“Taking a great deal of Pains with my Colleague your Friend Mr. Cushing”

When Massachusetts’s delegation arrived at the First Continental Congress in 1774, Thomas Cushing was at its head.

Cushing had served as the speaker of the Massachusetts assembly for several years, putting his name on many of that body’s protests against royal measures. A Boston merchant, he was also the province’s commissary general, purchasing militia supplies.

All the Massachusetts Whigs had worked with Cushing. He also appears to have mentored Samuel Adams during the man’s brief, unhappy try at a mercantile career. By business and temperament, Cushing was close to John Hancock.

(The Massachusetts Provincial Congress had actually named James Bowdoin, a leader on the Council, to the delegation ahead of the speaker, but Bowdoin declined to go to Philadelphia because of illness.)

While Cushing was in Pennsylvania, people back home learned he had failed to carry out an important task. On 26 October, Josiah Quincy, Sr., wrote to his son:

The Reputation of our Friend Mr. C——g is greatly, and I fear deservedly suffering, on Account of his applying the money he received out of the Treasury, to be remitted for the brass Cannon, to the Discharge of his private Obligations.

That came in the middle of the Patriots’ effort to build an artillery force, as I described in The Road to Concord. The royal government would have stopped any cannon that Cushing ordered from Britain from being delivered, but that omission was one strike against the man.

On 2 December, the provincial congress chose delegates for the Second Continental Congress, to convene in May 1775. This time the record listed John Hancock first, followed by Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine.

After that Congress made Hancock its chairman, Cushing was back at the top of the Massachusetts delegation, at least in how their signatures appeared on such documents as the Olive Branch Petition.

At this stage, Cushing proved more cautious than the Adams cousins. According to James Warren, in June 1775 Cushing sent a letter to another legislator downplaying news of the British reinforcing their Boston garrison and asking “whether we had not better discharge part of our Army to prevent Involving ourselves in an Immense Debt.”

As discussed yesterday, Cushing, along with Hancock and Paine, was reluctant to make Charles Lee one of the generals of the Continental Army.

When a new Massachusetts General Court convened without approval from a governor in July 1775, it moved Cushing from the assembly to the Council—“kickd up Stairs,” Samuel Adams wrote. His successor as speaker was James Warren.

On 25 November John Adams sent a long letter about deliberations in the Congress to Joseph Hawley of Northampton. Among his comments was:

But my dear Friend I must, take the Freedom to tell you that the same has happened upon this occasion which has happened on a thousand others, after taking a great deal of Pains with my Colleague your Friend Mr. Cushing, I could not get him to agree with the rest of us in Writing a joint Letter, nor could I get him to say what opinion he would give if it was moved in Congress.

Back in Massachusetts, Warren was growing even more sour about his predecessor. On 3 December, he wrote to John Adams:

It gives me great pleasure to see the Credit, and reputation of my two perticular friends [i.e., the Adams cousins], Increasing here. Their late disinterested Conduct, as it is reported here does them much Honour. A certain Collegue of yours has lost or I am mistaken A great part of the Interest he Undeservedly had. . . .

Paine I hear is gone to Gratify his Curiosity in Canada. A good Journey to him. He may possibly do as much good there as at Philadelphia tho’ I find some People here would not have pitched on him for the Business we suppose he is gone on, and perhaps there are some who would not have done it for any. Many men you know are of many Minds.

John Adams was on his way home to Massachusetts when he met the man carrying that letter. He read it and asked the rider to carry it on to Philadelphia, presumably to Samuel Adams.

The courier didn’t find Adams, so instead he handed the letter to Thomas Cushing.

TOMORROW: Falling out, voting out.

“Mr. Randolph, our former President is here, and Sits very humbly”

In April 1775, John Hancock and Samuel Adams were staying together at the parsonage in Lexington, where Hancock had spent some of his childhood.

The next month, they arrived together at the Second Continental Congress.

On 12 June, Gen. Thomas Gage proclaimed the king’s

most gracious Pardon to all Persons who shall forthwith lay down their Arms and return to the Duties of peaceable Subjects, excepting only from the Benefit of such Pardon, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, whose Offences are of too flagitious a Nature to admit of any other Consideration than that of condign Punishment.

At that point, Adams and Hancock were still seen as a pair (with Adams first). But by the end of the year the two men had moved into different parties within the Congress.

The First Continental Congress had chosen Peyton Randolph, speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses, as its chair until he fell ill in October 1774. The Second unanimously put him back in the chair in May 1775.

Then came news that the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, was calling that colony’s legislature into session. Randolph headed home early on 24 May. As their first business that day, the Congress had to choose a new chair. Everyone voted for Hancock.

In mid-June, the Massachusetts delegation split over the appointment of Charles Lee as a general in the Continental Army. John Adams wrote to James Warren of Plymouth: “C. and H. and P. have given us a great deal of Trouble, in the Election of Lee.” The Adams cousins favored hiring Lee, the experienced and renegade British general; Hancock, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine were dubious.

(As I’ve written before, I don’t believe John Adams’s much later story about how in this period he nominated George Washington as commander-in-chief, angering Hancock, who wanted to be nominated himself, and provoking opposition in the Massachusetts delegation and the whole Congress. Paul Longmore’s analysis convinced me that Adams was probably remembering the argument over Lee, the only personnel dispute he wrote about at the time.)

On 27 June, after news of the Battle of Bunker Hill arrived in Philadelphia, Hancock and the two Adams cousins “went out to enquire after the Committee of this City, in order to beg some Powder” for the army in New England. But cracks were forming in their alliance.

As fall approached, John Adams soured a little on Hancock—first over etiquette, not policy. On 19 September, Adams told Warren:

Mr. Randolph, our former President is here, and Sits very humbly in his Seat, while our new one, continues in the Chair, without Seeming to feel the Impropriety.

A little over a month later, on 22 October, Randolph died of a stroke suffered while dining with Thomas Jefferson. Adams then told Warren:

the Congress have determined to show his Memory and Remains all possible Demonstrations of Respect. The whole Body is to attend the Funeral, in as much Mourning as our Laws will admit. The Funeral is to be tomorrow. I am the more pleased with this Respect on account of an Impropriety, which you know was unfelt.

Abigail Adams picked up that strain, telling Mercy Warren in November:

Mr. Randolphs character has secured him Esteem. How well might some folks have saved their credit, and their Bacon too (as the phraze is) by a resignation of a certain place.

Hancock could have pointed out that he was providing the Congress with stable leadership, not suddenly heading home or falling over dead.

TOMORROW: A change in the delegation.

