Saturday, June 11, 2011
June 6, 1776
Josiah Bartlett wrote to Nathaniel Folsom, "I have Enclosed to you a News paper Containing the address of the City of London to the King and his answer by which we see what we have to Depend on from the ruling powers of Brittain."
June 5, 1776: Compelled to Surrender Liberties in Return for Protection
June 5, 1776: Caesar Rodney of New Jersey to his brother Thomas Rodney: “The Petition of the Lord, Mayor and City of London to the King, and his Answer will Convince those people (Who have opposed the Resolution of Congress) of their Error; if they be open to Conviction it certainly will—You will have it in this day's paper.”
On March 22, 1776, Sir Thomas Hallifax, Lord Mayor of London, along with “several of the Aldermen, the Sheriffs, and some of the Common Council of the City of London,” presented a petition to King George III at the Court of St. James.
First, the London petitioners recognized what the war meant for Britain. The war left England “naked and exposed” by “draining” it of troops. The petitioners expressed anxiety at the treaties for foreign mercenaries, “whose latitude is such as to provide the means of introducing a foreign Army even into this Realm.”
The Lord Mayor and Aldermen warned of the "calamities" entailed in a protracted war in America: “We cannot, sir, without horrour, look forward to national debt and of burdensome taxes, that loss of our most valuable resources, those distresses of our merchants and manufacturers, those deficiencies of the revenue, that effusion of the blood of our countrymen and brethren, that failure of publick credit, and those dreadful calamities and convulsions, which must follow a civil war so begun and pursued, whose extent no wisdom can foresee.”
Secondly, the petitioners emphasized what the war meant for Americans: “We humbly conceive that no people can be bound to surrender their rights and liberties as a return for protection.”
The Lord Mayor and Aldermen noted that the colonists “are willing…to continue to us all those advantages of a regulated and exclusive commerce,” if only England agreed to “their Charters being inviolably secured” to them. This commerce was the basis for London’s “opulence and prosperity.”
The colonists also offered what the petitioners called “such reasonable voluntary aid as their abilities permit.” The Londoners did not want American contributions, “nor our own sinking funds,” “misapplied to the purpose of corruption,” but applied solely to the relief of Britain’s national debt.
The London petitioners also remarked, “The Colonies have fought our battles with us; and in the last war they so far exceeded, their abilities, that this nation thought it just and necessary to make them an annual compensation….” If the King and both Houses of Parliament offered the colonists “just and honourable terms” for reconciliation and the colonists still refuse to submit, then “your Majesty will undoubtedly be enabled to meet, what will then be rebellion, with the zealous hearts and hands of, a determined, loyal, and united people.” The leadership of London not-so-subtly remarked that the colonists were not yet in rebellion, despite hostilities at sites like Bunker Hill. The British people, likewise, were not yet a “united people” when it came to fighting the Americans.
In his response, the King did not acknowledge or address the concerns raised by Hallifax or the London Aldermen and Councilmen. Instead, he considered the war an ordeal which Americans "have brought upon themselves:"
“I deplore, with the deepest concern, the miseries which a great part of my subjects in North America have brought upon themselves by an unjustifiable resistance to the constitutional authority of this Kingdom; and I shall be ready and happy to alleviate those miseries, by acts of mercy and clemency, whenever that authority is established, and the now existing rebellion is at an end. To obtain these salutary purposes, I will invariably pursue the most proper and effectual means.”
On March 22, 1776, Sir Thomas Hallifax, Lord Mayor of London, along with “several of the Aldermen, the Sheriffs, and some of the Common Council of the City of London,” presented a petition to King George III at the Court of St. James.
First, the London petitioners recognized what the war meant for Britain. The war left England “naked and exposed” by “draining” it of troops. The petitioners expressed anxiety at the treaties for foreign mercenaries, “whose latitude is such as to provide the means of introducing a foreign Army even into this Realm.”
The Lord Mayor and Aldermen warned of the "calamities" entailed in a protracted war in America: “We cannot, sir, without horrour, look forward to national debt and of burdensome taxes, that loss of our most valuable resources, those distresses of our merchants and manufacturers, those deficiencies of the revenue, that effusion of the blood of our countrymen and brethren, that failure of publick credit, and those dreadful calamities and convulsions, which must follow a civil war so begun and pursued, whose extent no wisdom can foresee.”
Secondly, the petitioners emphasized what the war meant for Americans: “We humbly conceive that no people can be bound to surrender their rights and liberties as a return for protection.”
The Lord Mayor and Aldermen noted that the colonists “are willing…to continue to us all those advantages of a regulated and exclusive commerce,” if only England agreed to “their Charters being inviolably secured” to them. This commerce was the basis for London’s “opulence and prosperity.”
