Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

250 Years Ago … Colonial Taverns

“All Taverns they call ‘Ordinary’s’”.

“There is no distinction here between inns, taverns, ordinaries and public houses; they are all in one and are known by the appelation of taverns, public house or ordinary …  They are all very indifferent indeed compared to the inns in England.”

“So came the establishment of the ordinary. It was created for the entertainment of travelers and for the mutual comfort of the settlers. This was scarcely second to their providing a gathering place for the church.”

“[T]he General Court of Massachusetts made towns liable to a fine for not sustaining an ordinary. Great inducements were offered to persons keeping them. Land was granted, pastures to keep their cattle or exemption from church rates and school taxes.”

“The early ordinaries were not operated just for the convenience of travelers, but also for the comfort of the townspeople, exchange of news and opinions, and the sale of liquors and socializing.”

“Drunkards were severely punished, either thrown into stocks, whipped or fined. Tobacco was considered more sinful, degrading and harmful than liquor. Both the use of and planting were forbidden.”

Samuel Cole opened the first tavern on March 4, 1634 in Boston. It was not long before the demand and necessity for taverns throughout the colonies was overwhelming.

The first ordinaries were built by a town to accommodate travelers, so they offered bed and board, and sometimes drink. So, initially, they weren’t exactly a tavern as we think of them as a place to go get a drink.

Taverns were traditional institutions “whose effect was to pull fledgling communities together.” “[E]arly taverns were not opened wholly for the convenience of travellers; …

“… they were for the comfort of the townspeople, for the interchange of news and opinions, the sale of solacing liquors, and the incidental sociability … the importance of the tavern to its local neighbors was far greater than to travellers.”

“The tavern has ever played an important part in social, political, and military life, has helped to make history.”

“From the earliest days when men gathered to talk over the terrors of Indian warfare; through the renewal of these fears in the French and Indian War … and through all the anxious but steadfast years preceding and during the Revolution, these gatherings were held in the ordinaries or taverns.”

Arguably the taverns’ most important role in society (and American history) is the role they played in the beginning of the Revolutionary War. As anger spread throughout the colonies, many took to the tavern to discuss, argue, and debate what needed to be done.

“These discussions soon brought decisions, and by 1768 the Sons of Liberty were organized and were holding their meetings, explaining conditions, and advocating union and action.”

“They adopted the name given by Colonel Barre to the enemies of passive obedience in America. Soon scores of towns in the colonies had their liberty trees or liberty poles.”

“The story of our War for Independence could not be dissociated from the old taverns, they are a part of our national history; and those which still stand are among our most interesting Revolutionary relics.”

Click the following links to general summaries about Colonia Taverns:

Click to access Colonial-Taverns-SAR-RT.pdf

Click to access Colonial-Taverns.pdf

© 2025 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

250 Years Ago … Minute Men

“ … to march at a Minute’s Warning, to the Relief of any Place that may be attacked, or to the Support of our Army …”

The American militias established in the colony of Massachusetts were based on an English militia model – every man over age sixteen was required to join and bring his own weapon to the mandatory musters (training meetings).

The governor had authority over the groups. As European settlers spread into Native American territories, conflicts increased. To increase the colonial fighting units’ flexibility, power was decentralized.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631 ordered that, “every man with a musket shall have ready one pound of powder, twenty bullets and two fathome of match, and that every captain shall traine (drill) his company on Saturday in every week. General training days once a month at one o’clock in the afternoon.”

In 1637, general training days were reduced to  eight times in a year. In 1636, the General Court held at Boston, ordered that the military companies be divided into three regiments and that all freeman be allowed to vote for officers of a trained band.

In 1645, company commanders were ordered, “to appoint out and to make choice of thirty soldiers of their companies in ye hundred, who shall be ready at half an hour’s warning upon any service they shall be put upon by their chief military officers.”

The organization of these emergency men was continued for generations, and later they became the famous minute men of the Revolutionary War. (The Connecticut Magazine, 1906)

By the mid-17th Century, militia commanders began organizing smaller companies of men, taken from the ranks of the town militias, who could act as first responders in times of danger. Commanders were ordered, “to make a choice of thirty soldiers of their companies in ye hundred, who shall be ready at half an hour’s warning.”

Later, on the verge of hostilities with the Wampanoag people led by King Phillip, militia regiments were ordered to “be ready to march on a moment’s warning, to prevent such danger as may seem to threaten us.” Eventually, these smaller units would come to be known as “minute companies.”

