HIST-116: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Lecture 6 - Resistance or Rebellion? (Or, What the Heck is Happening in Boston?) [January
28, 2010]
Chapter 1. The Circulation of the Virginia Resolves [00:00:00]
Professor Joanne Freeman: Tuesday we ended with the angry response in the colonies to the
passage of the Stamp Act, 1765. I talked about — I described Patrick Henry. We had a first — our
famous Revolution moment number one, Patrick Henry speaking out in the Virginia House of
Burgesses, talking about what he dramatically called his colony's dying liberty, and at the very end
of the lecture I mentioned that in May of 1765, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed some
protesting resolutions ultimately known as the Virginia Resolves. I think I said Resolutions on
Tuesday and let's stick with Resolves, the Virginia Resolves.
And the Virginia Resolves said — There were a number of different — obviously — resolves in the
Virginia Resolves. They said that the colonists had come to Virginia with equal rights to all British
subjects; that the colonial charter confirmed that; that Virginians had the right to be governed by
their own legislature; and that the Virginia legislature had never forfeited its right to impose taxes
on the colony of Virginia. I'll repeat that again. The Virginia Resolves, May 1765: colonists had
come to Virginia with equal rights to all British subjects; colonial charters confirmed that;
Virginians had the right to be governed by their own colonial legislature; and the Virginia colonial
legislature had not forfeited its right to impose taxes on the colony of Virginia.
Now the House of Burgesses passes these resolutions, but in Virginia they weren't even published
in the local newspaper. However, they were published in Rhode Island. Okay. I really don't make
this up. I feel like you're going to accuse me of planting Rhode Island randomly throughout this
course and I'm not. It's — Really it's there all by itself. Rhode Island — and why Rhode Island I
can't tell you — but indeed by happenstance, someone in Rhode Island — It circulates. The
resolves are circulating. People are reading them and they're talking about them, but it's
somebody in Rhode Island who publishes the Virginia Resolves in a Rhode Island newspaper.
However, what this person does when he publishes these resolves is not only publish the ones that
were actually passed, but there are two additional resolves that get published right alongside the
ones that were passed. These were not passed and possibly weren't really even discussed, and
they're more radical than the other resolutions. But they're put right alongside with no
differentiation, and these two unpassed more radical resolutions say, quote, "His Majesty's liege
people, inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance
whatsoever designed to impose any taxation upon them." Okay. That's a much bolder statement
than what I just said was happening in those Virginia Resolves. And then the sort of more radical
unpassed resolution number two that got published said, that anyone who asserted that anyone
except the Virginia Assembly could directly tax Virginia was, quote, "an enemy of this, His
Majesty's colony."
Okay. Those are two really strong statements. The Virginia House of Burgesses did not pass those,
did not resolve those, but they get published in Rhode Island right alongside the ones that were
passed and resolved, and so they go circulating throughout the colonies, making Virginia look a
lot more radical than it was at that particular moment. So news of this sort of new radical version
of the Virginia Resolves gets spread throughout the colonies and colonies are then inspired to
pass resolves of their own. So it's another Rhode Island moment.
Chapter 2. The Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Thoughts on the Stamp Act
[00:03:48]
However, it is Massachusetts that first suggests united colonial action. So in June of 1765, the
Massachusetts assembly sends a circular letter to all of the colonial assemblies — and a circular
letter is kind of what it sounds like, a letter intended to circulate — to all of the colonial assemblies
inviting them to meet in a congress in New York in October of 1765, quote, "to consider of a
general and united, dutiful, loyal and humble representation of their condition to His Majesty and
the parliament and to implore relief." Okay. So it's a united response but it's also dutiful, loyal and
humble, so on the one hand the fact that there's going to be some kind of a united colonial
statement is interesting and forceful, but on the other hand, dutiful, loyal, humble. We're not —
we're not here declaring independence here. We're just kind of imploring relief, making a
statement that, 'Excuse us: we are your humble and obedient subjects and we don't really like
this; thank you very much.' So it's that kind of a statement.
Nine colonies responded. New Hampshire declined to participate. Virginia, North Carolina and
Georgia couldn't participate because their governors didn't convene their assemblies to elect
delegates, so there were no delegates elected, but all in all there were twenty-seven men who took
part in what came to be known as the Stamp Act Congress. Right? Easy enough to remember, the
Stamp Act Congress, which met for much of October in 1765. Okay, the Stamp Act Congress.
The Stamp Act Congress was actually the first of what we're going to see is a series of extralegal
organizations created outside of the regular colonial political system to resist and reform British
policies — and so it's a significant action on the part of the colonies. And ultimately, the Stamp
Act Congress passed a series of declarations, and they kind of echo some of the resolutions and
declarations that had been circulating and they're going to sound not drastically different from
some of the logic that I've been talking about in the last lecture or two. And I'll just mention four
of the resolutions passed by the Stamp Act Congress. They declared that they owed their
allegiance to the crown like any British subject; they declared that they were entitled to the rights
and liberties of any British subject; they said that British subjects in the colonies could not be
taxed without their consent; and they declared that trial by jury was the right of every British
subject in the colonies. So you can see their — really their statement is saying well, we're British
subjects like any other British subject and we're demanding the rights and liberties of other
British subjects.
