“Never made the least attempt to shake off the authority of Great-Britain”

Last month I profiled the Rev. Samuel Madden, the Irish minister who in 1733 was the first person to write fiction based on time travel—a book he suppressed immediately after printing.

Madden wasn’t the only eighteenth-century author to imagine a future George VI, however.

In 1763 the London printer William Nicoll published The Reign of George VI, its author anonymous. It’s scanned here.

This book discusses the years 1900–1925. It praises the future fictional George VI (not the real one who took the throne in 1936) based on ideas in The Patriot King (1749) by Viscount Bolingbroke and thoughts of where the British Empire might go after victory over the French.

The Reign of George VI says interesting things about the British territories across the Atlantic Ocean:

But the immense region of country which the English possessed in North America, was what most extended and forwarded the British manufactures; the King was there Sovereign of a tract of much greater extent than all Europe:

the constitution of the several divisions of that vast monarchy, was admirably designed to keep the whole in continual dependance on the mother country: there were eleven millions of souls in the British American dominions in the year 1920: they were in possession of, perhaps the finest country in the world, and yet had never made the least attempt to shake off the authority of Great-Britain:

indeed, the multiplicity of governments which prevailed over the whole country —— the various constitutions of them, rendered the execution of such a scheme absolutely impossible.

This wide extended region which increased its people so surprisingly fast, was far from being forgot by the King; many noble harbours were surrounded with towns, and made naval magazines; a prodigious number of ships were built by order, from Great-Britain; and the royal navy itself boasted many very fine ships that were built in America.

On the one hand, the author contemplated the chance that American colonists would “shake off the authority of Great-Britain.” On the other, he or she quickly dismissed the possibility that the American colonies could unite to do that or feel “forgot by the King”—a lesson for George III.

In 1899 the Oxford military historian Charles Oman edited and published a second edition of The Reign of George VI, and that in turn was reprinted in 1972. However, Oman’s text included “omissions, rearrangements of sentence order, repunctuation, and other silent variations from the original,” Fred Anderson wrote in his essay about the 1763 Treaty of Paris in The Making of Peace.

The original text of The Reign of George VI has since been printed in the first volume of British Future Fiction, 1700-1914. It occasionally gets mixed up with Madden’s earlier book, or he gets credited for this one.

In Invasions: Fears and Fantasies of Imagined Wars in Britain, 1871–1918, Christian K. Melby suggested that Oman’s republication of The Reign of George VI fed the craze for invasion literature that swept Britain in the early twentieth century. However, since that trend was already under way when the book resurfaced, the influence may have gone the other way—the Oxford scholar tripping across an old title that seemed to fit surprisingly well with modern concerns.

From Hugh Smithson to the Duke of Northumberland

In 1742 a baby was born in England and baptized with the name Hugh Smithson.

His father was Sir Hugh Smithson, baronet (1714–1786), which made the little boy heir to that hereditary knighthood. Sir Hugh had served in House of Commons and filled several royal offices before inheriting that title from his grandfather.

The baby’s mother had been born in 1716 as Elizabeth Seymour, only daughter of Lord Algernon Seymour, son and heir of the Duke of Somerset. Lord Algernon also served in Parliament and as an army officer and colonial governor. In 1722 a clerical error had made him Baron Percy, granting him a title from his mother.

In October 1749 the Crown made Sir Hugh Smithson the first Baron Warkworth. The family barely had time to adjust to that before more significant changes happened. First, in January 1750, young Hugh got a baby brother named Algernon, after their maternal grandfather.

In February, that grandfather died. He had recently acquired more noble titles—Duke of Somerset, Earl of Hertford, Earl of Northumberland, Earl of Egremont, Baron Cockermouth (really), and so on. However, he had no direct male heirs. Therefore, by special arrangements his titles were doled out to his nephews, cousin, and son-in-law.

Baron Warkworth became Earl of Northumberland. In exchange, he petitioned Parliament to change his family’s surname to Percy; that law was passed in April.