“He declin’d taking a Seat at the honorable Board”

Yesterday I described how in May 1772 Gov. Thomas Hutchinson reversed the pattern of previous years and accepted John Hancock’s election to the Council, the upper house of the Massachusetts General Court.

The governor hoped that would help to pull Hancock away from the influence of Samuel Adams, a fellow member and clerk of the lower house.

On 28 May provincial secretary Thomas Flucker delivered Gov. Hutchinson’s approval of the list of Council members and a message

desiring that the House would send up John Hancock and Samuel Phillips, Esq’rs; Members of this House, and chosen Yesterday to the Members of his Majesty’s Council, that they may take their Seats at the Board.

Hancock’s response appears in the record of the Massachusetts House:

John Hancock, Esq; acquainted the House that he declin’d taking a Seat at the honorable Board to which he was elected, and gave his Reasons in the House.

Unfortunately, the record doesn’t preserve those reasons, and I haven’t seen any source that states them. Quite possibly Hancock never wanted to be on the Council—he just wanted to be asked.

Hutchinson was still optimistic about converting Hancock to the side of the Crown, or at least convincing him not to fund the Whigs, with such signs of favor. In response to what he perceived as cooperation, the governor brought the General Court back to Boston’s Town House later in 1772.

Gov. Hutchinson’s reports about wooing Hancock reached London. In early 1773 John Wilkes reportedly said he’d heard that “Mr. H. had deserted the Cause of Liberty.” As quoted back here, Adams sent corrective letters to Arthur Lee, declaring such reports were “a scurvy Trick of lying.” As Adams framed it, Colonial Secretary Lord Hillsborough had told Hutchinson to “to promote Mr. H. …But he had Spirit enough to refuse a Seat at the Board, & continue a Member of the House.” (In fact, that strategy was always Hutchinson’s idea.)

I doubt Hancock ever turned against Samuel Adams in the pre-war period. I think he just sensed that with most of the Townshend duties repealed, no troops patrolling the streets, and no new measures from Parliament, Bostonians were ready for a less confrontational political approach. Hancock followed the public mood while Adams continued to push.

Hancock’s real allegiance was to the voters and his reelection prospects. He continued to spend his money in ways that conspicuously benefited Boston: cloth for Dr. Joseph Warren’s suit at that year’s Massacre memorial oration, cloth to drape on the pulpit, a new fire engine. He continued to serve as both a selectman and a representative. And now he was “Colonel Hancock.”

On imperial politics, Hancock continued to side with the Whigs. Though in the next year and a half he wouldn’t take part in Adams’s most radical measures, such as joining the new standing committee of correspondence, he also didn’t block those.

Then came the tea crisis. Both the public mood and Hancock shifted. The merchant joined Boston’s radical leaders at the front of the crowd in the protest meetings in Old South. He delivered the Massacre oration himself in 1774. That fall, he chaired the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. In 1775 he joined the Continental Congress and soon became its president—rising higher in politics than Adams.

TOMORROW: Tensions in the Congress.

(Photo above by Axel R-D, courtesy of Flickr.))

“I had settled it some months ago to accept Hancock”

John Hancock was elected to three important positions in the spring of 1772.

In April, fellow members of the Company of Cadets unanimously chose Hancock to lead that upper-class militia company, which served as the governor’s honor guard.

Though the top officer in ordinary companies was a captain, the Cadets commander had the rank of colonel. Because they were fancy, and rich, and well connected.

Knowing Hancock would like that status, Gov. Thomas Hutchinson approved the company’s choice. 

In May 1772, Boston held a town meeting to choose the town’s four representatives in the lower house of the Massachusetts General Court.

Back in May 1771, the four men elected had been:

• Thomas Cushing, 410 votes
• John Hancock, 410
• Samuel Adams, 403
• James Otis, 399

(Adams was listed in the town records as “Mr. Samuel Adams” while the other three men were given the honorifics “Honorable” and “Esquire.” All four had been elected to the house before, so those designations must have been based on perceived wealth, not formal rank in government.)

In May 1772, many more voters came to Faneuil Hall for the representatives’ election. This time the results were:

• Cushing, 699 votes
• Hancock, 690
• William Phillips, 668
• Adams, 505

Town clerk William Cooper didn’t list any other candidates, but there probably were some.

Adams won reelection with support from about 70% of the voters, but that was still a marked tumble from previous years. The March meeting highlighting his deficits as a tax collector might have hurt him. It’s also seems likely that the electorate had cooled on Adams’s militancy given that the Crown hadn’t forced any new measures for many months.

Those four representatives went out to Cambridge for the General Court session starting on 27 May. On the first day, Cushing was reelected as speaker of the assembly, Adams as its clerk. Then came the choice of the Council for the new legislative year.

The legislators produced a list of twenty-six men, including Hancock. That choice wasn’t a surprise. He had been named every year since 1768. And every year the royal governors exercised their prerogative to veto his selection.

This spring, however, Gov. Hutchinson had a new idea. He accepted all the proposed Councilors except Jerathmeel Bowers of Swansea. (Privately, Hutchinson wrote that the legislators had nearly chosen Phillips and Adams for the Council, and he would have vetoed them, too.)

As the governor told his predecessor, Sir Francis Bernard, in a letter the next day:

I had settled it some months ago to accept Hancock & have seen the good effects of it not that I can depend upon his being for any time of the same mind but it breaks the connexion & they are all jealous of him and in the greatest part of their measures he forsakes them. . . .

Han. carries Ad. in his chariot but when they come to Court they seldom vote the same way. If the former exerts himself as he promised me will do I think it not improbable that before the end of the year if not before the end of the Session they will apply to me in such a manner as that I may bring [the General Court] to Boston consistent with my Instruction. I wish to do it chiefly that I may have the Members every day at my table and provide an Antidote for the poison of that white liverd fellow that you usd so much to detest.

Convinced that Hancock wished to distance himself from Adams, and felt grateful about his colonelcy and rising onto the Council, Hutchinson was optimistic he could break up the political partnership that had roiled Boston for years.

TOMORROW: Hancock’s choice.

“Subscribers towards Mr. Adams’s debt”

In 1860 the New England Historical and Genealogical Register published the text of an undated document headed “Copy of original list of subscribers toward Mr. Adams’s debt.”

The author of the surrounding article, Andrew H. Ward, believed that debt was one Samuel Adams had inherited from his father’s investment in the Massachusetts Land Bank.

The journal’s editor cast doubt on that idea in a footnote, noting that the presence of “Rev Mr Bowen” on the list must mean it dated between 1766, when Penuel Bowen was ordained at the New South Meeting-House, and 1772, when he left the pulpit and opened a provisions store. That period was long after the estate of Adams’s father was settled.

