Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Solemn League and Covenant

With the repeal of the all but one of the Townshend duties and the new government of Lord North eager to avoid more trouble with the colonies, colonial moderates and royal officials hope to discredit the radical opposition.

By the end of 1773 there had been a peaceful interlude of about three years. But in December of that year the so-called Boston Tea Party and London’s reaction in the early months of 1774 shattered the quiet.

In the spring and summer of 1774, news had reached Boston that Britain’s Parliament had enacted a number of measures in retaliation for the Tea Party of late 1773.  Known in the colonies as the “Intolerable Acts”, these most notably closed the port of Boston, revoked the colony’s charter, and outlawed town meetings.

Outraged, Samuel Adams and his colleagues in the Boston committee of correspondence considered a non-importation pledge known as the “Solemn League and Covenant”.  (The name of the document mimicked that of the 1644 pledge between England’s Parliament and Scotland, pledging religious reform in return for support against Charles I during the English Civil Wars.)

The Covenant called for its signers to halt the purchase of British goods after August 31 and, further, to stop dealing with those who did not sign.

The document was fiercely resisted by area merchants.  In addition, there was growing sentiment amongst Bostonians toward waiting for a more comprehensive, inter-colony non-importation agreement.

During the summer of 1774, colonists debated the merits of the ‘Solemn League and Covenant,’ a proposal offered by the Boston Committee of Correspondence to cease all trade with the mother country.  While not necessarily opposed to the idea of a boycott, leaders in other colonies (and other Massachusetts towns) hesitate to follow Boston’s lead.

The precise terms of resistance, they argue, should be formulated among, agreed to and followed by all.

Although Adams ultimately managed to find support at the Boston town meeting in late June, it did not come easily.  In an effort to swing around the Boston opposition, Adams and the committee of correspondence sent the document into the surrounding countryside via the network formed by each town’s committee of correspondence.

Apparently, many towns found it difficult to support the action, and those who did usually made modifications to the language on the printed form they received from Boston. In the end, the effort was eclipsed in the fall of 1774 by similar actions taken by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Congress first visits the issues of nonimportation, nonexportation and nonconsumption in late September. The discussion centers on logistics and on the particular interests of individual provinces.  (Massachusetts Historical Society)

Those who signed the non-importation pledge promised to stop purchasing British goods, but also to cease business dealings with those who continued. This agreement eventually spread beyond Boston to surrounding communities such as Concord.  (Concord Museum)

The Solemn League and Covenant was the first concerted response to the Boston Port Act.  Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren are believed to be the architects and authors of this document, issued by the Boston Committee of Correspondence, and distributed to towns throughout Massachusetts.  It is a more forceful non-consumption and non-importation agreement than any preceding it.

Joseph Warren stumbled politically in the initial implementation of the Covenant when Samuel Adams was away from Boston at a meeting of the House of Representatives in Salem.  Despite bluster in the Boston Gazette of countrymen allegedly clamoring in droves to sign the document, acceptance was in fact spotty.

The growing likelihood over the summer of 1774 that a Continental Congress would become a reality, combined to render moot the Solemn League and Covenant. 

Click the following link to a general summary about the Solemn League and Covenant:

Click to access Solemn-League-and-Covenant.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Coercive (Intolerable) Acts

By 1774, there had been almost a decade of revolutionary fervor in Boston. British taxation policies, such as the Stamp Act of 1765, had sparked a debate in the North American colonies over the constitutional meaning of representation.

Leading radicals like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Hancock argued that because the colonists weren’t represented in Parliament, that legislative body had no right to tax them.

The stationing of British troops in Boston had infuriated townspeople, setting the stage for the Boston Massacre in 1770.  On December 17, 1773 Boston radicals led by the Sons of Liberty boarded British ships filled with thousands of pounds of East India Company tea. They dumped nearly 350 crates into the harbor.

After the Boston Tea Party, the British adopted a divide-and-conquer strategy that sought to isolate troublemaking Boston from the other colonies, which leaders in Parliament believed were merely tagging along with Boston’s radicals.  (Khan Academy)

After news of the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 reached England, the members of Parliament passed several acts designed to punish the misbehaving colonists and force them to submit to the government’s authority.  (Cal State Long Beach)

In London, response to the destruction of the tea was swift and strong. The violent destruction of property infuriated King George III and the prime minister, Lord North, who insisted the loss be repaid. Though some American merchants put forward a proposal for restitution, the Massachusetts Assembly refused to make payments.