Seven-year-old Hugh Smithson thus became Hugh Percy, but because he was now the oldest son of an earl, as a courtesy he was addressed by his father’s lesser title as Lord Warkworth.

Under that title, Hugh joined the British army. Within a year, still aged only seventeen, he was captain of a company. He saw action at the battles of Bergen and Minden. After a short time at Cambridge University, in 1763 Lord Warkworth was elected to the House of Commons as a member for Westminster. The next year, he married a daughter of the Earl of Bute, the former prime minister. By then he was a colonel.

In 1766 the colonel’s father, the Earl of Northumberland, was granted higher titles: Duke of Northumberland and Earl Percy. The latter rank became the courtesy title for his son Hugh.

That’s why the army colonel who served as Gen. Thomas Gage’s second-in-command at the start of the Revolutionary War was referred to as Hugh, Earl Percy. When his mother died in 1776, he inherited the barony of Percy in his own right, but fortunately that didn’t require people to call him by a new name.

In 1786 Lord Percy’s father died, and he became the second Duke of Northumberland. By special arrangement, his younger brother Algernon (then sitting in the House of Commons) inherited a new title, Baron Lovaine; four years later he was made the Earl of Beverley. (They also had an illegitimate half-brother named Jacques-Louis Macie and then James Smithson, who endowed the Smithsonian Institution.)

On the Trail of Capt.-Lt. John Goldfinch

In Lt. William Browne’s deposition about the Boston Massacre, quoted yesterday, The senior officer in the 14th Regiment that he referred to was “captain lieutenant [John] Goldfinch.”

By courtesy, captain-lieutenants and lieutenant-colonels were addressed by the higher version of their rank, so Capt.-Lt. John Goldfinch usually shows up in records from colonial Boston as just “Captain Goldfinch.”

Goldfinch provided his own deposition what happened on 5 Mar 1770, describing how he broke up a fight earlier in the evening and then responded to the military alarm after the shooting.

The captain-lieutenant said nothing in that document about his most significant role in the Massacre, however. Between those two episodes he chose to ignore wigmaker’s apprentice Edward Garrick calling out to him to pay his barber’s bill. (In court Goldfinch said he’d just paid that bill, so recently that he still had the receipt in his pocket, but he wasn’t about to answer an apprentice shouting in the street.)

Young Garrick was the opening witness in the trial of Capt. Thomas Preston, and an anonymous observer for the Crown reported his testimony this way:

Edward Gerrish. . . . I heard a noise about 8 Clock and went down to Royal Exchange lane. Saw some Persons with Sticks coming up Quaker lane. I said Capt. Goldsmith owed my fellow Prentice. He [Pvt. Hugh White] said he was a Gentleman and would pay every body. I said there was none in the Regiment.

I used that passage in my early article about the politicization of Boston’s youth and elsewhere. But quoting it is always hindered by the fact that it calls the officer “Goldsmith” instead of Goldfinch. Then again, the document calls the boy “Gerrish” instead of Garrick.

Most likely the note-taker got the names wrong. It’s also possible young Garrick didn’t remember the captain-lieutenant as accurately as he believed.

But in looking for clues about William Browne this month, I found that people got Goldfinch’s name wrong a lot.

The 22–29 Sept 1759 Universal Chronicle in London reported the promotion to lieutenant in the 14th Regiment of Joseph Goldfinch. Likewise, he appeared on the 1767 Army List as Lt. Joseph Goldfinch.

Goldfinch’s deposition in A Fair Account of the Late Unhappy Disturbance at Boston, printed in 1770, was signed Capt.-Lt. John Goldfinch. In all the other parts of the Massacre trial records but Garrick’s testimony, people agree his last name as Goldfinch.

Then the 1771 Army List listed Capt.-Lt. John Goldsmith.

On the 1772 list he was back to Capt.-Lt. John Goldfinch.