Now it's important to note — the resolutions are not saying that Parliament had no right to
regulate trade in the colonies. They're just saying that Parliament cannot directly tax the colonies
without their consent. So again, it's a direct statement, it's a strong statement, but it's a respectful
statement and it's not boldly sort of altering — at least in the minds of the colonists — an
enormous change of policy. They're kind of stating what they think the state of things is. So clearly
the Stamp Act Congress is a step toward colonial unity; it's a significant step.
Now actually I want to add at this point the answer to a question that someone asked at the end of
class on Tuesday, and he's lurking over there. I think that was you — yes. [inaudible] It was a
really good question. I answer questions — and then I actually answer them in class. It was a
really good question, and the question was did anyone in Parliament actually oppose the Stamp
Act and if they did what was the logic? It's actually a really good question and although I knew the
answer was yes, I couldn't tell you very much detail about that yes, so I went and did a little
research and it's interesting. Most members of Parliament assumed that the Stamp Act was, I
suppose you could say constitutional, or that it was above-board, proper, that there was nothing
wrong with it as far as procedurally — and most members of Parliament assumed that the
colonists would agree it's constitutional — above-board — there's nothing wrong with it as far as
the fact that it exists; the Stamp Act is perfectly proper.
Some members of Parliament, and not a lot but some, did admit that maybe Parliament was
treading on dangerous ground, but even these people didn't worry about the Stamp Act on
constitutional grounds. They didn't say, 'Wow. I wonder if we have the right to do this.' Rather,
they worried that maybe the colonists were going to be unhappy because the Stamp Act maybe
would seem too burdensome. Or they worried that maybe the colonists would think this was some
kind of an aggressive display of parliamentary power, but members of Parliament were actually
not worried about this seeming as though it's something that wasn't proper, wasn't allowable,
wasn't supposed to be done within the confines of the British imperial system.
So basically what you're seeing here is sort of a version of what I've been saying in a variety of
different ways so far in this course. I've been talking about different mindsets developing, and
both sides sort of not necessarily understanding that there are different mindsets evolving here.
What you're seeing here is basically members of Parliament just fundamentally not seeing that
the colonists had developed a different understanding of the workings of the British imperial
system, and those members who were worried about the act, they were worried about it being
unpopular or maybe seeming too strong but they were not worried about any larger sort of legal
rationale. As one member put it, — I thought this was kind of a neat quote — "We are working in
the dark and the less we do the better." I thought that's a great quote, because it's basically a
Member of Parliament saying, 'I'm not entirely sure. We don't really know what we're doing, and
we don't really know how they're going to respond, so we actually need to be careful with what
we're doing because we just don't know what the response is going to be. They're not — They may
not like it.' There actually was only one Member of Parliament who was a planter in the West
Indies, one guy who predicted, 'I think this Stamp Act is going to produce discord and confusion
in the colonies.' Right? One guy, so probably afterwards he was the guy saying, 'Yeah. I told you.'
[laughs] 'You should have listened to me. I told you. I knew.' Okay. So that's the answer to that
question. It's a really good question because I had just never looked that up in any detail before.
Okay. So —
Chapter 3. Mob Protests by the Sons of Liberty [00:10:12]
So far we've largely been talking about speechifying, paper-pushing, resolves, declarations,
newspaper announcements, but in Boston we're now about to see some physical resistance.
Because there, some radicals decided no more words — action. And these Boston radicals, as
you're about to see, they deployed a long-held colonial tradition of resistance. They basically
planned a mob action. Now it's important to note that mobs in early America weren't sort of wild,
violent, out-of-control, 'oh, my gosh, it's a riot' kind of actions. In a way they were sort of part of
the political system, something that people were supposed to do when they felt outraged.
It was sort of a way of venting popular protest, and usually early American mobs were pretty
conservative. They were usually focused on protecting the good of the community from things like
unfairly high food prices or illegal business practices. Normally, they weren't really excited about
tearing things down. Normally, they involved some marching and some yelling, there was a lot of
effigy-burning, and then people went home. So early American mobs again are almost kind of
procedural. They're sort of what happens when you're upset and you're a member of the public,
and it's not only sort of average members of the public — it's not only the masses taking part in
these kinds of protests. All levels of society might take part at one time or another.