Another subscriber on the list was “A gentleman of distinction,” and Ward’s footnote said someone had inserted “Mr. T——e” above that. That probably meant Customs Commissioner John Temple. He left Boston in late 1770, further narrowing the span of possible dates.

Kay Menand’s Massachusetts Historical Review article “The Things That Were Caesar’s: Tax Collecting in Eighteenth-Century Boston” reports that in March 1768 the appeals court ordered Adams to pay the town £1,463, and that judgement was satisfied. However, as noted yesterday, in 1772 a Boston town committee found that Adams still owed £1,149.10.0.1/4 of uncollected taxes, money that the town was unlikely ever to see.

Putting all the clues together, I think this list probably dates from the late 1760s. We don’t know if all the subscribers paid what they promised, so we can’t make the sums add up. Even so, it’s an interesting snapshot of people willing to help out Adams and/or Boston.

The top subscriber by far, pledging more than four times as much as any other individual, was John Hancock. At this point he was still firmly at Adams’s side.

The next tier of donors (£60+) consisted of John Erving, James Pitts, and James Bowdoin, wealthy merchants who often served on the Council. Erving was close to the royal establishment, but unlike his sons (including George, pledging £12), he stayed in America after the siege.

Likewise, John Gray the ropemaker (£40), Nathaniel Sparhawk the Maine landowner (£40), and Harrison Gray the provincial treasurer (£20) all leaned toward the Crown in the 1760s while maintaining friendships among the Whigs. Moses Gill (£26.13) was a solid Whig.

Among the smaller donors, Dr. Joseph Warren (£13.6) stands out as a young professional among older, established, and wealthier merchants. William Whitwell (£6) is notable because he led the 1772 inquiry into Adams’s outstanding debt with Thomas Dawes (£13) on his committee. Future Loyalist Isaac Royall offered the smallest amount of any name on the list, a mere £1.8.

This list appears to date from a period before the province’s political dividing lines hardened. Men who opposed Samuel Adams’s tactics were nonetheless willing to help bleach a blot on his reputation—with the knowledge that their money wasn’t going to him personally but to their town.

TOMORROW: The elections of 1772.

“Remaining unpaid of Mr. Adams Debt to the Town”

A couple of days ago I recounted how in March 1771 the Boston town meeting appointed the merchant William Whitwell and four other men to look into the town’s finances.

That committee finally reported on its inquiry on 9 Mar 1772. Among its conclusions was:

We also find that there still remains to be paid into the Province Treasury on Account of Mr. Samuel Adams the Sum of Fifty Pounds and from the information given us by Mr. Robert Peirpoint it appears that there is no probability of any part of the Sum of £1149 10 0 1/4 remaining unpaid of Mr. Adams Debt to the Town, will ever be received and paid into the Treasury——

Adams had been one of Boston’s tax collectors from 1756 to 1765. He turned over a lot less money than he was supposed to collect. No one believed Adams had kept funds for himself, however. Rather, he hadn’t pressed citizens for everything they legally owed. If the townspeople pressured him for more money, they knew he’d have little choice but to squeeze them back, and no one wanted that.

According to Gov. Thomas Hutchinson, John Hancock had spurred that inquiry while knowing it could harm Adams. The finding that Adams owed more than £1,000 might indeed have been embarrassing except that the town meeting had already voted to sue him for uncollected taxes back in 1767. Hutchinson had presided over an appeal of that suit. Boston had granted Pierpont, one of Adams’s bondsmen, authority to collect back taxes on his behalf. In sum, the outstanding sum was old news.

Whitwell and his committee also found that a couple of more recent tax collectors owed £148 and £432, minus their premiums. The town was in legal negotiations with another former tax collector, Jonathan Payson. Such disputes weren’t uncommon, though Adams’s deficit was much bigger than others.

In addition, the committee found that Thomas Cushing owed £155 and John Ruddock £82 from selling lottery tickets for the town. Both those men were politically active Whigs. Hutchinson suspected Cushing had been another of Hancock’s targets.

Yet later in the same afternoon, the meeting considered the even older debt of “the Linnen Manufacturing Company” that had built the Manufactory building beside the Common. Three “Surviving Members” of that company—Lt. Gov. Andrew Oliver, commissary general Thomas Hubbard, and Dr. Silvester Gardiner—asked the town to write off the remaining amount. The meeting refused. Those gentlemen were on Hutchinson’s side in the political disputes.

One more financial question remained: William Molineux petitioned the town for more money for his spinning enterprise, which provided employment for poor women and children. Or at least to forgive the £300 it had loaned him years before. Molineux was among the Boston Whigs’ most radical leaders.

That question was so involved that the discussion was adjourned to the next day. A “printed Paper” criticizing Molineux was spread around by persons unknown. “After considerable debate,” the meeting heard justice Richard Dana’s judgment that the law wouldn’t let the town forgive Molineux’s debt. So the men at the meeting voted to take no action at all beyond rejecting “unjust Reflections on Mr. Mollineuxs Character” and thanking the man for “his faithful discharge of a Contract.”

Meanwhile, Massachusetts’s royal judges took advantage of how Molineux and his supporters were busy in Faneuil Hall on that 10 March to deliver a royal pardon to convicted murderer Ebenezer Richardson so he could slip out of town unnoticed.

All in all, I see the 1772 inquiry into debts owed the town as fairly ordinary business. I’m sure Hutchinson was pleased that people had to pay attention to Samuel Adams’s “defalcation.” But I doubt the governor was accurate in believing Hancock was secretly, deliberately poking at Adams’s sensitive spot.

TOMORROW: Mr. Adams’s debt.

“An inquiry into the state of the finances of the town”

Even as he served as royal governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson was writing the third volume of his history of the colony.

Before he died in 1780, Hutchinson cut down that manuscript. Interestingly, he removed some passages defending his own conduct, though of course what survived presented his view of events.

Hutchinson’s grandson published the edited text in 1828. In 1936 the Harvard College administrator Lawrence Shaw Mayo (shown here) republished all three volumes in a scholarly edition.

In 1947, Mayo married Catherine Barton, a “friend and companion of long standing who shared his scholarly interests,” according to Clifford K. Shipton. Six weeks later, Mayo took his own life, to his friends’ shock.

Meanwhile, Shipton was tracking down a collector who had bought Hutchinson’s earlier manuscript. He asked Catherine Barton Mayo to study it, and she published the excised passages in the American Antiquarian Society Proceedings in 1949.