Generally, minute companies were comprised of young citizen-soldiers, 30 years of age or younger, who were quick, agile, and kept ready for deployment “in a minute’s notice.” Like most militia forces, they were armed and equipped at their own expense.

By the 1750s during the French and Indian War, some companies began calling themselves “minute men.”  While all minute men were part of the militia, not all militia troops were minute men.

Despite their designation, local troops were never held in high esteem by most regular officers of the British Army or political statesmen, who considered them at best, ill-trained amateurs and at worst, country bumpkins.

On October 26, 1774 they recommended that towns recruit volunteers and “that the field officers, so elected, forthwith endeavor to enlist one quarter, at least, of the number of the respective Companies, and form them into companies of fifty Privates, at the least who shall equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice …”

“… and that each and every company, so formed, choose a captain and two lieutenants to command them on any necessary and emergent service … form them into Companies of fifty Privates at the least, who shall equip and hold themselves in Readiness to march at the shortest Notice.” (LOC)

Minutes of the Provincial Congress, Watertown, June 17, 1775 notes it was “recommended to the Militia in all Parts of this Colony, to hold themselves in Readiness to march at a Minute’s Warning, to the Relief of any Place that may be attacked, or to the Support of our Army ….” (LOC)

Because they were expected to be ready quickly, “at a minute’s warning…” they became known as “minute men.” (NPS)

In December 1774, the town created a company of minute men who were instructed to “hold themselves in readiness at a minute’s warning, complete in arms and ammunition; that is to say a good and sufficient firelock, bayonet, thirty rounds of powder and ball, pouch and knapsack.”

While each town’s process for establishing minute companies could certainly differ from others, most towns within the colony complied with the request of the Provincial Congress. Minute companies would, however, comprise only about a quarter of each town’s militia force.

Overall, these elite, highly mobile companies were very well trained in the art of maneuver, usually the first to arrive at the scene of action, and in the use of their flintlock weapons, mainly smoothbore muskets, and fowling pieces.

On the morning of April 19, 1775, despite the myths and fireside stories that would be passed from one generation of Americans to the next, some suggest that the truth is that there were no Lexington minute men standing on the Village Green to witness the first shots of the American Revolution.

Rather, standing on the Green with Captain Parker that fateful morning were men who made up, not a minute company, but a traditional New England training band. They were friends, neighbors, and kinsmen; they were the militia and brave men, all.  (American Battlefield Trust, Wilcox)   (Note: Spelling of Minute Men (2-words) is based on how they spelled that name in the mid-1770s.)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Minute Men:

Click to access Minute-Men-SAR-RT.pdf

Click to access Minute-Men.pdf

© 2025 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution and US Governance Documents

Over the centuries, the islands weren’t unified under single rule.  Leadership sometimes covered portions of an island, sometimes covered a whole island or groups of islands.  Island rulers, Aliʻi or Mōʻī, typically ascended to power through warfare and familial succession.

The kapu system was the common structure, the rule of order, and religious and political code.  This social and political structure gave leaders absolute rule and authority.

Rank depended primarily upon blood; but of great importance was the conduct of life by which one could, by carelessness in preserving the kapu and in making proper marriages, lose caste and prerogatives under the severe discipline of the Aha-ali‘i (Council of Chiefs,) or could, through a royal marriage, raise the rank of one’s descendants upon the family line. (Beckwith)

“Beginning with Kamehameha I, Hawaiian ali‘i had been keenly aware of the vulnerability of Hawai‘i to Western imperialist powers. He and his chiefs knew that the sheer numbers and military might of the Western powers could not be resisted by Hawaiian defenses.”

“As a result, Kamehameha I began looking for ways to protect his Hawai‘i Island Kingdom from Western powers even before he had succeeded in uniting the Hawaiian Islands.”

“Their traditional world had been changing for decades: increased contact with Western influences in the late eighteenth century, the Kamehameha wars, and Kamehameha’s death followed by the abrogation of the kapu system in 1819, population decline due to Western diseases, … rapidly changing economics and their traditional way of life, in general.”

“When the [American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions] ABCFM missionaries arrived [in 1820] with this background and learned that the ‘ai kapu had been abrogated, they believed it to be caused by divine intervention. But they were met with understandable apprehension.”

“The mō‘i and ali’i were engaged in a search for sovereignty in Euro-American terms. In order to maintain their independence in an era of imperialism, they created a nation that would be recognized as sovereign by other civilized nations.”