So in the summer of 1765, some Bostonians decided they're going to take advantage of this
tradition. A group of Boston radicals who eventually called themselves the Sons of Liberty, so
here's yet another — Now we're starting to get to the part of the course where these things come
out of my mouth and you're like 'ding, ding, ding, ding, Revolutionary War moments, Sons of
Liberty,' and [inaudible] we're going to have another one by the end of the lecture today but here's
one: Sons of Liberty, Boston. So these radicals decide they're going to take action. And the Sons of
Liberty basically are artisans and shopkeepers who want to act in resistance to the Stamp Act.
Samuel Adams — who's really more a member of the elite, but he nevertheless was kind of a
champion of the artisan class — and he's among their number too.
So let's look for a moment at what the Sons of Liberty decide to do and how it works out. Okay. So
basically, in Boston at the time there were two really large fraternal organizations of artisans.
There was one in the north end of Boston, there was one in the south end of Boston. And the Sons
of Liberty think — well, we have these sort of organized groups like clubs of artisans. Why don't
we enlist the aid of one of them? They're sort of already organized. They already have a leader.
Maybe we could get them to help us in some sort of organized protest against the Stamp Act. So
they appeal to the south end group, who agrees to take part in some kind of a protest.
So now we have this radical group, the Sons of Liberty, who have named themselves, so they're
organized enough to have names. We have an organized force of men. And we have a focused
desire to protest against an act of Parliament. So this is on its way to being a different kind of
early American mob action than these other ones might have been. Okay.
So in Boston the poor guy who was the stamp agent, the stamp distributor, is named Andrew
Oliver. This is the person you do not want to be at this particular moment. Okay. So Andrew
Oliver is the one who's going to be giving out or selling the stamps. So obviously this group of
men, they want to do a mob action, and they decide okay, Oliver is the target. So first they go to
his dockside warehouse. They assume actually that that's where the stamped paper is going to be,
so they just destroy the warehouse — I mean, like, destroy it. Then they go to Oliver's house and
throw rocks and basically break all of the windows. Then they take an effigy of Oliver and they
stamp on it. Okay. That's not my pun. That's actually their pun — right? The Stamp Act — we're
stamping on Oliver — those wacky early Americans with their wild sense of humor. Bad puns of
early America. That's the first of this course. So they stamp on Andrew Oliver. Oliver responds
logically enough by resigning as stamp distributor, [laughs] which I think was a wise move. Okay.
'You think that? Thank you very much. I'm going home to my broken-window house now.'
[laughs] 'No more stamps for me.'
Okay. Not long after that, maybe within two weeks, that same group of men turn on Lieutenant
Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who seemed like a friend to the Stamp Act. This time the mob
goes to his house and they destroy it, and I don't just mean rocks at windows. They go to
Hutchinson's house, they smash the windows, they break in the doors, they smash the furniture,
they cut the paintings, they trash the clothing, they cut down the trees in his garden, and they're
in the process of removing the roof [laughter] when daylight stops them. Okay. So this is — On the
one hand it's sort of a weird mob. They're like, 'excuse me. Can you pass me that hammer? I've got
to remove this shingle.' They're really — [laughs] — They're an industrious mob action, but they're
literally completely tearing apart Hutchinson's pretty sort of spiffy mansion in protest. Attacks on
stamp distributors in other colonies followed and there were lots of resignations of stamp agents.
Right? 'I'm not doing the job. [laughs] Thanks. I love my house. I don't want to do this anymore.'
Chapter 4. The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Complications of the Declaratory Act
[00:15:42]
So the result of all of this kind of action is that by November of 1765, when the Stamp Act is
actually going to go into effect — So first of all, the act actually hasn't gone into effect yet.
Everything I've talked about is leading up to it actually going into effect. So November of 1765, it's
due to go into effect but people aren't quite sure what to do. Do we ignore it? Are there actually
any stamp agents left? [laughs] Maybe we don't have to ignore it because nobody will sell stamped
paper. I don't know.
And some people did just choose to ignore the act. Others went further and decided to boycott
British goods which, as we're going to see further into this course, was sometimes a really effective
way to protest against the mother country — basically, hit economically and that's bound to make
an impact. But in the middle of all this, Grenville's ministry fell, not because of the Stamp Act but
because of insider politics. The colonists saw this as providential. Grenville's gone. Clearly it's a
sign from providence that we are meant to succeed here, to come out of this looking better than
things were when we were in the middle of it.
The new prime minister is the Earl of Rockingham. Now the Earl of Rockingham had strong
connections with London merchants. London merchants clearly are people who are going to be
deeply affected by colonial boycotting, so they want the Stamp Act repealed. So we've got this new
Prime Minister, the Earl of Rockingham; he's in with the merchants who are being hurt by the
boycott. The idea now is — it would be a fine thing if we could figure out a way to repeal the
Stamp Act, but the problem of course is figuring out how to repeal it without seeming weak, while
holding your ground.
And Rockingham eventually did repeal the Stamp Act in March of 1766, but to save face he
assigned blame to the wounded British economy. He did not say anything about colonial rights.