One of those passages stated about the spring of 1772:

The breach between [Samuel] Adams & [John] Hancock was apparently about this time greater than ever. The latter in a town meeting, a few weeks before, had intimated his design to move for an inquiry into the state of the finances of the town, in which the former had occasioned a great deficiency, and also into the state of monies raised by lottery for the benefit of the town of which lottery Mr. [Thomas] Cushing, the speaker of the House and a kinsman and fast friend of Mr. Adams, was one of the Trustees, and reported to be deficient.

As a town selectman, Hancock had a solid reason to push for an audit of Boston’s finances. The governor hinted that this concern was actually a clever way to distance himself from Adams and Cushing.

I’m not convinced Hutchinson’s presentation of events was accurate. To start with, although Adams and Cushing were personally close, Cushing’s politics were closer to Hancock’s, especially as the 1770s went on. On the question of how much to protest the Massachusetts General Court being convened outside of Boston, the issue that reportedly first divided Adams and Hancock in the spring of 1772, Cushing was on Hancock’s side.

Then there’s a matter of timing. Boston’s town records show that the meeting created its committee to look into financial matters on 27 May 1771. (Those records don’t say who proposed that measure.) The committee chairman was the merchant William Whitwell, and the other members were Thomas Dawes, Melatiah Bourn, Alexander Hill, and Ezekiel Price, political and business insiders.

That committee offered an interim report in June but didn’t deliver its full findings until 9 Mar 1772. Even that was, as Hutchinson’s own account says, “a few weeks before” the disagreement in the General Court led to Hancock’s first noted resentment of Adams.

Now according to Hutchinson’s unnamed sources, all the way back in June 1771 Hancock “wished to be seperated from Mr Adams.” And in December Adams sensed it necessary to assure Hancock that he hadn’t said certain things about him in a conversation about James Otis. So it’s possible that Hancock was chafing under Adams’s influence, set up the financial inquiry in May 1771, and finally openly objected to something Adams said the following April.

If so, Hancock was playing a really long game.

TOMORROW: Following the money, counting the votes.

“It was one cause of the alienation between them”

Gov. Thomas Hutchinson wasn’t the only chronicler to say Samuel Adams and John Hancock fell out over the question of how adamantly to protest against Hutchinson convening the Massachusetts General Court in Cambridge.

In 1809, the Rev. John Eliot (1754–1813, shown here) published A Biographical Dictionary, Containing a Brief Account of the First Settlers, and Other Eminent Characters among the Magistrates, Ministers, Literary and Worthy Men, in New-England.

Eliot was a son and successor of the Rev. Andrew Eliot (1718–1778), minister at the New North Meeting-House during the Revolution. He had thus met all the leading politicians of pre-Revolutionary Boston before coming of age and had heard plenty of gossip about them.

In his book’s short biography of Samuel Adams, Eliot wrote:

During these [legislative] sessions at Cambridge, a difference of opinion arose, upon some secondary matters, between Adams and Hancock, which cooled their friendship, and was succeeded by an antipathy, that had an effect upon the minds of the people, many of whom took a warm interest in this personal animosity, though they agreed in political sentiments; and acted together in the great affairs which arrested the attention of all the whigs.

Eliot went into more detail in his profile of Hancock:

There was a collision of sentiment among the leading whigs about the removal of the court to Boston. Hutchinson offered this upon certain conditions, which the majority of members saw fit to comply with.

Adams was against the measure, and expressed his sentiments in opposition to his friend and colleague. Mr. Hancock was a man impatient of contradiction, and, upon some occasions, indulged a petulant humour. He could not bear the opposition of Mr. Adams on this question. It was one cause of the alienation between them.

That gentleman [Adams] was cool and determined, hard and unyielding, as well as bold in his argument. He sometimes was sarcastick in his replies; but upon the subject which then divided the house, he observed the utmost delicacy, and seemed to dread the consequence of this political difference.

These gentlemen had different views, though equally zealous in their opposition to the mother country. Or else one looked further than the other. . . . The division of these two leading characters made parties among the whigs, especially in the town of Boston.

The relationship of Hancock and Adams was still sensitive years after both men had died, Eliot told the Rev. William Bentley in 1810, in a letter published in the New England Historic and Genealogical Register.

Eliot listed his entries about Adams, Hancock, and Hutchinson among his “best drawn.” However, “Several Gentlemen in Boston, estimable for Talents & worth, tho’ federalists (which may lower them with you), say they would not have subscribed for the book had they seen what I have said of S.A. & John Hancock.”

Eliot was looking back through years in which Hancock and Adams were much further apart than they were in 1772, so that could have magnified the importance of this moment. Nonetheless, he offers more testimony that Hancock’s response to Adams’s disagreement was the first crack in their partnership.

COMING UP: Town finances.

“The Right of the Governor to carry them to Houssatonick”

John Hancock and Samuel Adams split in early 1772 over a few small issues—at least according to Gov. Thomas Hutchinson.

The first involved where the Massachusetts General Court was meeting.

Under orders from London, Hutchinson had summoned the legislature to meet in Cambridge instead of in Boston. His predecessor, Gov. Francis Bernard, had done the same. The General Court had also gone to Cambridge during a smallpox outbreak.

In the eighteenth-century British Empire it was widely accepted that colonial legislatures would be elected once a year, but then the royal governors could convene those legislatures where and when they chose. This power derived from their being representatives of the monarch in Britain.

According to Hutchinson in June 1771:

Mr [James] Otis in a Speech the first day after the Election gave his opinion to the house that we had a very good Governour and he was sure the People in all parts of the Province thought so, he condemned the proceedings of the House the last year & acknowledged the Right of the Governor to carry them to Houssatonick, the Western extreme part of the Province, was sensible that it would be inconvenient and that he would not do it and hoped he would carry them back to Boston. This gave a shock to the party and the House voted to go on with their business as usual without a division or opposition.

This speech immediately made Otis’s colleagues and constituents worry about which side he was on.

Soon Adams as assembly clerk rallied the legislators to complain bitterly about being summoned to an inconvenient meeting place and refuse to do any business until they were back in Boston. Hutchinson tried to bring up issues that the representatives, especially those from western towns, couldn’t resist acting on.

As the spring of 1772 came around, Hutchinson let it be known that as long as the house petitioned him to convene the General Court in Boston for practical reasons, with no challenge to his chartered power to summon them elsewhere, he would accede to that preference. (After all, as house speaker decades earlier, he had maneuvered to keep the legislative seat in Boston.) 

Adams wanted to stick to the principled, no-compromise confrontation. Hancock, along with speaker Thomas Cushing, was willing to couch their complaint on practical grounds. Ultimately, so did the majority of legislators.