Massachusetts’s resistance to British authority united different factions in Great Britain against the colonies. North had lost patience with the unruly British subjects in Boston.

Lord North declared: “The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority;”

“yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.”

The cumulative effect of the reports of colonial resistance to British rule during the winter of 1773–74 was to make Parliament more determined than ever to assert its authority in America. The main force of its actions fell on Boston, which seemed to be the center of colonial hostility. (Britannica)

Both Parliament and the king agreed that Massachusetts should be forced to both pay for the tea and yield to British authority.

In early 1774, leaders in Parliament responded with a set of four measures designed to punish Massachusetts, commonly known at the Coercive Acts.

  • The Boston Port Bill (March 31, 1774) shut down Boston Harbor until the East India Company was repaid. The act authorized the Royal Navy to blockade Boston Harbor because “the commerce of his Majesty’s subjects cannot be safely carried on there.” The blockade commenced on June 1, 1774, effectively closing Boston’s port to commercial traffic. Additionally, it forbade any exports to foreign ports or provinces. The only imports allowed were provisions for the British Army and necessary goods, such as fuel and wheat.
  • The Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774) abolished the colony’s charter of 1691, reducing it to the level of a crown colony, replacing the elective local council with an appointive one, enhancing the powers of the military governor, Gen. Thomas Gage, and forbidding town meetings without approval.
  • The Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774) was aimed at protecting British officials charged with capital offenses during law enforcement.  It allowed the royal governor to unilaterally move any trial of a crown officer out of Massachusetts, a change designed to prevent hostile Massachusetts juries from deciding these cases.
  • The Quartering Act (June 2, 1774) revived the indignation that surrounded the earlier Quartering Act, which had been allowed to expire in 1770.  The new Quartering Act applied to all of British America and gave colonial governors the right to requisition unoccupied buildings to house British troops. However, in Massachusetts the British troops were forced to remain camped on the Boston Common until the following November because the Boston patriots refused to allow workmen to repair the vacant buildings General Gage had obtained for quarters.

The most important of them was the first passed, the Boston Port Act, because it was news of its passage that led to the call for the First Continental Congress. Within a year, the British government’s attempt to enforce the bundle of legislation tipped a constitutional crisis into the Revolutionary War. (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation)

Rather than isolating rebellious colonists in Boston from the rest of the American populace, acts which closed the port to commerce and undercut representative government inspired colonists outside of Massachusetts to support the beleaguered Bostonians. (Cal State Long Beach)

The Coercive Acts closed the port of Boston, unilaterally changed the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to centralize British authority, permitted colonial leaders accused of crimes to be tried in another colony or in England, and sanctioned the billeting of British troops in unused buildings.

First Continental Congress

Word of the Intolerable Acts led to an unprecedented outbreak of public dismay and disaffection throughout British America (including the Caribbean) and directly resulted in the creation of the First Continental Congress in September 1774, compromised of delegates from 13 of the mainland colonies. (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation)

Instead of isolating Boston from the other North American colonies, the Intolerable Acts had the opposite result. Delegates from all of the colonies except Georgia gathered in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress in the autumn of 1774.

The purpose of the Congress was to show support for Boston and to work out a unified approach to the British.

On October 14, 1774, the First Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Colonial Rights and Grievances. The declaration denied Parliament’s right to tax the colonies and lambasted the British for stationing troops in Boston.

It characterized the Intolerable Acts as an assault on colonial liberties, rejected British attempts to circumscribe representative government, and requested that the colonies prepare their militias. Despite its harsh tone, the declaration did affirm Parliament’s right to regulate trade, and did not challenge colonial loyalty to the British monarch, King George III.

Although some of the more radical delegates, particularly Samuel Adams, already believed that war was inevitable, the congress did not seek or declare independence from Britain at this time. The delegates agreed to meet again the following May if relations did not improve. (Khan Academy)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts:

Click to access Coercive-Intolerable-Acts.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Native Americans in the American Revolution

In the 1750s, the area west of the Allegheny Mountains was a vast forest.  American Indians primarily from three nations – the Seneca, the Lenape or Delaware, and the Shawnee – inhabited the upper Ohio River Valley.