He said, 'Well, the economy is suffering and so we will repeal the Stamp Act.' He also passed at
the same time the Declaratory Act — the Declaratory Act — which declared in short that
Parliament could pass laws for the colonies, quote, "in all cases whatsoever." Okay, the
Declaratory Act of 1766, really strong statement. It's like, 'yeah, we're going to repeal the Stamp
Act but we're going to pass this other act that says no, we can basically pass laws for you however
we want to pass them. So we're not caving; we're just sort of giving in on this one little point.'
Now to Britain, the Declaratory Act asserted their control over the colonies, their legal control
over the colonies in all cases. To the colonists, because it mentioned legislation but not taxes, it
seemed to suggest that maybe they had made their point, that Parliament is not going to assert
taxation. So in a way the Declaratory Act makes things worse. It worsens ongoing
misunderstandings between Parliament and the colonies — the British not fully understanding
the colonial mindset about the workings of the empire, the colonists not viewing their own logic
as exceptional in any way. They assume that their logic has been understood.
The Declaratory Act also didn't really encourage compromise, because if you think about it,
moderates on all sides were discredited. In England, the Declaratory Act asserted Parliamentary
power, so it's a strong statement of power. In the colonies, radicals ruled the day, because it
seemed as though they'd made their point. So as far as the colonies were concerned, the Stamp
Act crisis moved many to accept radical leadership; it appears to be working. It also revealed to
the colonies the power of uniting the colonies to bring pressure against England, which also
seemed to have worked.
Chapter 5. Reactions to the Townshend Acts and Samuel Adams's Propaganda [00:19:39]
Now once again in the middle of all this, the Prime Minister yet again is replaced. Clearly, this is
not the time to be a Prime Minister in England. It's kind of a rocky time going on. So — Rocky
time was not meant to be a pun. The Earl of Rockingham goes down in this rocky time and
Charles — I heard a groan. I didn't do it on purpose. It just sort of happened. I'm sorry. It's a bad
pun that I take full responsibility for. But the Earl of Rockingham — His ministry falls. Charles
Townshend takes his place. Charles Townshend, the new Prime Minister — and he's given the
task of balancing the budget in 1767.
And like Grenville before him, Townshend first looks to England itself and issues new taxes in
England, but again he still needs more income and he does next turn to the colonies, and he
devises a scheme that he thinks isn't going to be too upsetting to these sort of touchy colonials. He
says he's going to proceed, quote, "with great delicacy," right? Because it's clear now, 'they get
upset over there; they get upset. We need to be careful, I'm going to proceed with great delicacy.'
He understands their sensitivity about this whole issue of taxation. So he decides he's going to ask
for customs duties on items that the colonies import from Britain, like glass, silk, paper, paint and
— tea. [laughs] You can see where we're going. But this is not an internal tax. This is an external
tax. It's not a tax on things within the colonies. It's not a tax on legal documents. It's not a tax on
playing cards like the Stamp Act. It's an external tax. It's customs duties. And like before,
Townshend wants the money raised by this to go to pay for royal administration in the colonies,
so also the money raised isn't going back to England; it's going to be spent on the colonies.
Townshend also reorganized the customs service in the colonies, basically tossing out old customs
agents who had been bought by colonial merchants and putting hand-picked men in their place.
So all in all, Townshend thought — surely these are tame enough measures that the colonists
aren't going to object to them. Right? This seems as though they're accommodating, they're mild,
nothing very dramatic is being done here. These come to be known as the Townshend Acts of
1767.
And sure enough, the initial response to the Townshend Acts is relatively weak. But, colonial
anger is raised yet again by a publication by a colonist named John Dickinson. He's a
Pennsylvanian. He's in Pennsylvania and he writes a series of letters. First they appear in a
Pennsylvania newspaper. They're eventually published in other colonial newspapers, and then
finally they're put together and published in a pamphlet. This is all in 1767 — and the pamphlet is
named Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies. They
had very literal titles in these days; this is one of them. John Dickinson, Pennsylvanian, Letters
from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies.
Now Dickinson actually — When you read these, he's pretty moderate in tone. And most of what
he does is he uses past precedent to argue against the right of Parliament to directly tax the
colonies. He asserts directly: we're not talking about independence; we're just talking about past
precedent. However, he also says, and this is a quote from him, "We cannot be happy without
being free. We cannot be free without being secure in our property. We cannot be secure in our
property, if without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away, that taxes imposed on us by
Parliament, do thus take it away." That's really clear, direct logic. Right? We can't be happy
without being free. We can't be free without being secure in our property. We can't be secure in
our property if without our consent, others may take it away, and Parliament seems to be taking it
away.
So Dickinson isn't arguing anything amazingly new here, but he's certainly stating it with real
clarity and real power. And he also appears to be saying, 'Well, some of that stuff we learned from
that whole Stamp Act thing? I think they apply as well to this new Townshend Act thing.' He
appears to be drawing a pattern. So Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvaniaultimately has an
impact. It's a strong statement.