The difference between Adams’s and Hancock’s positions was not that big, and Hancock may have had a better sense of what his fellow lawmakers and voters were up for. Still, this disagreement over wording or tactics was enough to give Hutchinson hope that two of his biggest opponents were splitting.

One of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence would be:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

That referred to this dispute over where the General Court should gather, which became an even bigger deal in 1774 when Gen. Thomas Gage summoned the legislature to Salem.

The Revolutionary War ended up changing the norm about where and when American legislatures met. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress authority over “the Seat of the Government of the United States” and provided for regular meetings there. Only “on extraordinary Occasions” can the President convene Congress, and only “in Case of Disagreement between” the two houses can the President adjourn them.

TOMORROW: Another chronicler.

“Told John Hancock Esqr. that he heard me say in a threatning manner”

The newly released first volume of The Papers of John Hancock, covering the years 1754–1769, doesn’t even have an index entry for Samuel Adams. Hancock was politically active in that time, as a Boston selectman and representative in the Massachusetts General Court. But he did his politicking in person, not in (preserved) letters or newspaper essays.

In contrast, the first volume of the Writings of Samuel Adams, covering 1764–1769, includes a couple of items defending Hancock from charges of fomenting riots: a 1768 letter written for the signature of House speaker Thomas Cushing and a 1769 newspaper essay signed “Candidus.” Hancock also served on several committees with Adams, but Adams gets the credit (via a descendant’s biography) for creating those committees’ documents.

In those corpuses, the first sign of a rift between Hancock and Adams appears in a 15 Dec 1771 “Memorandum” that Adams wrote for himself after a conversation with the colony’s deputy treasurer:

This day I waited on Mr. Harrison Gray junr. to acquaint him that I had been informd that he had told John Hancock Esqr. that he heard me say in a threatning manner that Mr. Hancock might think as he pleasd, Mr. [James] Otis had friends & his (Mr. Hancocks) treatment of Mr. Otis would prejudice his (Mr. Hancocks) Election.

Mr. Gray declard to me that he did not hear me mention a Word of Mr. Hancocks Election—that a conversation happend between Mr. John Cotton [deputy secretary of Massachusetts] & myself (Mr. Gray being present) relative to Mr. Otis—that Mr. Cotton said Mr. Otis’ Conduct must be the Effect of Distraction or Drunkeness—that I said I did not think so—but that it rather proceeded from Irritation—that he (Mr. Gray) said if Mr. Otis is distracted why should Mr. Hancock pursue him—& that I answerd that Mr. Hancock might be stirred up by others to do it, but I thought he had better not or it was a pity he should.

This Mr. Gray declared was all that I said relative to Mr. Hancock, in answer to his Question as is before mentiond & that it did not appear to him that I discoverd the least Unfriendliness towards Mr. Hancock. He further said he was willing to give his oath to the truth of this his declaration.

Upon which I told Mr. Gray that it was far from my Intention to make Mr. Hancock displeasd with him, that I was satisfied that Mr. Hancock understood him differently & I should let Mr. Hancock know what he now said, & asked him to repeat it which he did precisely as before—& told me he was freely willing that I should repeat it to Mr. Hancock that if Mr. Hancock & myself desired it he would thus explain it in presense of us both.

Here’s the scan of that document from the New York Public Library.

At this time, Boston had reelected James Otis, Jr., to the House after a year off, hoping he would regain his sanity and efficacy as a legislative leader. Instead, Otis became more inclined to support royal policy and then more irrational, as I discussed back here.

In November, acting in his capacity as a probate judge after a request from the Otis family, Gov. Thomas Hutchinson asked the Boston selectmen to assess whether Otis was “a Non Compos Distracted or Lunatick Person.” The selectmen, including Hancock, decided he needed a guardian. On 3 December, Otis was “carried off…in a post chaise, bound hand and foot,” for treatment.

Samuel Adams’s memorandum doesn’t say when he discussed Otis with Cotton and Gray. Adams had tried to gloss over the situation: Otis was acting from “Irritation,” he insisted, not “Distraction or Drunkeness.” As to why Hancock thought otherwise, he “might be stirred up by others.”

This episode belies the common picture, pushed by Loyalists and adopted by many authors since, that Adams was the savvy politician pulling Hancock’s strings. Not only was Hancock breaking from Adams, but the merchant had a better sense of the situation. Otis needed help, and he was losing popular support. In the spring of 1772, the North End Caucus (in my reading) and then the Boston town meeting chose never to vote for him again.

The memorandum does show Adams’s keen judgment about what could annoy Hancock, however. Adams had heard, quite possibly from Hancock himself, that Gray had described him as speaking “in a threatning manner.” And what was Adams supposedly threatening? Hancock’s popularity and prospects for reelection. Adams recorded this evidence to show Hancock that he’d said no such thing.

Without this memorandum in writing, we’d have no evidence of Adams worrying that Hancock thought he’d revealed “Unfriendliness” in the fall of 1771.

TOMORROW: Matters come to a head.

“They Assured me he wished to be seperated from Mr Adams”

I dug into the early-1770s rift between John Hancock on Samuel Adams the old-fashioned way: By pulling books about those men off my shelves, looking in their indexes, reading the relevant passages, and tracking down the citations.

The earliest signs of trouble appear in the letters of acting governor Thomas Hutchinson, which the Colonial Society of Massachusetts is publishing in a series edited by John W. Tyler.

On 5 June 1771, Hutchinson wrote to a correspondent in Britain, probably John Pownall in the Colonial Office:

I can mention to you what will appear improper in a publick Letter. I was much pressed by many persons well affected in general to consent to the Election of Mr Hancock [to the Council] his connections being large which are strongly prejudiced against me for the frequent refusal to accept of him in Office. They Assured me he wished to be seperated from Mr Adams another Representative of the Town an Incendiary equal to any at present in London and, if I would admit him to the Council, they had no doubt there would be an end to the Influence he now has, by means of his property, in the Town of Boston.

As there had been no advances on his part I could not think it proper for me to follow their advice. I have now reason to think that before another Election he will alter his conduct so far as to justify my acceptance of him which certainly will take off that sowerness of temper from many People which his negatives occasion and unless you think it a step not advisable I believe I shall accept of him.

Hutchinson didn’t state why he believed Hancock would change his behavior. The merchant hadn’t spoken to the acting governor himself. Some men friendly to the royal government (“persons well affected”) had.

Months later, Hutchinson was more confident. On 1 December, he told Gen. Thomas Gage in New York:

The pretenders to Patriotism [in] this Province have always followed the Example of those who make the like pretences in England. They are now quarrelling among themselves. Hancock has declared he will never again connect himself with Adams. They both have their Partizans & like [John] Wilkes & [Richard] Oliver they both declare they will never give up any part of the Cause of Liberty.