About 3,000 to 4,000 American Indians were living there.  The population of all the Indian nations in northeastern North America was about 175,000.

A few French and British traders traveled through the area.

New France had three colonies: Canada (along the St. Lawrence River), the Illinois country (the mid-Mississippi Valley), and Louisiana (New Orleans and west of the Mississippi).  There were about 70,000 colonists throughout the French settlements. Their economy was based on trade with the American Indians. It was a weak economic system, and the colonies were not self-sustaining.

To the east of the Allegheny Mountains lived more than 1 million colonists in the 13 British colonies. They had a strong economy based on farming. Their population was expanding rapidly, both through immigration and population growth.  Although they had no settlers in the Ohio River Valley in 1750, the British colonies claimed the land.

The border between French and British possessions was not well defined, and one disputed territory was the upper Ohio River valley. The French had constructed a number of forts in this region in an attempt to strengthen their claim on the territory.

The American Revolution

The relationship between native peoples and the emerging United States during the era of the American Revolution was a complicated one. From the onset of Lord Dunmore’s War in 1774 to the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Indians in North America faced a dilemma on whether they would fight, for whom they would fight, and why they would fight.

Most Native Americans initially thought that the Revolution was an isolated disagreement between white colonists and their mother country.  However, the Revolutionary War evolved into a continent-wide struggle that the Indians could not avoid.

Individual Indians joined both the Continental and British armies as regular soldiers or as scouts, guides, mariners, and diplomats.  History shows that Native Americans not only participated in the American Revolution, but also survived the long-term changes it produced.  (Merritt)

Native Americans in the Revolutionary War

Many Native American tribes fought in the Revolutionary War. The majority of these tribes fought for the British but a few fought for the Americans.  Many of these tribes tried to remain neutral in the early phase of the war but when some of them came under attack by American militia, they decided to join the British.

Other tribes joined the British in the hopes that if the British won, they would put a stop to colonial expansion in the west, as they had done with the Royal Proclamation of 1763.  Rebecca Beatrice Brooks provides a list of the various tribes who fought in the Revolutionary War:

Wabanaki Confederacy

The Wabanaki Confederacy was an alliance of five northern tribes: the Penobscot, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, Abenaki and Micmac.  They were situated generally in Maine and New Brunswick.

Stockbridge-Mohican Tribe

The Stockbridge-Mohican, a tribe who lived in Western Massachusetts, sided with the Americans in the Revolutionary War, even though they had been long-standing allies of the British and even served in militia units during King George’s War, the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Uprising.

Shawnee Tribe

The Shawnee, a tribe who lived in the Ohio River Valley sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  When the Revolutionary War first broke out, most Shawnee tried to remain neutral.  American encroachment on Shawnee land persisted though and the tribe soon became divided on the issue.

Delaware Tribe

Many Delaware chiefs argued that an alliance with the Americans was an opportunity to assert the tribe’s independence from the Six Nations and to challenge the Six Nations’ claims to lands west of the Ohio. In 1778, the United States signed its first treaty, the Treaty of Fort Pitt, with the Delaware tribe. The treaty allowed American troops to pass through Delaware territory.  In addition, the Delaware agreed to sell meat, corn, horses and other supplies to the United States and allow their men to enlist in the United States army.

Miami Tribe

The Miami, a tribe in the Great Lakes region, sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  After the British lost the war, the Miami tribe continued to fight the Americans who began pouring into the Ohio country. Between the years 1783 and 1790, the Miami tribe killed 1,500 settlers.  This sparked a war between the Americans and the Miami tribe, the Miami War, which is also known as Little Turtle’s War, from 1790-1794.  The Miami tribe were defeated. Throughout the 19th century, the Miami continued to sign more treaties and ceded more land and the tribe eventually emigrated to Kansas in 1846 and were then removed to Oklahoma in 1867.

Wyandot Tribe

The Wyandot (Huron), a tribe in the Great Lakes region, sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  After the war, the Wyandot continued to fight the Americans who encroached on their land. There was a brief lull in the fighting from 1783-1785, and the United States, Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa tribes signed the Treaty of Fort McIntosh in 1785.  In 1843, the Wyandots were forcibly removed from their remaining land and relocated to a reservation in Kansas. After the Civil War, the Ohio Wyandot were relocated to Oklahoma.