The colonists also offered what the petitioners called “such reasonable voluntary aid as their abilities permit.” The Londoners did not want American contributions, “nor our own sinking funds,” “misapplied to the purpose of corruption,” but applied solely to the relief of Britain’s national debt.
The London petitioners also remarked, “The Colonies have fought our battles with us; and in the last war they so far exceeded, their abilities, that this nation thought it just and necessary to make them an annual compensation….” If the King and both Houses of Parliament offered the colonists “just and honourable terms” for reconciliation and the colonists still refuse to submit, then “your Majesty will undoubtedly be enabled to meet, what will then be rebellion, with the zealous hearts and hands of, a determined, loyal, and united people.” The leadership of London not-so-subtly remarked that the colonists were not yet in rebellion, despite hostilities at sites like Bunker Hill. The British people, likewise, were not yet a “united people” when it came to fighting the Americans.
In his response, the King did not acknowledge or address the concerns raised by Hallifax or the London Aldermen and Councilmen. Instead, he considered the war an ordeal which Americans "have brought upon themselves:"
“I deplore, with the deepest concern, the miseries which a great part of my subjects in North America have brought upon themselves by an unjustifiable resistance to the constitutional authority of this Kingdom; and I shall be ready and happy to alleviate those miseries, by acts of mercy and clemency, whenever that authority is established, and the now existing rebellion is at an end. To obtain these salutary purposes, I will invariably pursue the most proper and effectual means.”
Friday, June 10, 2011
June 4, 1776: "Those Poor Devils" POWs in a Jail
Oliver Wolcott, a Connecticut Delegate to Congress, wrote to Roger Newberry, "The Prisoners have been treated by us with great Indulgence, I see by the papers what has been done with McKay and Skeene. You observe a Code of Laws published for the Regulation of Prisoners which if duly attended to, I hope will be effectual."
Although sometimes extended to enlisted men, "parole" was a courtesy usually extended by warring states to captured officers and gentlemen. If a prisoner promised not to escape, he could enjoy free movement within a certain area. In some cases, the enemy permitted a prisoner to return to his homeland, if he promised not to rejoin the war until notified of his official exchange.
On May 26, the town committee of Hartford, Connecticut sent a message to the Continental Congress about Philip Skene and Captain Samuel McKay. Captured in Skenesboro, New York by the Continental Army in June 1775, Skene accepted a parole that expired on May 23, 1776 grating him freedom of movement in Middletown, Conn. McKay became a Continental prisoner with the capture of St. Johns, Canada. McKay renewed his parole on May 10, 1776, but escaped on May 18 with Daniel McFarland, a British soldier of the Artillery and McKay's waiter.
On May 22, 1776, the Hartford Committee jailed McKay; McFarland and John Graves of Pittsfield, Connecticut, who helped McKay and McFarland escape. The Continental Congress read the Hartford Committee's report on June 1, 1776 and referred to the Committee on Prisoners.
Joseph Hewes, a North Carolina Delegate, wrote from Philadelphia to Samuel Johnston, "Your favour by Allen McDonald Esqr. I have received. He and all those what came with him as prisoners are confined in the Jail of this City."
Most of these prisoners sent from North Carolina to Pennsylvania were officers of a loyalist force captured at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in February 1776. Please consult Paul Herbert Smith, ed., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789: Vol. 4: May 16-August 14, 1776 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979), page 78, note 1.
Your favour: During the era of the American Revolution, people referred to a letter as a favor from the sender.
Hewes added, "I have not seen him or any of them, it is not in my power to do them any kind of service, Congress will not suffer them to go out on parole 'till they hear further from North Carolina or perhaps 'till the British Troops have left the Province."
On the news of escapes by British and Tory prisoners, Hewes wrote, "Many of our Prisoners have broke their parole and gone off which will make those poor devils you sent and all taken hereafter fare worse."
Sadly, Hewes could not bring himself to visit the prisoners when he was unable to address their complaints and their likely requests for enlargement [release] on parole. Hewes explained, "As I cannot serve them I do not visit them, to hear their complaints and have no power to relieve would be disagre[e]able."
Although sometimes extended to enlisted men, "parole" was a courtesy usually extended by warring states to captured officers and gentlemen. If a prisoner promised not to escape, he could enjoy free movement within a certain area. In some cases, the enemy permitted a prisoner to return to his homeland, if he promised not to rejoin the war until notified of his official exchange.
On May 26, the town committee of Hartford, Connecticut sent a message to the Continental Congress about Philip Skene and Captain Samuel McKay. Captured in Skenesboro, New York by the Continental Army in June 1775, Skene accepted a parole that expired on May 23, 1776 grating him freedom of movement in Middletown, Conn. McKay became a Continental prisoner with the capture of St. Johns, Canada. McKay renewed his parole on May 10, 1776, but escaped on May 18 with Daniel McFarland, a British soldier of the Artillery and McKay's waiter.