Two days later, Hutchinson told his predecessor, Sir Frances Bernard: “At present H & A are at great variance. Some of my friends blow the coals & I hope to see a good effect.”

He wrote to Bernard again on 29 Jan 1772:

If it was not for the Faction in this Town I think the Province would be easy with one Session in a year & it would be enough for the necessary business. This Faction seems to be breaking. The Doctor [Benjamin] Church who wrote the Times is now a writer on the side of Government. Hancock has not been with their club for two months past & seems to have a new set of acquaintance. By means of [Timothy] Folger there have been some overtures. I remember what passed between him & you & therefore shall act with greater caution. His coming over will be a great loss to them as they support themselves with his money.

And finally Hutchinson ventured to describe the situation in an official letter to the Secretary of State for North America, Lord Hillsborough, on 31 January, albeit in veiled fashion: “A Gentleman who has assisted them much by his money and by the reputation which his fortune gives him among the people seems weary of them and I have reason to think is determined to leave them.”

Meanwhile, Adams had sensed some trouble and tried to mend the relationship.

TOMORROW: All a misunderstanding?

Mapping Samuel Adams’s Declining Opinion of John Hancock

Among the intriguing questions posed to the A.I. program on the John Hancock Papers website is: “What did Hancock think about Sam ADams”?

The relationship of John Hancock and Samuel Adams fascinated people during their careers, and it continues to be interesting.

I even consulted on a picture book about the two men: Most Wanted, written by Sarah Jane Marsh and illustrated by Edwin Fotheringham.

When I thought about how I’d answer the question, my mind went to several historical moments:

• The Rev. William Gordon’s anecdote about how Adams “artfully nominated” Hancock for the Massachusetts General Court ahead of John Rowe.
• Adams’s 11 May 1770 letter to Hancock when the merchant wanted to resign from that legislature after not receiving a unanimous vote in the town meeting, assuring him he was “a most valueable Member.”
• Gov. Thomas Hutchinson’s (probably unrealistic) hope in the early 1770s to woo Hancock away from Adams with a seat on the Council, a militia command, and other rewards.
• The Boston Whigs’ choice of Hancock to deliver the Massacre memorial oration in 1774, cementing his place in the radical camp.
• Hancock and Adams’s activity on 18–19 Apr 1775, including Gordon’s “glorious morning” anecdote.
• The disagreement between Hancock and Adams over whether they should let the crowd pull their carriage as they entered New York City—at least as reported later by the Adams family.
• Adams’s opposition to a ball in honor of Martha Washington which John and Dorothy Hancock planned to attend.
• The growing divide between Hancock and Adams during the Second Continental Congress, as recalled by John Adams in his autobiography’s comment about March 1776: “Mr. Samuel Adams had become very bitter against Mr. Hancock and spoke of him with great Asperity, in private Circles, and this Alienation between them continued…”
• The dispute within the Congress over whether it should thank Hancock when he resigned as chair in October 1777.
• Samuel Adams’s catty comments about politicians susceptible to flattery in letters to James Warren that same month.

All those data points, however, come from Samuel Adams or others. The question posed is what Hancock thought of Adams.

TOMORROW: Ups and downs.

Improving Transcriptions of Handwritten Documents

Even as I muse on the value of A.I. programming for transcribing historical handwritten documents, the Fold3 service announces:

We’ve unlocked 2.4 million pages of Revolutionary War Pension Files with a state-of-the-art, patent-pending Transcription Viewer.

For paid subscribers, the service offers multiple ways to see the scanned documents and its transcriptions at the same time—that seems to be the patent-pending part. But beneath that function are the transcriptions themselves.

Fold3 launched “Full-Text Search” of the Revolutionary War Pension Files in March. However, its staff says, “Handwriting recognition technology has really advanced since” that time, so the service now provides “Dramatically improved line-by-line transcription quality.”

The improved transcriptions were produced, says the staff, “primarily with AI with lots of human interaction.” It’s not clear what form that human interaction took—staff hours, volunteers, feedback from users, advanced programming?

Human oversight still seems to be key. When I asked Dr. Jeffrey M. Griffith of the John Hancock Papers about his impression of the latest handwriting-recognition software, he said:

I have not used AI tools to transcribe the manuscripts, as I have found that widely-accessible large scale models like Chat GPT, Claude, and Grok are not as accurate as I desire. What’s even more troubling for my project in particular, is that the same prompt can result in different outputs. Most problematically, in some instances where I have tested the systems, if the system is uncertain, it just creates contents that may not even be relevant to the particular manuscript.

Knowing how specialized AI systems can get, I am sure there are some extremely powerful (and equally expensive to use) models continue to improve reading handwriting from various decades and centuries, but I have not explored those. Admittedly, even if an AI system is to be used for an initial transcription, the content needs to be thoroughly reviewed and compared to the original text.

Griffith judges the basic transcription tools available now as “much better than those very early efforts by Clements Library at University of Michigan.” Transkribus or a similar service might today produce better results from the Gage Papers. Conversely, if “lots of human interaction” is key to continual improvement, that site might benefit from providing a clear channel for user feedback on texts.

Because the profession of documentary editing puts such value on accuracy, people working in the field would naturally be wary of A.I.-produced transcriptions until they’re much more reliable. A text with errors could mislead readers. More likely, in a time of tight budgets, an institution might decide that a text with errors is good enough and not put funds toward professional-quality transcriptions.

All that said, I do use imperfect transcriptions like those on Google Books or the Gage Papers as my starting point when I quote documents. I did that with texts produced through O.C.R. programs, and I’m doing that with texts produced through A.I.

I find those imperfect databases easier to search, read, and quote than online archives without any transcriptions, like the New York Public Library’s scans of the Samuel Adams Papers and Boston Committee of Correspondence Papers.

So for me the bottom line is the more information that’s available in an online archive, the better. Scans better than mere lists of documents. Scans and bad transcriptions better than scans alone. Good, authoritative transcriptions without scans very useful, and good transcriptions with scans the best of all.

TOMORROW: Other ways of using A.I.

“So severely & so meanly attack’d from that Quarter”

On 28 Oct 1775, John Dickinson finished writing a long letter to a Quaker banker in Britain, David Barclay—one of the documents just published in the William & Mary Quarterly.

Dickinson had written most of that letter in late September, starting with his comments on what he had filed in his papers as “Letter from John Adams of Massachusetts Bay, in which he abuses Me, for opposing the Violent Measures of himself & others in Congress.”

