in the State perpetual Anarchy. The least Failure in the reciprocal Duties of Worship and Obedience in the matrimonial Contract, would justify a Divorce. In the political Compact, the smallest Defect in the Prince, a Revolution.

Now I cannot think so ill of this Country [America] as to believe there are many People in it, like the Men [Jonathan] Swift speaks of, who used to swear “the more Revolutions the better.” The Web is too finely spun, for common Use; subject every Moment to be torn in Pieces, even by the gentlest Hand; and fit only for the Cabinets of the Curious. . . .

We have many of us lived in the Pleasures of their Society, shared in the Hospitality of their Tables, and in the Offices of their Friendship. We have been long good Friends, may we ever remain so. Let us hope that they will remember, there is a golden Mean in every Thing, in Liberty, even in Virtue itself; that the Fit of Peevishness and Passion will subside, before it is too late, and give Place to sober and cool Reflection; and that the delightful Current of Peace and Tranquillity, may return once more into its old Channel.

WOULD to God we could form the same Hopes for the deluded Inhabitants of New-England; but they have already advanced too far to retreat; the Sword is suspended over their Heads by a single Hair, and nothing but the immediate Hand of Heaven, can avert the Misery that awaits them. . . .

CAN we wonder at these infatuated unhappy People? Descended as they are, from Men who carried their Notions in Religion, to the wildest Fanaticism; their Principles in Government, to the utmost possible extreme of Liberty; dropt in a Corner of the World, uncontroled for Generations, by the Authority of the parent Country, inheriting such dangerous Opinions; by the Blood of their Ancestors, imbibing them from the Breasts of their Mothers, until, by the Contagion of general Manners, and by the pious Aid of the very Men who were consecrated to instruct their Consciences, in Morality and the Meekness of the Gospel, it ripened into Sedition, as the immediate Word of God, as if they had heard it with their own Ears, from the burning Bush, and ended in Rebellion.

To Men born and educated under such Circumstances, excluded in a great Measure by their Situation, from the beneficial Intercourse and Examination of the Effects of different Opinions and Principles; it is not easy to emerge from Darkness to Light, and to see the World in its true Colours.

The Popularity of their old Government, and the interior Policy of their Townships, have contributed much to their Blindness; from these they have collected all the technical Terms in Politicks, and a huge Stock of sonorous Words, which serve them for Logick; have the same Effect upon their Understandings, and a much greater upon their Passions. . . .

LET us, Gentlemen, who are the Instruments of this Punishment, act our Parts in this sad Scene like brave Soldiers, like true Gentlemen, not like Rioters; Gibes, Reproaches, hard Names, make no Part of the Punishment alloted them; the dispassionate Judges of our merciful Courts, are Counsel for the very Criminals whom the Laws enjoin them to condemn; these are not Times for Merriment and Buffoonery, let us reserve our Wit and our Humour, if we happen to have it, for the Tables of our Friends.

TOMORROW: The responses.