“Allegedly ‘primitive’ societies were being annexed by European nations throughout the Pacific in the mid nineteenth century, including closely related Polynesian societies in New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Marquesas.”

“As Britain, France, and the United States vied for power and influence in the Pacific, each sent warships to the islands demanding special treatment for its resident citizens and threatening to take over the kingdom.”

“In response to these pressures, Kamehameha III and the high-ranking chiefs were engaged in transforming the Hawaiian system of law and governance into an Anglo-American political system under the rule of law.”

“Their strategy was to create a ‘civilized’ nation, in European terms, to induce those European and American powers whose recognition defined sovereign status to acknowledge the kingdom’s independence.” (Sally Engle Merry)

“William Richards, an ABCFM missionary, became an important resource for the chiefs when he arrived among the Second Company in 1823. He and his wife, Clarissa, were stationed at Lahaina one month after their arrival in Honolulu.”  (Kokua Aku, Kokua Mai; Woods, Nogelmeier and Sai)

William Richards briefly went to the continent.  “When Mr Richards returned from a visit to the United States his place as minister at Lahaina had been filled by Dr. Baldwin and Mr Richards had been withdrawn.”

“Hoapill therefore requested that Mr Richards become instructor for the king and his court, since he had been a father to the chiefs of the royal family at Lahaina and to those of all Maui, and had carried them through their troubles.” (Kamakau)

“It was thus that Mr Richards had taught the chiefs of Maui, ‘The power of the law must be alike over rich and poor; in order to govern peacefully the law must have power over all alike’; and these few words had given him such a reputation for fairness and effectiveness that the king now chose Mr Richards as minister and instructor in the affairs of government.” (Kamakau)

“Richards’ initial service in his new position was a course of lectures to the chiefs on political economy and the general science of government. Writing just a week after he began his new work, he stated:

‘I lecture to the chiefs on Political economy, every day at 10 o’clock, making use of Waylands system as the foundation … I endeavor to propose some practical subject every day.’” (Richards, Kuykendall)

“Mr. Richards was chosen as their leader to teach the chiefs to understand the ways in which other races of men lived.”  (Kamakau)

“Richards was the mapmaker, but the ali’i were the captains who made the crucial decisions about what direction to sail the ship of state.”

“The Hawaiian ali‘i (chiefs) and their Hawaiian advisors developed the pathbreaking 1839 Declaration of Rights and 1840 Constitution with instruction and guidance from William Richards”. (Kokua Aku, Kokua Mai; Woods, Nogelmeier and Sai)

“The Hawaiian people believed in William Richards (Rikeke), the foreigner who taught the king to change the government of the Hawaiian people to a constitutional monarchy and end that of a supreme ruler, and his views were adopted.”

By means of these lessons in political economy with the chiefs he was educating them to confer together as leaders of other governments did, to compare the constitutional form of government with governments which had no constitution …

… and to see that the constitutional form of government belonged to those governments which were most famous and whose king, chiefs, and people were most advanced. Such governments excelled in knowledge and wealth and represented progress in the search after wealth and trade.

Thus the minds of the chiefs became enlightened. ‘So this is it! [said they] Here is the way to gain wealth and honor.’ Perhaps these chiefs were right, perhaps wrong.

“(He) met king & chiefs daily when other public business did not prevent, and as fast as (he) could prepare matter read it to them in the form of lectures. (He) endeavored to make the lectures as familiar as possible, by repeating them, and drawing the chiefs into free conversation on the subject of the Lecture.”

“They uniformly manifested a becoming interest in the school thus conducted, and took an active part in the discussion of the various topics introduced in the Lectures. The Lectures themselves were mere outlines of general principles of political economy, which of course could not have been understood except by full illustration drawn from Hawaiian custom and Hawaiian circumstances. …”

“The conversation frequently took so wide a range that there was abundant opportunity to refer to any and to every fault of the present system of government. But when the faults of the present system were pointed out & the chiefs felt them & then pressed (him) with the question, ‘Pehea la e pono ai,’ (How will it be bettered?)” (Richards Report to the Sandwich Islands Mission, May 1, 1839)

“During the year (Richards had) been called on to translate various documents and laws, some of which were transmitted to the USA & some were for promulgation at the Islands. (He had) said scarcely nothing to the king and chiefs respecting the existing evils or defects in the government, except as the subject has come up naturally and almost necessarily while discussing established principles of Political Economy.”