On 2 Mar 1772, the War Office reported that John Goldfinch had resigned his post as captain-lieutenant, to be replaced by Lt. John Stanton.

In the period of the long s that looked a lot like an f, it must have been easy to confuse the names of Goldfinch and Goldsmith. But the shift from Joseph to John is weird. Sadly, considering that the name John Goldfinch is a lot less common than William Brown(e), I haven’t found more about this man.

Lt. Browne “hearing the drum beat to arms”

Yesterday I finally noted that Capt. William Browne, who was in the thick of the action in early 1775 as a spy and an army officer, had also been in Boston from 1768 to 1770. He was then a lieutenant in the 14th Regiment.

In fact, we might have Capt. Browne’s description of the night of the Boston Massacre.

After that confrontation, the army and the Loyalist justice of the peace James Murray compiled testimony from soldiers and officers about their side of the conflict. Customs Commissioner John Robinson carried those depositions to London, where they were published in a book titled A Fair Account of the Late Unhappy Disturbance at Boston.

One of those depositions, dated 13 March, reads:

I William Brown, junior, lieutenant in the 14th regiment of foot, do swear, that on the evening of Monday the 5th of March, 1770, being in company with lieutenant [Daniel] Mattear, ensigns [William] Napier and [Henry] Hallwood, in the quarters appropriated for part of the officers of the 14th regiment, between the hours of nine and ten o’clock, I was alarmed with an extraordinary ringing of bells, and the words “Turn out,” which continued some time, and then ceased a little; but on the bells beginning to ring again, and hearing the drum beat to arms, I prepared to go to the barracks;

at this time, captain lieutenant [John] Goldfinch coming in, the gentlemen then ready went along with him, leaving lieutenant [Alexander] Ross and myself, who presently followed. All along Queen’s-street, and King-street, we were pursued by a number of people with clubs and sticks, calling out, “Here goes two more; kill them, kill them;”

on turning into Quakers-lane, I received a blow across the neck with a stick thrown at me, another being aimed, passed with great violence, and numbers rushing in, I was separated from lieutenant Ross, and followed with the cries, “Down with him, kill him, kill him,” and other opprobrious language, to the middle of Green’s-lane, where they left me; from thence I got safe to the barracks.

WILLIAM BROWN, junior,
Lieutenant of the 14th regiment.

I say this might be the same officer as the man who was later Capt. Browne of the 52nd because the Army Lists for 1767 and 1771 show there were two lieutenants named William Browne in the 14th during its time in Boston.

When I first saw “William Brown, junior,” I thought that might indicate this man’s father was also named William Brown, offering another (thin) clue to his identity. But it’s also possible that the deponent used “junior” to distinguish himself from the older Lt. Browne in the same regiment.

All of the officers Browne named, plus Ens. Andrew Lawrie, provided similar testimony. Capt. Goldfinch also described breaking up a fight earlier that night, and Ens. Napier said a woman told him the bell-ringing “war to raise the inhabitants against the soldiers.” All that could easily be read as evidence of Bostonians being hostile and violent toward British army officers for no reason.

Closer reading shows, however, that Lt. Browne and his colleagues went out into the street after the Massacre. They heard a long stretch of bells, shouting, and other cacophony. Then the noise “ceased a little” as the crowd absorbed the effect of the shots. Finally, the officers heard more bells along with the army drums summoning all the soldiers to their barracks. Browne and his fellows in the 14th headed for those buildings, running into townspeople upset that soldiers had shot a dozen of their neighbors.

TOMORROW: The frustrating Capt. Goldfinch.

On the Trail of Capt. William Browne

In the HUB History podcast episode “Drinker, Draftsman, Soldier, Spy,” Jake Sconyers quotes my remark on how difficult it is to track Capt. William Browne of the 52nd Regiment before 1775 because there were so many men named William Brown(e).

He also quoted a portion of Ens. Henry DeBerniere’s report on his spy missions with Capt. Browne that I’d read many times but hadn’t tumbled to how it’s helpful with that precise challenge.