Up in Boston, there was also some writing going on. And there, Samuel Adams, who was in the
Massachusetts assembly, wrote a circular letter that he sent to other colonies. Yet again, another
circular letter, and this time it's a circular letter protesting against the Townshend Acts and it's
moderate, but it's criticizing the acts. It does deny — It's — We're — 'This isn't about
independence, we're not trying to rebel here' — but it does urge joint colonial resistance to the
Townshend Acts.
Now back in England, many people urged a lenient response to this. If you think about it,
potentially, it's a scary thing. You have this guy — this radical guy in Boston — who's urging joint
colonial resistance to an act of Parliament. So as you will see, some people get rather upset by
this, but not everybody. Some people say, 'Well, okay. Let's not over-respond; let's not overreact.'
However, the British Secretary of State, Lord Hillsborough, really saw this as organized resistance
and refused to stand for it. So in 1768, privately consulting with the King, so kind of doing this off
on the side, he instructed the Governor of Massachusetts to dissolve the Massachusetts assembly
unless they took back the letter. He also sent a letter to all royal governors telling them to ignore
the Massachusetts letter or else he would dissolve their legislatures too. Okay. That's — There's a
strong statement for you that's clearly bound to make colonists get very, very upset.
Hillsborough also, knowing that people are going to get upset, urged General Thomas Gage —
who's commander-in-chief of the army and at the time was posted in New York — he urges Gage
in New York to prepare his troops in case they're needed in Boston. Okay. So he's anticipating
there might be a response; it would be nice to have troops potentially ready to go to Boston. So
now, troops are being organized, there's threats about dissolving assemblies, and communication
between the colonies in the form of a circular letter is being discouraged.
So clearly, if you're a colonist at this point, there appears to be a plan of repression, right? A plan.
There seems to be a system of tyranny. There seems to be some kind of organized attack on
colonial liberties, and I'm emphasizing plan and system and organized because next week that's
the direction we're going to be going with the lectures. We're going to be looking at what I call the
logic of resistance, or — how does all of this add up in the minds of the colonists? What's — what
are they drawing — what conclusions are they drawing based on actions that are happening? And
as we'll see in the lectures and in the readings for next week, there's a lot of conclusions being
drawn about an actual system of tyranny, which is a very eighteenth-century way of kind of
looking at it.
So colonists are wondering if there's a sort of system of repression being put in place. Meanwhile,
Parliament, eventually, in 1770, repeals most of the Townshend Acts but does preserve the tax on
tea, partly for revenue and partly to prove that they still have the right to tax the colonies. So we're
half-seeing revenue raising and half-seeing an argument here. And probably there was an
assumption on the part of Parliament that by repealing most of the acts things would quiet down,
but as events in Boston were about to prove this would not be the case.
As we're about to see, between 1768 and 1774, Boston really ends up taking center stage. And
thanks in part to the actions of Samuel Adams who really is — you'll see today — a brilliant
propagandist and a man with a really fierce sense of his rights — his British rights and his
grievances as an English subject. And I will add that Samuel Adams did brew beer. Right? He
actually is — Samuel Adams is associated with beer, so truth in advertising, though I have no idea
if that's an accurate portrait of Sam Adams.
Student: It's Paul Revere. Sam Adams is too ugly.
Professor Joanne Freeman: Sam Adams is too ugly. [laughs] Oh, poor Sam Adams. I feel very
bad now. [laughs] Oh. Well, he's not attractive but I don't know if he's ugly. I feel bad. Now I'm
going to have to find a way to redeem Sam Adams in the — [laughs]. Thank you very much. No
wonder I didn't think it was entirely an accurate portrait — Okay. And yet he is associated with
beer. Okay. So Sam Adams — He's going to have a moment.
October of 1768, troops actually arrive in Boston at the instigation of Massachusetts Royal
Governor Francis Bernard, who's alarmed at the sort of radical rumblings that he's hearing.
Parliament makes things worse by — in December of 1768 — by proposing that the ringleaders
behind that circular letter that seems like organized resistance, that they should be brought to
trial for treason, and using an obscure law, they say that they should be brought to trial for
treason in England; they should go trial in England. Okay. Again not something that's going to
make colonists really happy.
Not surprisingly, when you have the next election for the assembly in Massachusetts in 1769, a
large number of radicals get voted in. And this new assembly passes, logically enough, radical
resolutions again largely the work of Samuel Adams, the sadly not good-looking Samuel Adams,
[laughter] who declared in these resolutions that "no man can be justly taxed by, or bound in
conscience to obey, any law to which he has not given his consent in person or by his
representative." Okay. That's a stronger statement than the ones we've had before. What he's
saying here — Formally, like other colonial assemblies, the Massachusetts assembly was saying,
'well, Parliament can legislate for us but they can't directly tax us without our consent,' but this
statement says, 'Parliament can't legislate for us if we have no say in the process.' Bang. That's a
very strong statement.