Dickinson told Barclay:

The inclos’d Letters written by John Adams one of the Delegates from Massachusetts, were intercepted, as the Boat was passing an Arm of the Sea, and have been publish’d by General [Thomas] Gage. These are now in every Body’s Hands, and indisputably prove the high projects that are in Agitation. . . .

I did not expect that my Reputation would be so soon so severely & so meanly attack’d from that Quarter. My Compassion for the unhappy Province of Massachusetts Bay was so sincere & tender, that I truly regarded her Delegates as my Brothers; and they ever behav’d to Me, especially the two, that, I am now convinc’d, are my Enemies, with the [illegible] greatest Marks of friendly Respect.

That second Massachusetts delegate was almost certainly Samuel Adams.

Tho We differed in Sentiments, yet I suppos’d without the least Hesitation, that as We had embarqued our Lives & Fortunes in the same Bottom, We should feel a manly & liberal Indulgence for each others particular Opinions.

I have been mistaken; for under the most silken softness of public pretensions, lurk the bitterest Resentments, which can only spring from the Disappointment of selfish Designs.

This Assault so far from hurting my Character, has, if I can form any true Judgment, been of Advantage to Me. It convinces those, who before doubted—that tho I am resolved, as is testified by my public Conduct, at every Hazard to act for the Wellfare of my Country, yet I am not hurried away by the Torrent of Passions, that has swept so many at this Time from their sure Footing: but still retain the heartiest wishes for a Reunion with G[reat] B[ritain].

But another Effect of vastly more Consequence, will be deriv’d, from the Publication of those intercepted Letters. It will prove, that a total Independence, & the Establishment of a Commonwealth, are seriously thought of, and that hitherto they have been successfully oppos’d…

You will observe, no Doubt, how…the Writer of the intercepted Letters, & his party…abhorr any prospect of Accommodation, before they have got “the whole legislative, executive, and judicial of the whole Continent in their Hands, have completely modell’d a Constitution, have rais’d a naval Power, opended all Ports wide” &c that is, before they have established an independent Commonwealth.

Dickinson was repeating phrases directly from Adams’s letter, using it to show that his August warning that some Americans actually wanted independence had been well founded.

TOMORROW: Up until then…

“In what a defenceless State we still remain”

I was preparing to write about a document from the Samuel Adams Papers at the New York Public Library, digitized as “Letter from John Scollay” dated 22 Apr 1776.

But after taking a closer look, I realized that only the first two four pages at that link come from a letter by selectman John Scollay. And the first two pages of Scollay’s letter are at this link, called “Letter from William Davis”—which is indeed accurate for the first two of four pages there.

The file called “Letter from John Scollay” also contains a two-page letter from the Rev. Samuel Cooper, dated 29 Apr 1776. His signature is abbreviated, but the handwriting matches Cooper’s other letters in this collection.

The Cooper letter closes by saying he’d recently written to John Hancock and John Adams. The letter to Hancock isn’t listed in the John Hancock Papers project, so it probably hasn’t survived. But the Adams Papers does offer a 22 April letter from Cooper matching the style and concerns as the letter to Samuel Adams.

In particular, Cooper told John Adams he was worried about Boston’s defenses:

After so many Weeks Possession of this Town you would be surpriz’d to see in what a defenceless State we still remain. The Business of Fortifying has lain between Genl. [Artemas] Ward and a Committee of the General Court: Between them both, little or nothing has yet been done. We have but 7 or 8 Guns mounted on Fort Hill. Nothing yet done on any Island in the Harbor.

A British Ship of 40 or 50 Guns with two or three small arm’d Vessells are in Possession of King Road and Nantasket. They take or drive away almost all supplies coming to us by Water; and (would you believe it!) with this inconsiderable Force the Harbor has been, and is now effectually block’d up. Two or three Ships of War have had it in their Pow’r ever since the Evacuation of the Town to come up and cannonade it.

That warship’s primary mission was to stop other British ships from going into the harbor unaware that it waw now in rebel hands. But of course Cooper and other Bostonians couldn’t be sure it wouldn’t attack.

Ward complains that too small a Force, but 5 Regiments not full, were left him. The Court blame him for Inactivity, and He them. I was pleas’d to see your Letters and others from Gentlemen of the Congress mentioning the Importance of putting this Harbor into the best State of Defence. Pray write again and again to press this Matter.

There is a Report here that Ward has desir’d to resign. I wish from my Heart He would do it. He is a good Man, a thoro N. England man, and dispos’d to do us ev’ry Service in his Power. But He certainly wants Decision and Activity. It is of absolute Necessity that some General Officer of the best Qualities be sent to this Department immediately. Pray let [Nathanael] Green or some other be plac’d here.

We are in the utmost Hazard, should the Enemy return, of loosing in this Quarter much more than we have gain’d, by the Departure of the British Forces. Had there been a Man here, at the Head of the Military who would have discern’d at once what was proper to be done; and stated it to the Court, we might have been in a good Posture of Defence Weeks ago.

Ward had indeed put in his resignation on the grounds of ill health, then asked to remain so he could help Massachusetts rebuild. Cooper wasn’t the only local to say Ward moved too slowly. When the minister wrote this letter, however, it had been less than three weeks since Gen. George Washington had departed and left Ward in charge. It therefore doesn’t seem fair to suggest Boston could have been fortified against ocean attack “Weeks ago.”

“Alarmed in Lexington” in Lexington, 21 Mar.

Evacuation Day over, so it’s time to look ahead to another Patriots Day season. 

On Saturday, 21 March, the Lexington History Museums will host two performances of Alarmed in Lexington, a series of three short plays by Debbie Wiess about events in the Hancock-Clarke House on 19 Apr 1775.

The audience will take in these three vignettes while moving through the house in small groups (including going up and down stairwells).

As the action begins, it’s shortly after midnight and Paul Revere and William Dawes have just left after bringing news of approaching British regulars. The vignettes dramatize the responses of the town minister, the Rev. Jonas Clarke, and his granddaughter Lucy; Massachusetts resistance leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams; and Hancock’s fiancée, Dorothy Quincy, and his aunt, Lydia Hancock. Those conversations take place in the same rooms where those people were living in 1775.

The performances are scheduled for 4 and 7 P.M. Tickets are limited and cost $40, or $30 for Lexington History Museums members.

“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.”

“Lt. Hawkshaw yesterday near expiring thro. his bad wounds”

During the British army withdrawal on 19 Apr 1775, Lt. Thomas Hawkshaw of the 5th Regiment was shot in the side of his face.