One of my favorite moments in that narrative is when Browne, DeBerniere, and their manservant have reached Jonathan Brewer’s tavern in Waltham.

a little out of this town [Watertown] we went into a tavern, a Mr. Brewer’s, a whig, we called for dinner, which was brought in by a black woman, at first she was very civil, but afterwards began to eye us very attentively; she then went out and a little after returned, when we observed to her that it was a very fine country, upon which she answered so it is, and we have got brave fellows to defend it, and if you go up any higher you find it so,—

This disconcerted us a good deal, and we imagined she knew us from our papers which we took out before her, as the General had told us to pass for surveyors; however, we resolved not to sleep there that night, as we had intended, accordingly we paid our bill which amounted to two pounds odd shillings, but in [sic] was old tenor.

After we had left the house we enquired of John, our servant, what she had said, he told us that she knew Capt. Brown very well, that she had seen him five years before at Boston, and knew him to be an officer, and that she was sure I was one also, and told John that he was a regular—he denied it; but she said she knew our errant was to take a plan of the country; that she had seen the river and road through Charlestown on the paper; she also advised him to tell us not to go any higher, for if we did we should meet with very bad usage

That waitress didn’t just recognize Brown—she recognized him from “five years before at Boston.” That was in 1770, and there were only two British army regiments in Boston then: the 29th and the 14th. That narrows the field considerably.

Sure enough, the officers of the 14th included Lt. William Browne. On 12 July 1771, the War Office announced that “Lieut. William Brown, of the 14th regiment of Foot,” had purchased the rank of captain in the 52nd in the place of Archibald Williams. In the 14th, Ens. William Napier moved up to lieutenant’s rank.

One implication of that fact is that Gen. Thomas Gage might have chosen Capt. Browne to scout the countryside in 1775 because that officer was more familiar with Massachusetts than most of his colleagues, having spent about two years in Boston and on Castle Island back in 1768–1770.

Of course, that had the drawback of more people in Massachusetts being familiar with Browne, as the woman in Waltham showed.

For earlier information on Lt. Browne I hunted down the Army List for 1767. And I found this list of lieutenants in the 14th Regiment of Foot:

Goddammit!

Two men named William Browne became lieutenants in the 14th Regiment four days apart in June 1766. One of them had joined the army in 1762, the other at some unknown time. They were both still lieutenants in the 14th at the start of 1771. 

And during the same period when one or both of these lieutenants were serving in Boston:

• William Browne of Salem was moving up in the imperial bureaucracy.
• William Burnet Brown of Salem supported John Robinson in his fight with James Otis, Jr.
• William Brown the weaver sued the army for trying to kick his family out of the Manufactory building.

And there were probably others.

TOMORROW: Capt. Browne’s own voice?

Studying Henry Knox with Fort Ti

The Sestercentennial of Col. Henry Knox’s mission to Lake Champlain in the winter of 1775–76 is coming up, and Fort Ticonderoga is on it.

That site naturally feels some ownership of that saga since some of the artillery pieces Knox hauled to the siege of Boston came from there. Some, however, came from other fortifications along the lakes, such as Crown Point. Fort Ti is the best restored and most active of those historic locales, so it gets almost all the attention.

For more on that ordnance, I recommend this video with Fort Ti curator Matthew Keagle. He describes how Continental authorities moved artillery around in the summer and fall of 1775, preparing for Gen. Richard Montgomery’s push into Canada and also laying the ground for an idea that Benedict Arnold had floated back in the spring—trucking some of those guns toward Boston.

In addition, Fort Ticonderoga is offering a free virtual teacher institute on the topic “Noble Train!: Henry Knox and the Siege of Boston” on Saturday, 15 November, from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M.