So clearly there's a lot of emotion that has been raised about what the British administration is
doing. It's being vented in radical resolves like that. The arrival of troops in Boston in 1768 ended
up really focusing these feelings of grievance, these — this anger, these sort of passions. You have
troops being sent to Boston at a moment where people are angry at the British; surely enough you
can see that the colonists are going to vent their feelings towards the soldiers. Troops being sent
to Boston increase colonial assumptions that they are being treated as second-class citizens, as
lower-class subjects, as people who are not equal to other British subjects within the empire.
And Samuel Adams said this really clearly in a newspaper article written at the time. He wrote: "It
is well known from the first landing of the troops that the troops' behavior was to a great degree
insolent and such as looked as if they really believed that we were a country of rebels and that
they were sent here to subdue us." Right? Again Adams is propagandizing so he's always saying
things with a sort of extra twist, but what he's saying is, it was very clear that when the troops
arrived they were treating us like lowly rebels and that they were sent here to subdue us.
Chapter 6. Different Viewpoints on the Boston Massacre [00:31:48]
Okay. So given all of these feelings — fears about a tyrannical standing army that's inside a sort of
system of tyranny — it makes sense that when these troops arrive in Boston relations are not
going to be good between people in Boston and soldiers in Boston, which brings us to yet another
sort of bell-ringing Revolutionary War moment, a particularly noteworthy active resistance in
Boston later memorialized by clever colonial propagandists as the Boston Massacre. Right? That's
how we know it today. They gave it — Colonists gave it that name. It's a snappy name. Right? We
kept the name. We like the name. It really has some zing, makes a political point.
So let's look for a minute here at the details of the Boston Massacre, partly because they're really
interesting as you'll see — it's just a really interesting incident — but also because I think if you
look at how the colonists and the soldiers were interacting, it really will reveal something about
the dynamic of colonial-British relations at the time.
Now first off, it's important to understand that the Boston Massacre wasn't this little isolated
moment of conflict between soldiers and citizens. Between 1768 and early 1770, tensions were
building between the colonists and the troops, and in early 1770 there actually were a number —
several — different outbursts of hostility between townspeople and soldiers in Boston. So an
example: On March 2nd, Samuel Grey, a rope maker, asked a passing soldier if he wanted a job,
and when the soldier, who was probably underpaid, said, 'Yeah, actually I could use a second job,'
Grey laughed and said, 'Good. Go clean my outhouse.' This did not make the soldier happy, so the
soldier slugged Grey, and Grey hit back, and other people — soldiers ran out and other colonists
ran over and there was a fight — there was a street fight.
A few days later, March 5th, another fight broke out when another civilian said something
insulting to another soldier and they began punching each other and there was another street
fight — and that would be the first in a series of increasingly agitated clashes on that day, March
5th, 1770, that's going to end in gunfire. But obviously the Boston Massacre is not the first moment
of conflict. Now later that evening — There's a series of little outbursts that day, March 5th. Later
that evening a small boy walking out on the street began taunting a soldier, and the soldier
responded by knocking him down. Well, the boy got up, went off, found some other colonists in
the street and complained that a soldier over there had knocked him down.
Okay. So in this environment that's going to really get a lot of colonists upset. So a little ring of
people surrounds the kid. 'He's knocking down a kid? We need to go get the soldiers.' Right? So a
small group of colonists heads off to the barracks to actually accost the soldiers, but they're held
off by guards. Soon thereafter, someone begins ringing the bell of the Boston Meeting House —
and normally when you ring the bell of the Boston Meeting House that's a signal for fire, and fire
is a serious thing in a place full of wooden buildings. Right? So if the bell is ringing that means,
'oh, my God, there's a fire' — and everyone does what they should do when there's an alarm of
fire. Right? The bell goes off and dozens and dozens and dozens of people run in to the street
thinking that there's a fire.
Now from this point we have several accounts. There are a number of accounts about what
happened, some of them conflict, and we're going to be looking at two accounts today. We're
going to be looking at one by British general Thomas Gage, I mentioned before, the commanderin-chief of the British army in America. He's posted in New York but he had gotten a very detailed
report about what happened in Boston from his soldiers — his officers and men — on exactly what
they think they experienced. And then the other account is by Samuel Adams, radical
propagandist — clearly is going to be a very different point of view.