“A system of laws has been written out by (Boaz) Mahune, a graduate of the (Lahainaluna) high school, and he was directed by the King to conform them to the principles of Political Economy which they had learned. Those laws are some what extensive and protect all private property.”

“According to this code, no chief has any authority over any man, any farther than it is given him by specific enactment, and no tax can be levied, other than that which is specified in the printed law, and no chief can act as a judge in a case where he is personally interested, and no man can be dispossessed of land which he has put under cultivation except for crimes specified in the law.” (Richards Report to the Sandwich Islands Mission, May 1, 1839)

Mahune (with others from Lahainaluna) drafted the 1839 Hawaiian Bill of Rights, also known as the 1839 Constitution of Hawaiʻi.  This document was an attempt by King Kamehameha III and his chiefs to guarantee that the Hawaiian people would not lose their tenured land, and provided the groundwork for a free enterprise system.

Many refer to that document as Hawaiʻi’s Magna Charta (describing certain liberties, putting actions within a rule of law and served as the foundation for future laws.)  It served as a preamble to the subsequent Hawaiʻi Constitution (1840.)

It was a great and significant concession voluntarily granted by the king to his people. It defined and secured the rights of the people, but it did not furnish a plan or framework of the government.  (Kuykendall)

The Declaration of Rights of 1839 was influenced by Christian fundamentals, as well as rights noted in the US Declaration of Independence; it recognized three classes of persons having vested rights in the lands; 1st, the Government; 2nd, the Chiefs; and 3rd, the native Tenants. It declared protection of these rights to both the Chiefly and native Tenant classes.

Constitution of 1840

Then, Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) initiated and implemented Hawaiʻi’s first constitution (1840) (one of five constitutions governing the Islands – and then, later, governance as part of the United States.)  Of his own free will he granted the Constitution of 1840, as a boon to his country and people, establishing his Government upon a declared plan. (Rex v. Booth – Hanifin)

That constitution introduced the innovation of representatives chosen by the people (rather than as previously solely selected by the Aliʻi.)  This gave the common people a share in the government’s actual political power for the first time.

In addition, the 1840 Constitution recognized rights of the people; its preamble read, “’God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth,’ in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men and all chiefs, and all people of all lands.”

“Absolute monarchy had come to an end in 1840. Since that time the kingdom had been governed under no less than four constitutions: the original one freely granted by Kamehameha III in 1840; one adopted by the legislature with the concurrence of the same King in 1852; one promulgated by Kamehameha V in 1864 on his own authority; and one granted in 1887 by Kalākaua as the result of a popular uprising (the Bayonet Constitution).” (Spaulding – Kosaki)

For two centuries, the trend in Hawaiʻi has been toward expanding the numbers of people who have a say in all parts of their government: from Kamehameha I’s near-absolute monarchy to a hereditary oligarchy, to an oligarchy open to men with money, to American republic.  (Hanifin)

How do the Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1840) & Declaration of Rights (1839) compare with the US Declaration of Independence (1776)?

Both documents assert the sovereignty of their respective entities. The Declaration of Independence proclaims the sovereignty of the thirteen American colonies from British rule, while the Hawaiian Constitution asserts the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Both documents emphasize the importance of individual rights. The Declaration of Independence declares that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, the Hawaiian Constitution guarantees various rights to its citizens, such as the right to due process, freedom of speech, and religious freedom.

Both documents outline the establishment of a government structure. The Declaration of Independence expresses the intention to form a new government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Similarly, the Hawaiian Constitution establishes a governmental framework, delineating the roles and responsibilities of different branches of government.

Both documents acknowledge the concept of natural law. The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted to secure the natural rights of individuals. Likewise, the Hawaiian Constitution recognizes the principles of natural law and acknowledges the importance of maintaining harmony and balance with the natural environment.

While there are some similarities between the Declaration of Independence and the Hawaiian Constitution, it is important to note that they have different historical contexts and purposes. The Declaration of Independence marked the birth of a new nation, while the Hawaiian Constitution was a governing document for the Hawaiian Kingdom. (Alika Desha, ChatOn)

Click HERE for more on this.