The presentations will include:

• “Henry Knox: Beyond the Noble Train of Artillery” by Fort Ticonderoga’s Director of Academic Programs, Rich Strum
• “The Revolutionary Lives and Letters of Lucy and Henry Knox” by Dr. Phillip Hamilton from Christopher Newport University
• “The Ticonderoga Soldiers Project” by Kate Tardiff, Archivist at Fort Ticonderoga
• “The Siege of Boston and Evacuation Day” by Dr. Robert Allison from Suffolk University
• “Real Time Revolution®: Bringing Henry Knox into the Classroom” by Tim Potts from S.U.N.Y. New Paltz and Rich Strum

Participants must register in advance, though the session is free for educators. 

Two Talks on Thursday, 16 Oct.

It used to be that when two historical organizations scheduled talks on the same night you had to choose between them.

Now, thanks to live-streaming, it’s may be possible to catch both events and not even leave the house to watch them.

Here are two interesting talks scheduled for this upcoming Thursday.

Thursday, 16 October, 6 P.M.
“Within the compass of good citizens”: Paul Revere’s Masonic Journey
Steven C. Bullock
Scottish Rite Masonic Museum, Lexington

From the son of an immigrant to speaking beside the governor on Beacon Hill, Paul Revere traveled far in his extraordinary life. His membership in the Freemasons played an important role in that journey. This talk will consider how the fraternal order fit into Revere’s life—and into the development of Boston and the new nation of which they were a part.

Bullock is a Professor of History at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and author of Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730–1840. This lecture is produced in partnership with the Paul Revere House. It will take place in person at the museum and be livestreamed on YouTube by LexMedia.

Thursday, 16 October, 7 P.M.
I Am So Tired of Waiting, Aren’t You?: Revisiting Black Majority
Peter H. Wood
American Antiquarian Society, Worcester

Black Majority: Race, Rice, and Rebellion in South Carolina, 1670-1740, first published in 1974, marked a breakthrough in understanding of early American history. This landmark book chronicles the crucial formative years of North America’s wealthiest and most tormented British colony. It explores how West African familiarity with rice determined the Lowcountry economy and how a skilled but enslaved labor force formed its own distinctive language and culture.

In this annual Robert C. Baron Lecture, an A.A.S. member who has written a seminal work of history reflects on its impact since publication. The series was endowed to honor Robert C. Baron, founder of Fulcrum Publishing and chairman of the A.A.S. council for a decade. Wood will speak in person at the A.A.S., and people can register to watch online.

Call for Proposals on “The Work of Revolution”

The National Council on Public History and the American Association for State and Local History will hold a joint conference in Providence, Rhode Island, on 16–19 Sept 2026.

The theme will be “The Work of Revolution,” and here is the call for papers:

Revolution is at the center of every remarkable societal change. Through formal politics, grassroots organizing, boycott, protest, litigation, war, and a wide range of other mass and individual actions, behind every revolutionary moment are the people working to bring revolutionary ideas into reality.

In the face of rapid cultural, social, political, and technological change, history’s importance as a guide for our future has become clearer than ever. Documenting during crises, archiving our collective past, supporting researchers and revolutionaries alike, public historians are part of the landscape of revolution. We bring history to the public because it matters.

The ongoing work of revolution is front and center in Rhode Island’s story, past and present. Rhode Islanders have always prided themselves on their independent spirit. To wit, 125 years after the Declaration of Independence, state leaders placed a statue called The Independent Man atop the grandest state house in the nation. Scholars, public historians, educators, and avocational historians interpret Rhode Island’s revolutionary roots and legacies as embedded in self-determination and self-rule, traits with often contradictory legacies and implications. On these lands of early contact and conflict, interpretive sites and educational institutions share the stories of vibrant Indigenous communities, African heritage legacies, as well as histories of immigration, industrialization, political tumult, and religious freedom.