Okay. So Gage sends a very detailed report to a member of the King's cabinet in London based on
what the British soldiers in Boston told him. Assuming that the colonists in general were insolent
and were pushing to get more than they deserved, Gage says in his statement, he suspects that the
entire thing was deliberate. He thinks that there were some colonists who probably prearranged
what happened, armed themselves with sticks, rocks, bricks and snowballs. I'm sorry, but
snowballs just never sounds like a scary weapon to me, even though bad things happen here, and
I know I would not like to be hit with a snowball, but it's not like a brick. But snowballs are —
Everyone's complaining about snowballs in these accounts you'll see. Somehow it just makes it
seem less serious. I don't know why. But anyway, he thinks it's deliberate; he thinks the colonists
prearranged it; that they armed themselves with sticks, rocks, bricks and snowballs; planned the
ringing of the bell so that Bostonians would rise up at the signal and attack the soldiers.
Okay. So this is what Gage assumes — and here is Gage's account. "Many people came out of their
houses supposing a fire in the town, and several officers on the same supposition were repairing
to their posts; but meeting with mobs were reviled, attacked, and those who could not escape
knocked down and treated with great inhumanity." Right? 'Those crude, nasty colonists are
treating the soldiers very badly.'
"Different mobs paraded through the streets, passing the several barracks and provoking the
soldiers to come out. One body went to the main guard where every provocation was given,
without effect, for the guard remained quiet. From thence the mob proceeded to a sentinel" — a
single sentinel — "posted upon the customhouse, at a small distance from the guard, and attacked
him. He defended himself as well as he could, calling out for help."
Okay. There's one guy according to this account, and the mob attacks the one guy standing in
front of the customs house. "And people ran to the guard to give information of his danger." So
according to Gage, people see this one guy getting attacked by a bunch of people and they —
actually colonists — run to get other soldiers to help the one guy. So according to Gage's account,
they're not all crazy radicals in Boston. Some of them are out there helping us. "Captain Preston,
hearing the sentinel was in danger of being murdered" — already; we got to murder really fast —
"he detached a sergeant and 12 men to relieve him and soon after followed himself to prevent to
prevent any rash act on the part of the troops. This party as well as the sentinel was immediately
attacked, some colonists throwing bricks, stones, pieces of ice, and snowballs" — once again the
snowballs — "at them whilst others advanced up to their bayonets and endeavored to close with
them to use their bludgeons and clubs, calling out to them to fire if they dared and provoking
them in a most opprobrious language." Right? Again — 'rude colonists behaving badly.' So we
have a group of soldiers that are lined up in front of the customs house running to protect a fellow
soldier supposedly being murdered at the hands of a crude and angry mob armed with sticks and
rocks and snowballs.
Okay. Let's segue over to Adams. Adams writes a series of newspaper essays for the Boston
Gazette describing the same incident, often quoting testimony from the trial of the soldiers that
obviously takes place after this incident, but also obviously quoting them and telling the story
with his own radical flair. Now remember here the different reasons for these accounts. And this
is actually a great example of the importance of thinking about the nature of historical evidence.
Who things are written to and why they're written has a lot to do with how you interpret them.
Right? You have these two documents being written for really specific reasons to a very specific
audience.
So Gage is trying to explain to royal authorities a shooting that never should have happened. He
has to somehow justify this, so he's appealing to the people he sent the letter to — whoever this
royal authority was — and he has to assume that other royal authorities are going to see it. He's
appealing to them as fellow sophisticated Englishmen who understand the nature of things out in
this sort of frontier colony area, crude colonists, upset colonists. So in a sense Gage is offering sort
of an extreme version of some typical English sentiment among — about the colonies.
Adams is writing to the colonial public and he's trying to raise a public outcry against the soldiers
and obviously by association, against the British administration, and clearly Adams is going to
want to depict these soldiers as cruel and tyrannical as all standing armies are, so in a sense
Adams is certainly going to be offering an extreme version of some colonial sentiment at the time
about the soldiers and maybe about the British administration generally.
Okay. So here is Adams' version from the moment when the bell starts to ring [correction: the
account is taken from several of Adams' newspaper articles in 1770 and 1771]. "The ringing of the
bells alarmed the town, it being supposed by the people in general there was a fire. As the people
came in to the street, the boy who had been knocked down told them that the sentry had knocked
him down." Okay, and I'm actually quoting so this — you can't blame me for this. The boy says, 'A
sentry knocked me down,' points at the solider and says, "There's the son of a b[it]ch that knocked
me down." [laughter] I love that that detail is in the newspaper [laughs] — and that's another one
of those things that like — they said that in 1770? [laughter] And they did. Other people heard this
and cried, "Kill him." [laughter] Hey. [laughs] "The sentry ran to the custom-house steps, knocked
at the door, but could not get in." 'Excuse me. [laughs] They're going to kill me.' He primed and
loaded his gun and leveled it and told the people to stand off, and called to the main guard.
"Various were the dispositions and inclinations of the people" at this point. "The cooler sort
advised to go home: The curious were willing to stay and see the event, and those whose feelings
were warmer, perhaps partook of the boy's resentment."