As recorded by his regiment’s surgeon, blood gushed from his nose and mouth as well as his wound. Some of the affected tissue became inflamed. He had trouble swallowing.

People thought Lt. Hawkshaw was lying on his deathbed. And according to legal and popular understandings of the time, that meant he couldn’t lie in another way. After all, a person wouldn’t utter a falsehood just before meeting his maker, right?

Or, as a legal maxim quoted in 1700s reference books said: Nemo moriturus præsumitur mentiri. A dying person is not presumed to lie.

Usually that “dying declaration” doctrine allowed testimony from a dead victim that would otherwise be ruled out as hearsay. Thus, Patrick Carr’s doctors could report his remarks about the soldiers holding back before the Boston Massacre in 1770. To discredit such strong evidence, Samuel Adams had to resort to sneering that Carr “in all probability died in the faith of a roman catholick.”

The same thinking made “deathbed confessions” convincing. In the case of Lt. Hawkshaw, word went around that as his life slipped away he blamed the army for starting the war. Justice of the peace Edmund Quincy wrote to John Hancock on 22 April:

Here they say & swear to it all round, in excuse of ye Regulars, proceeding at Lexinton—that they were attack’d first & I doubt not many oaths of Officers & men are taken before J. G—ley [Justice Benjamin Gridley], to confirm it—but among others who contradict ’em—Lt. Hawkshaw yesterday near expiring thro. his bad wounds——Call’d Several Credible persons to him & told ’em as a dying man—that he was obliged in Conscience to confess—that the first Action of ye Whole at L. was done by the Kings troops—wr. they killd & wounded eight men—but doubtless you have sufficient proof of ye Fact & every Circumstance attending near at hand— . . .

Capt. [John] Erving, at his house yesterday Gave me ye Account of Hawkshaws Confesso.-proved to him at ye No: End yesterday to be real

As discussed here, Quincy gave that letter to Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr., who slipped it to Gen. Thomas Gage. Which meant Lt. Hawkshaw’s commander read that he was contradicting the official army line.

TOMORROW: A quick response.

“A daughter of liberty, unequally yoked in point of politics”?

In his 1788 history of the American Revolution, the Rev. William Gordon shared this anecdote about what led up to the British army march on Concord:

A daughter of liberty, unequally yoked in point of politics, sent word, by a trusty hand, to Mr. Samuel Adams, residing in company with Mr. [John] Hancock at Lexington, about thirteen miles from Charlestown, that the troops were coming out in a few days.

Gordon was close to Adams, as other stories in his book indicate. Adams clearly knew the identity of this “daughter of liberty,” and Gordon might have known as well, but the book kept her name secret. Presumably she was still expected to appear loyal to a husband whose politics she didn’t share.

Some authors have taken this early statement as evidence that Margaret Gage might have leaked her husband’s plan for the march on Concord to Dr. Joseph Warren just before he dispatched William Dawes to Lexington. I don’t think that holds up to scrutiny, from several angles.

First, this “daughter of liberty” provided information to Adams, not Warren, and “a few days” before the march, not the evening it began. There’s no reason to believe those two informants were the same person—nor any indication that Warren’s source was a woman. (Once again, I think the doctor got the dope from William Jasper.)

Second, this “daughter of liberty” was worried that Hancock and Adams would be arrested, as was Warren, but someone truly privy to Gen. Thomas Gage’s plan would have known he was focused on the military supplies in Concord.

Third, while Margaret Gage expressed sadness at the prospect of war between Britain and the American colonies, she never showed any affinity for the Patriot cause. In fact, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence she ever even met Patriot leaders.

I think there are many stronger candidates to be this “daughter of liberty, unequally yoked in point of politics.” (Gordon took that phrase “unequally yoked” from Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians.)

In my talk to the Colonial Society of Massachusetts last week, now viewable online, I shared my current idea of the most likely candidate.

TOMORROW: Gosh, this is suspenseful, isn’t it?

Counterfactual 2: If Capt. Parker Hadn’t Assembled His Company

Picking up the “what if” thread from yesterday, I turn to this question: What would have happened if neither Paul Revere nor William Dawes had arrived in Lexington in the wee hours of 19 Apr 1775?

The town would still have been at a heightened level of military alert. That afternoon a young local named Solomon Brown had ridden out from Boston—not as a messenger, but just coming home from business.

On the road Brown had spotted a bunch of other men on horseback. They looked or sounded British. When their cloaks flapped back, he saw they were carrying pistols. Brown began to suspect they were British army officers.

Everyone in Lexington knew two important politicians from Boston were staying in the Rev. Jonas Clarke’s house: John Hancock, president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, and Samuel Adams, delegate to the Continental Congress. Were those army officers coming out to arrest those men?

In fact, Maj. Edward Mitchell was leading about a dozen mounted officers out into the countryside to keep alarm riders from getting to Concord. That town was the only goal of Gen. Thomas Gage’s mission. Lexington was just along the way.

Not knowing that, Solomon Brown went to his militia sergeant, William Munroe (shown above). Munroe gathered “a guard of eight men, with their arms,” at the parsonage. So some Lexington militiamen were already on the alert well before hearing from Revere or Dawes.

In real life, after receiving the Bostonians’ post-midnight warning, Capt. John Parker assembled the rest of the Lexington militia company on the town common. Nothing happened, so he let the men disperse to nearby houses and taverns to catch some sleep.

But let’s imagine that Revere and Dawes never arrived. The town picked up news of the approaching column hours later from a few travelers, from hearing bells and warning shots from towns to the east.

In that case, the Lexington men might have assembled more hastily. They might have headed for where they thought they might be most needed: at the parsonage, strengthening Sgt. Munroe’s guard.

Hancock and Adams might not have had time to leave town—or Hancock might have refused to do so with more men watching. So an armed crowd would have gathered on what’s now Hancock Street, determined to prevent the troops from arresting those political leaders.

The expedition’s light infantry companies were the first to march into town. But in this scenario the men of the 10th Regiment wouldn’t have seen a body of armed men lined up on the common. They wouldn’t have felt any need to veer off to confront those men. They would have kept marching swiftly along the road to Concord, half a mile from the Hancock-Clarke house.

The two bodies of armed men might have spotted each other in the early dawn light. But they would have been too far apart for either to present any threat. The army column would probably have passed through Lexington without any incident.

Contrary to the scenario Jim Piecuch found described in Kostya Kennedy’s The Ride, Hancock and Adams would not ”have been captured or killed” because the regulars weren’t looking for them.

(Well, if Hancock had insisted on rushing to the common to confront the regulars, he might have been captured or killed. But even he wasn’t that reckless.)

TOMORROW: Alternative scenarios for Concord.