As we close out the US Semiquincentennial year in this historically significant city, we are called to a moment of reflection on the work of revolutions past and the work that lies ahead. AASLH and NCPH members come together at this moment to take stock of our field and ask each other important questions. How do the events of the past 50 years shape how we do the work of public history in the next 50 years? How do we effectively respond to the challenges of our world while strengthening the field? What work will drive our revolutions? What revolutionary work needs to be done to forge the future of the field? And how do we as history practitioners continue to create fulfilling careers in the ever-evolving landscape of our field?

The conference organizers welcome proposals for sessions, workshops, and working groups. The deadline is 1 December of this year, and proposals should be submitted through this webpage.

“Remember the Ladies” Conference in London, May 2026

The Benjamin Franklin House in London has issued a call for papers for a conference on “Remember the ladies”: Women and Revolution, to be held there…well, sometime in May 2026.

The invitation says:

In March of 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, advising him to “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors.” An eighteenth-century woman, – albeit a woman of relative means – Abigail witnessed first-hand acts of resistance great and small performed by the women of her generation. She stressed that women, like the men who sacrificed alongside them during the American Revolution, were not only deserving of fair laws that promoted equality, but also that her sex was more than capable of fomenting revolution in the face of marginalisation.

Yet, while women have historically played vital roles in revolutionary processes, their social, political, cultural, and intellectual contributions remain overlooked and undervalued.

We mythologise the infamous ride of Paul Revere, but little is known about the story of Sybil Ludington. When Jean-Paul Marat was assassinated for his fierce written tracts, he was viewed as a martyr; yet, Olympe de Gouges was sentenced to death for demanding equal rights for women and people of colour. The historical record is ripe with accounts of how Toussaint Louverture inspired the people of Saint-Domingue and transformed a burgeoning rebellion into a full-fledged revolution, but we less frequently hear about Cécile Fatiman and the immense courage she instilled in the enslaved people of Haiti as both a revolutionary and a priestess.

This conference aims to highlight the legacies of women whose lives were uniquely shaped by resistance, not just during the age of revolution, but also in more modern social movements.

Dr Megan King (Public Engagement Manager, Benjamin Franklin House), who specialises in eighteenth-century radicalisation and mobilisation, will spearhead a program of keynote speakers, paper presentations, and 10-minute ‘lightning talks’ to unpack works in progress. We welcome submissions from a range of research interests and disciplinary perspectives, and we particularly invite submissions from PGR students, ECRs, and those employed in the heritage sector.

Jargon translations: “PGR” means post-graduate students, or what we call grad students; “ECRs” are early career researchers; and “the heritage sector” means museums, historic sites, archives, conservation, and public history.

Dr. King invites scholars to email abstracts of no more than 500 words to supervisor@benjaminfranklinhouse.org by 10 Nov 2025.

Teachers’ Tour of the Siege of Boston, 4 Nov.

The Massachusetts Council for the Social Studies is offering a Sestercentennial tour of sites in the siege of Boston for teachers. I’ll be one of the folks riding along to talk about that history.

This tour will happen on Tuesday, 4 November, from 7:30 A.M. (when the bus is scheduled to pick up the first batch of participants) to about 4:30 P.M. That’s Election Day, when many schools close for staff training because the buildings are being used for voting.

Through site tours and rides, we aim to provide an overview of the siege from April 1775 to March 1776 that includes the perspectives of rank and file soldiers, free and enslaved Africans, Loyalists, and women.

After gathering at Castle Island, we plan to visit:

• The Bunker Hill battlefield in Charlestown
• Gen. Washington’s headquarters in Cambridge
• The Shirley-Eustis House in Roxbury
• Dorchester Heights in Dorchester

Three of those sites are part of the National Park Service, so access will be limited if the federal government is still shut down at that time. The grounds will probably be open but the buildings closed. We’re developing contingency plans to cover those sites or perhaps substitute others.

Registration cost is $30 for an individual, $100 for a team of four educators. Lunch will be provided. See this page for more information. Use this form to register.

“Breaking the Polarization Trap” in Concord, 11 Oct.