On May 22, 1776, the Hartford Committee jailed McKay; McFarland and John Graves of Pittsfield, Connecticut, who helped McKay and McFarland escape. The Continental Congress read the Hartford Committee's report on June 1, 1776 and referred to the Committee on Prisoners.
Joseph Hewes, a North Carolina Delegate, wrote from Philadelphia to Samuel Johnston, "Your favour by Allen McDonald Esqr. I have received. He and all those what came with him as prisoners are confined in the Jail of this City."
Most of these prisoners sent from North Carolina to Pennsylvania were officers of a loyalist force captured at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in February 1776. Please consult Paul Herbert Smith, ed., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789: Vol. 4: May 16-August 14, 1776 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979), page 78, note 1.
Your favour: During the era of the American Revolution, people referred to a letter as a favor from the sender.
Hewes added, "I have not seen him or any of them, it is not in my power to do them any kind of service, Congress will not suffer them to go out on parole 'till they hear further from North Carolina or perhaps 'till the British Troops have left the Province."
On the news of escapes by British and Tory prisoners, Hewes wrote, "Many of our Prisoners have broke their parole and gone off which will make those poor devils you sent and all taken hereafter fare worse."
Sadly, Hewes could not bring himself to visit the prisoners when he was unable to address their complaints and their likely requests for enlargement [release] on parole. Hewes explained, "As I cannot serve them I do not visit them, to hear their complaints and have no power to relieve would be disagre[e]able."
Thursday, June 9, 2011
June 3, 1776: This Will Be The Trying Year
Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire wrote to John Langdon, "The Circumstances of affairs in Canada and the certainty of a large body of Hessians &c being hired and designed soon to attack the United Colonies has so engrossed the attention of Congress to be prepared for them, that it is not possible to get them to attend to smaller matters."
Bartlett believed that 1776 "will be the trying year, and if possible they must be hindered from getting any Foothold this Season; if that can be done, I think the day will be our own, and we be forever delivered from our British Tyranny."
Bartlett believed that 1776 "will be the trying year, and if possible they must be hindered from getting any Foothold this Season; if that can be done, I think the day will be our own, and we be forever delivered from our British Tyranny."
June 2, 1776
Richard Henry Lee wrote to Landon Carter, "The infamous treaties with Hesse, Brunswick, &c. (of which we have authentic copies) and the Ministerial reply to Graftons motion leave not a doubt but that our enemies are determined upon the absolute conquest and subduction of N. America. It is not choice then, but necessity that calls for Independence, as the only means by which foreign Alliance can be obtained.... You seem to apprehend danger from our being aided by despotic States, but remember that France assisted Holland without injury to the latter."
Hesse, Brunswick, etc.: During the War of American Independence, Britain hired the most mercenaries from Friedrich Wilhelm II, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. The mercenaries became generically known as "Hessians." Hundreds of mercenaries, however, came from other German states, like Brunswick and Hanover.
Congress listed Britain's hiring of foreign mercenaries as one of the grievances compelling the American colonies to declare themselves independent states.
Former Minister Lord Dartmouth's response to Duke of Grafton: In a debate in the House of Lords over a conciliatory resolution by Augustus Henry FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, William Legge, the Second Earl of Dartmouth (former minister of American affairs) said Britain should not cease military operations in America "till the Colonies own our legislative sovereignty; and, by the acts of duty and obedience, show such a disposition as will entitle them to the favour and protection of the parent State."
Paul Herbert Smith, ed., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789: Vol. 4: May 16-August 14, 1776 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979), 117-118; 92, note 5.
Hesse, Brunswick, etc.: During the War of American Independence, Britain hired the most mercenaries from Friedrich Wilhelm II, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. The mercenaries became generically known as "Hessians." Hundreds of mercenaries, however, came from other German states, like Brunswick and Hanover.
Congress listed Britain's hiring of foreign mercenaries as one of the grievances compelling the American colonies to declare themselves independent states.
Former Minister Lord Dartmouth's response to Duke of Grafton: In a debate in the House of Lords over a conciliatory resolution by Augustus Henry FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, William Legge, the Second Earl of Dartmouth (former minister of American affairs) said Britain should not cease military operations in America "till the Colonies own our legislative sovereignty; and, by the acts of duty and obedience, show such a disposition as will entitle them to the favour and protection of the parent State."
Paul Herbert Smith, ed., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789: Vol. 4: May 16-August 14, 1776 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979), 117-118; 92, note 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