© 2025 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Reading of the Declaration of Independence

“I had, ‘marked a Nation’s birth,
And saw her Constellation rise
With radience glancing o’er the Earth.
Daring the Sun with steady eyes
I saw her Eagles mount the skies.’”
(Deborah Norris Logan)

“Deborah Norris was the only daughter in a prominent Philadelphian Quaker family that traced its lineage to the settlement of Pennsylvania, where her grandfather Isaac Norris was a merchant and provincial assembly member.” (O’Leary)

“The granddaughter of Isaac Norris, one of Philadelphia’s original Quaker settlers, Deborah Norris grew up in the heart of the city, where she witnessed momentous events in the history of the United States”. (Asleson)

“Apart from attending Anthony Benezet’s Friends Girls School (the first public school for girls in America), Norris essentially educated herself through reading.” (Asleson) In 1781, she married the physician, diplomat, and politician George Logan.” (O’Leary)

“In 1815, at the age of fifty-four, Logan began keeping a diary in which she resolved to record “whatever I shall hear of fact or anecdote that shall appear worthy of preservation.” (Asleson) On July 4, 1826 (the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declarations of Independence), she wrote:

“It is quite impossible on this remarkable day not to fall into a chain of thoughts inspired by recollections; and I have been much occupied in them – at this time. If I were able to set down what mine have been, with clearness and precision, they would perhaps go far to establish some of my own theories …”

“Setting aside the grand and almost overwhelming remembrances which the anniversary of the Independence of our country never fails to introduce to the mind, with all the train of events that at that time, and since that time, have agitated the political and moral world …”

“ … and thinking only of the tide of human beings that at that period lived and acted and looked forward, as we do now, but have since dropped … “

“It will be no doubt. As it is the anniversary that answers to the ancient Jubliee among the Hebrews, be celebrated with extraordinary zeal in many places, and many commemorative orations will be spoken …”

“My son went to town in the morning but returned to dinner, whilst at table he told us that it was currently reported in town that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were no more, and that they had both died on the anniversary of the Independence!”

“It seems so strange a coincidence to be true, but we shall be resolved of out uncertainty in a very little time. Jefferson is said to have been ill for some days – the elder President to have died suddenly.”

“It seems as if it really was so, and that the 50th anniversary saw the estinction of both their lives – It is singular – and according to the doctrine of chances, what an odds would have been against it so occurring!”

“… we talked about the recent deaths of the old sages of Quincy and Montecello – that of the former was characteristic to the past of ‘A Glorious Anniversary!’ are said to have been the last words which he uttered. …”

“How things relative to these conspicuous characters now crowd upon the mind – mine had dropped every sentiment towards them but respect for their virtues and gratitude for their services to my Country. They were two of the most strenuous and efficient operators of our Independence.”

“Jefferson at that time was comparatively a young man, and not much talked of (at least where I had any opportunity of hearing), but the two Adams were designated as mark and determined men, who drove directly at that measure, and pushed on to commit this country, so that intercepion should be impossible …”

“… and to John Adams the tasks seemed to be allotted to him in and keep together the New England Delegation, so that no impulsion favourable to any thing short of that object should remain on any of their minds …”

“… the danger of a failure the power and resources of the Mother Country, our inadequacy for the contest, and total want of means, which startled more prudent and timid men, were totally overlooked in his enthusiasm.”

“I have heard from a source that I cannot doubt that Dr Franklin himself, who had then recently returned from England, was for putting off the Declaration, to gain more time to meet its difficulties …”

“How a little time spreads the vail of oblivion over the manner of the most important events! It is now a matter of doubt as what hour, or how, the Declaration was given to the people. Perhaps few now remain that heard it read on that day.”

“But of the few I am one: being in the lot adjoining to our old mansion house in Chestnut Street, that then extended to 5th Street …”

“I distinctly heard the words of that Instrument read to the people (I believe from the State House steps, for I did not see the reader) a low building on 5th Street (later the location of City Hall) which prevented my sight and I think it was Charles Thomson’s voice.”

“It took place a little after twelve at noon and they then proceeded down the street, (I understood) to read it at the Court House. It was a time of fearful doubt and great anxiety with the people, many of whom were appalled at the boldness of the measure, and the first audience of the Declaration was neither very numerous, nor composed of the most respectable class of citizens.”

“Though there is no mistake in saying that the Revolution itself was (I believe) in all the States, the worth of the best informed and most efficient men; but then they only looked, in general, to their resistance to the Tyranny of the Government, inducing an abandonment of its obsessious designs, as have been the case with the Stamp Act …”

“[I]ndeed the events of the 4th have caused such a train of thoughts that when I had time to write, I chose rather to set down what occurred to be of other day …”

© 2025 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

250 Years Ago … Continental Army

The colonies are abuzz following the adjournment of the First Continental Congress. As colonists deliberated and implemented Congress’s mandates, they also pondered the future of their relationship with Great Britain. How will the King respond to Congress’s petition? Will the proposed Association (a comprehensive non-importation and non-exportation scheme) force Parliament to repeal the Coercive Acts? Colonists wait only a few short months for an answer.