On Saturday, 11 October, the Wright Tavern in Concord will commemorate the Massachusetts Provincial Congress meeting nearby in 1774 by hosting a discussion program titled “Breaking the the Polarization Trap.”

This program will feature presentations by Dr. Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and Director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, and Dr. Robert A. Gross, Draper Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Connecticut and author of foundational modern histories of Concord.

Just as the Wright Tavern was the site of committee meetings during the provincial congress, people at the gathering will be invited to break into small groups to discuss questions posed by the presenters. Then there will be dialogue with the presenters and all attendees. The plan is for two cycles of presentation, discussion, and open dialogue from 1 to 4:30 P.M.

The event description says:

The program will explore how loyalists and patriots co-existed through the turbulence of the American Revolution and will provide contrasts and context to today’s political turbulence. We will explore unique solutions to the root causes of polarization. Let’s learn from history and experiences to find solutions for today.

I have to say that a civil war which upended society and sent tens of thousands of people into exile might not be the best model of co-existence, but perhaps we can do better. American society did calm down afterward, welcoming back some Loyalists. Citizens developed a system for arguing out ideas that, while still not perfect, has generally evolved for the better until now.

Tickets to this event are $30, and the hall’s capacity limits the attendance to forty-five people. Light refreshments will be served. Purchase tickets through this page.

“Patriot, Hero, Distracted Person” Online

At the end of the summer Revolutionary Spaces and the National Museum of Mental Health Project debuted an online exhibit titled “Patriot, Hero, Distracted Person: James Otis, Jr. and Mental Health in the Eighteenth Century.” It’s well worth a visit.

For decades the standard American story of James Otis was shaped by the Massachusetts Whigs, particularly his sister Mercy Warren and his admirer John Adams.

That narrative had Otis staunchly leading the political resistance to the British ministry’s corrupt laws until Customs Commissioner John Robinson assaulted him in the British Coffee-House. That severe head injury tipped Otis into bouts of insanity.

In the twentieth century historians noted that Otis’s family had noticed him behaving erratically earlier in life. Adams’s diary and newspapers show that Otis was especially verbose and bellicose in the days leading up to his confrontation with Robinson. The fight in the British Coffee-House might thus have been the result of mental difficulties, not just the cause.

This web exhibit shares all that evidence as well a note from a psychiatrist saying that Otis’s head injury could have brought on or severely exacerbated his manic episodes. It also explores his treatment and family life in more detail than I’ve seen elsewhere.

Without completely neglecting politics, the exhibit thus reframes Otis’s life “from an epic tragedy to a much more familiar story of loss and sacrifice.” It puts particular emphasis on his later years when he was unable to work and often separated from his wife and children. The final page shares artistic responses to his story.

Kate LaPine, Lucy Pollock, Paul Piwko, and their colleagues at Revolutionary Boston and the National Museum of Mental Health Project have produced a website evoking sympathy for Otis as an individual facing human difficulties, not a distant historical figure. It provides a different dimension to our grand Sestercentennial narrative.

Covart on “First Drafts of the U.S.,” 8 Oct.

On Wednesday, 8 October, Old North Illuminated will present an online talk by Liz Covart, creator and host of the Ben Franklin’s World podcast, about “The First Drafts of the United States: Early Experiments in American Union.”

The event description says:

Long before the Articles of Confederation, colonial Americans spent over a century struggling to unite—and mostly failing spectacularly.

Discover the forgotten stories of America’s “rough drafts”: the New England Confederacy’s bold 1643 experiment, the authoritarian disaster of the Dominion of New England, William Penn’s visionary continental congress proposal, and Benjamin Franklin’s ahead-of-its-time Albany Plan. Each attempt crashed against the rocks of regional jealousies, cultural clashes, and economic chaos.

These weren’t just boring political experiments; they were high-stakes gambles involving real people grappling with questions that still echo today: How do you balance local autonomy with collective strength? Can diverse communities truly unite?