And here he's trying to justify like — okay there were some crazy, radical guys but they were
probably upset with the boy. Right? They weren't angry. They were just — Of course they'd be
upset. The boy was attacked. The soldiers moved to help the sentry standing alone before the
mob. Adams said the soldiers moved, quote, with "an haughty air — they push'd their bayonets
and damn'd the people as they went along — and when they arriv'd at their post, one witness who
is a young gentleman of a liberal education and an unspotted character, [laughter] declared, that
one of the prisoners [i.e. soldiers] whom he particularly named, loaded his gun, pushed him with
his bayonet and damn'd him." Ooh. Okay. [laughter] So here, according to Adams, there's this
rude, imperious British soldier treating the young gentleman of a liberal education and unspotted
character [laughs] like a lesser being.
Okay. So now both narrators have gotten us to the same point. We have soldiers lined up. They
have just very visibly loaded their guns. In front of them stands British Captain Preston with —
who is in command of the men — and in front of Preston is an angry crowd. So according to Gage,
at this point Preston — soldiers behind him — crowd in front of him — he's trying to calm the
situation down, and supposedly he's asked, 'Are you going to ask those soldiers to fire on us?' and
Preston says, 'Yeah. See, the guns are behind me and you're in front of me. No. Really. [laughter]
It wouldn't be a good idea for them to fire now because I'll die.' Right? [laughter] He's like 'No.'
It's a good point I think.
But "all he could say had no effect, and one of the soldiers, receiving a violent blow, instantly
fired. Captain Preston turned around to see who fired, and received a blow upon his arm, which
was aimed at his head; and the mob, at first seeing no execution done and imagining the soldiers
had only fired powder to frighten [them], grew more bold and attacked with greater violence,
continually striking at the soldiers and pelting them, and calling out to them to fire." And we have
Captain Preston's description of what he heard from the crowd. He says the crowd was yelling,
"Come on, you rascals, bloody backs, lobster scoundrels." [laughs] Quite a little string of insults.
"Fire if you dare. You dare not fire." Okay. So Gage goes on, "The soldiers at length perceiving
their lives in danger, and hearing the word 'fire' all round them, three or four of them fired one
after another, and again three more in the [same] hurry and confusion. Four or five persons were
unfortunately killed" — unfortunately — "and more wounded." Okay. So that's basically the end of
Gage's account. Clearly, in his account the soldiers are under serious attack.
Adams tells a different story. Adams says, 'Yes, the crowd was yelling at the troops but they had
insulted the crowd and loaded their guns. Yes, they had sticks but everybody was carrying sticks
these days because everyone was scared of the soldiers, so everyone naturally walked around in
the streets with sticks.' Now maybe that's true, which tells you a lot about the streets of Boston, or
maybe it's not in which case it's really creative. [laughter] 'Yes, the crowd hit at the soldiers' guns
but they were trying to push them away.' So Adams says it's not an uncontrolled mob; it's actually
a group of people carrying their normal, everyday sticks, [laughter] pushing in to hear Captain
Preston answer the question about whether or not he was going to order the troops to fire.
At this moment, Adams says, one of the soldiers was hit by a stick, staggered, fired his gun at the
crowd upon which several soldiers fired and says Adams, 'they reloaded their guns. They were
going to fire again.' Some of the crowd moved away. One man went up to a soldier and asked him
to his face if he was going to fire, and supposedly the soldier said, quote, "Yes by the eternal God"
at which point the colonists knocked him down. [laughter] I love all the detail. At this point
Preston called out to his men not to fire and they stopped, and here Adams says, "I am no Soldier,
and never desired to be one: but I appeal to those who are, whether the words, 'Don't fire,' are
words of command in the British army; and whether there is not some other word which Soldiers
are taught to understand, more proper to be given on such an occasion . . . which would have
prevented such rashness." So here he's saying, 'The guy didn't even call out cease fire. He said,
'Don't. Stop.'' [laughs] Great. Thank you, Captain Preston. And then Adams describes the people
who died. He makes special note of the fact that Grey, the rope maker who insulted the sentry by
asking him to clean the outhouse, is killed in the clash. Coincidence or murder? [laughter] Adams
is good. Right?
And so here Adams is tossing out the suggestion that maybe the troops were just looking for an
excuse to fire on the townspeople — and then really get that nasty Grey — plotting maybe. And the
British too, as you've heard, are wondering if maybe this is a plot on the part of the colonists.
Maybe they're actually just trying to rob the customs house and this whole thing was an elaborate
ploy by the colonists just to rob the customs house behind the guard.
So you can really see from these two accounts, and from the details contained within them, the
animosity and the sense of alienation between the colonists and the soldiers on both sides, and
you can also see really dramatically the fears on both sides that there's some kind of a plot; there's
some kind of a plot of resistance or tyranny, depending on which side you're on. Somehow this is
organized and it's not good and it has to be stopped — and both sides have come to that same
point. And I will stop there and we will continue next week on to the logic of resistance.