On February 3, 1775 Abigail Adams wrote to Mercy Otis Warren, reporting among other things, “The die is cast … but it seems to me the Sword is now our only, yet dreadful alternative”.

Forming the Continental Army and Naming Its Commander in Chief

America’s Revolutionary War began on April 19, 1775 with exchanges of musketry between British regulars and Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord, as many delegates were already enroute to Philadelphia, where Congress was scheduled to convene on May 10, 1775.

When the delegates to the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia on May 10, they soon learned that armed men commanded by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the British forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point on Lake Champlain in New York.

The New England colonists reacted to this news by raising four separate armies. With remarkable speed, committees of correspondence spread the traumatic news of Lexington and Concord beyond the borders of Massachusetts.

On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted “the American continental army” after reaching a consensus position in the Committee of the Whole.  This procedure and the desire for secrecy account for the sparseness of the official journal entries for the day.

On June 15, Congress unanimously chose George Washington. Washington had been active in the military planning committees of Congress and by late May had taken to wearing his old uniform.

Preparing the Continental Army to Go to War

Washington was also to prepare and to send to Congress an accurate strength return of that army. On the other hand, instructions to keep the army obedient, diligent, and disciplined were rather vague. The Commander in Chief’s right to make strategic and tactical decisions on purely military grounds was limited only by a requirement to listen to the advice of a council of war.

Within a set troop maximum, including volunteers, Washington had the right to determine how many men to retain, and he had the power to fill temporarily any vacancies below the rank of colonel. Permanent promotions and appointments were reserved for the colonial governments to make.

The record indicates only that Congress undertook to raise ten companies of riflemen, approved an enlistment form for them, and appointed a committee (including Washington and Schuyler) to draft rules and regulations “for the government of the army.”

The delegates’ correspondence, diaries, and subsequent actions make it clear that they really did much more. They also accepted responsibility for the existing New England troops and the forces requested for the defense of the various points in New York. The former were believed to total 10,000 men; the latter, both New Yorkers and Connecticut men, another 5,000.

By the third week in June delegates were referring to 15,000 at Boston. Meanwhile, the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775 forced many delegates to rethink their position on reconciliation. As accounts of the battle reach Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson are drafting the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking up Arms. John Adams calls the document a spirited Manifesto.

When on June 19 Congress requested the governments of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire to forward to Boston “such of the forces as are already embodied, towards their quotas of the troops agreed to be raised by the New England Colonies,” it gave a clear indication of its intent to adopt the regional army.  Discussions the next day indicated that Congress was prepared to support a force at Boston twice the size of the British garrison, and that it was unwilling to order any existing units to be disbanded.

Congress then took steps for issuing paper money to finance the army, and on June 30 it adopted the Articles of War.

American Revolutionary War

The American Revolutionary War (1775 – 1783) was an insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies that won political independence and went on to form the United States of America.

The war followed more than a decade of growing estrangement between the British crown and a large and influential segment of its North American colonies that was caused by British attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs after having long adhered to a policy of salutary neglect.

By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, the Thirteen Colonies (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year.

At any given time, however, the American forces seldom numbered over 20,000; in 1781 there were only about 29,000 revolutionaries under arms throughout the country.

By contrast, the British army was a reliable steady force of professionals. Since it numbered only about 42,000, heavy recruiting programs were introduced.

Because troops were few and conscription unknown, the British government, following a traditional policy, purchased about 30,000 troops from various German princes.

An estimated 6,800 Americans were killed in action, 6,100 wounded, and upwards of 20,000 were taken prisoner. Historians believe that at least an additional 17,000 deaths were the result of disease, including about 8,000–12,000 who died while prisoners of war.

Unreliable data places the total casualties for British regulars fighting in the Revolutionary War around 24,000 men. This total number includes battlefield deaths and injuries, deaths from disease, men taken prisoner, and those who remained missing. Approximately 1,200 Hessian soldiers were killed, 6,354 died of disease and another 5,500 deserted and settled in America afterward. (Battlefield)

Click the following links to general summaries about the Continental Army:

Click to access Continental-Army-SAR-RT.pdf

Click to access Continental-Army.pdf

© 2025 Hoʻokuleana LLC