For over a decade Covart has helmed the award-winning Ben Franklin’s World podcast, now up to more than 400 episodes and 13 million downloads. She was Founding Director of Colonial Williamsburg Innovation Studios and Digital Projects Editor at the Omohundro Institute, and she co-founded Clio Digital Media and the History Explorers Club to connect history lovers outside the academy with cutting-edge scholarship. Covart earned her Ph.D. in history studying Albany, a crossroads of early American cultures.

This event will take place from 7 to 8:30 P.M. To sign up for the Zoom link, in exchange for a donation of your choice, go to this registration page.

“Reducing the Number of Bells daily rung”?

I started this run of postings about bell-ringing in mid-eighteenth-century Boston quoting the town’s sextons on when they rang the bells in 1744.

That almost certainly wasn’t the same schedule they were following decades later during the Revolutionary period, however.

Only seven years later, on 14 May 1751, the town meeting discussed cutting back on the bell-ringing to save public money:

There are one or two Lesser Articles in the Selectmens Accompts in which the Committee apprehend there be some Saving, as in Reducing the Number of Bells daily rung, and at different hours of the day, the Committee being of Opinion that two Bells rung in different parts of the Town viz at 5 in the morning, one at noon, & nine in the Evening, together with the Bell at the Opening of the Market would be sufficient.

Then the Second Paragraph in said Report, was Debated, and Voted that the same be accepted, and that no Bells be rung for the future but the Bell at the old North Church, the Bell at Dr. [Joseph] Sewall’s Church [i.e., Old South Meeting-House] Vizt, at the hours of five, one and nine o’Clock, and the old Brick Church at the hour of Eleven.

That new system didn’t work for everyone, however. The following March the town meeting faced “The Petition of sundry Inhabitants that the Bell at the Revd. Messrs. [William] Welsteed and [Ellis] Gray’s [New Brick] Meeting house may be rung at eleven o’Clock in the forenoon.” After some consideration, the people voted to try that, at least for a while.

Of course, that opened the door for more requests. In August, “inhabitants at the Southerly end of the Town” petitioned “the Bell at Mr. [Mather] Byles’s Meeting house may be rung as heretofore.” The town empowered the selectmen to determine when that bell would be rung.

It’s possible that sextons asked members of their congregations to push for them to get some of that bell-ringing money. In 1755 Boston’s bell-ringers won a raise to “forty shillings p Annum…for each time said Bells shall be rung” over the course of a day.

As of March 1762 the town decided on this wake-up call:

The Town voted that the following Bells should be rung at Five o’Clock every Morning, excepting Lord’s Day Morning, viz. At the South End, the Rev. Mr. Byles’s:—Middle of the Town, the Old Brick so called:——At the North End, the Old North so called.

Gawen Brown installed a clock in the Old South Meeting-House steeple in 1770. It’s conceivable that over these same decades more Bostonians came to own watches and clocks. The church bells might not have been as necessary to signal the passage of time as before.

The siege of Boston disrupted civic and religious life for years after the British military sailed away. The Old North Meeting-House and the steeple of the West Meeting-House were gone, pulled down for firewood. British dragoons had turned the Old South Meeting-House into a riding stable. The evacuation took away the Anglican ministers and many of their congregants. Boston’s overall population remained much lower than before the war for a long time.

I suspect those changes were behind the town meeting vote on 5 June 1776 for a new, pared-back schedule: “ringing Dr. Sewalls Bell [at Old South] One O’Clock & Nine O’Clock, and Dr. [Charles] Chaunceys Bell [at the Old Brick] at 11.O.Clock.”

Gradually over the course of the war more bells were put onto the schedule. Though in October 1782 the selectmen told the sexton at Old South to hold off “untill Monday next, as a Daughter of Mrs. Coffin who lives near said Meeting House is very ill & is much disturbed by the ringing.” The bells in the churches and Faneuil Hall remained part of the city’s fire alarm system deep into the nineteenth century.