Iroquois Confederacy

The Iroquois Confederacy, also known as the Six Nations, was an alliance of six tribes in New York and Canada: the Mohawks, Oneidas, Tuscaroras, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas.  The Iroquois Confederacy had been long-standing allies of the British. Yet, when the Revolutionary War broke out, the confederacy split in two when the Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas and Mohawks sided with the British, while the Tuscarora and the Oneida sided with the Americans.

Potawami Tribe

The Potawami, a tribe in the Great Lakes region, tried to remain neutral in the Revolutionary War but eventually sided with the Americans in 1778.  The Potawami had been long-standing trading partners and military allies with the French and fought alongside them in the French and Indian War but were reluctant to get involved in another war.  They were later convinced to join the American’s side.  The Potawatomi had ceded much of their lands to the United States by the mid-19th century and the tribe split up and relocated to various distant locations, such as Texas, Kansas, Iowa and Canada, although many stayed in Wisconsin.

Catawaba Tribe

The Catawaba, a tribe with a population of a few hundred that lived in the Piedmont area along the border of South Carolina and North Carolina, sided with the Americans in 1775.  The Catawaba fought in numerous key battles in South and North Carolina. In 1782, after General Charles Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Catawaba returned home and the South Carolinians paid them for their service.  The Catawbas also received a state-recognized reservation in South Carolina as a result of their support of the Americans, which they still occupy today.

Chickasaw Tribe

The Chickasaw, a southern tribe with a population of 4,000 who lived in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  The Chickasaw had been trading partners and staunch allies of the British throughout the 18th century and continued their support for the British in the Revolutionary War.

Choctaw Tribe

The Choctaw, a southern tribe with a population of 15,000 who inhabited about 50 villages in a key strategic position of the lower Mississippi, were coveted by both the Americans and the British during the Revolutionary War but the tribe sided with the British.

Creek Tribe

The Creek, a southern tribe with a population of 15,000 that lived in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina, never officially joined the war effort, preferring instead to engage in cautious participation. The Creek tribe never engaged in significant sustained fighting during the war.

Cherokee Tribe

The Cherokee, a southern tribe with a population of about 8,500 who lived in the interior hill country of the Carolinas and Georgia, sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  After initial successes in their attacks, the Cherokees soon witnessed four American armies from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia invade nearly all their villages during the summer and fall of 1776.

Declaration of Independence and Native Americans

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson clearly described the role of American Indians in the American Revolution. In addition to his other oppressive acts, King George III had,

“endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Inscribed in the founding document of the United States, Jefferson’s words placed Indians on the wrong side of the struggle for liberty and the wrong side of history from the very beginning of the Revolution. Thus while Americans fought for their rights and freedoms, Jefferson argued that Native Americans fought against them, the vicious pawns of a tyrannical king.

Subsequent Indian Relocation (Trail of Tears)

Then, during the 1830s, there was a forced relocation of Eastern Woodlands Indians of the Southeast region of the United States (including Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole, among other nations) to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River – on the Trail of Tears.

Estimates based on tribal and military records suggest that approximately 100,000 indigenous people were forced from their homes during that period, which is sometimes known as the removal era, and that some 15,000 died during the journey west.

The term Trail of Tears reminds us of the collective suffering those people experienced, although it is most commonly used in reference to the removal experiences of the Southeast Indians generally and the Cherokee nation specifically.

The physical trail consisted of several overland routes and one main water route and, by passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act in 2009, stretched some 5,045 miles across portions of nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee).

Click the following link to a general summary about Native Americans in the American Revolution:

Click to access Native-Americans-in-the-American-Revolution.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Gaspee Affair

The British government had a crushing debt incurred in winning the French and Indian War. It needed money, and collecting customs duties was one way of getting it.

In 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act, a tax on sugar, and the British Admiralty bought six ships ‘of Marblehead design’ to enforce it.

Among the first of these vessels was the schooner St. John, commanded by Lieutenant Hill. She arrived in 1764 and was immediately regarded as an enemy to the commerce of the Colony and her every movement watched.

Other war-ships became more or less embroiled with the Rhode Islanders, and the trouble increased as they persisted sending officers to board American ships, inspect the crew, and seize sailors from Rhode Island merchantmen.

A brig, just arrived at home after a long voyage, expected eagerly by those who had relatives and friends among her crew was stopped when in sight of land by the English war vessel Maidstone, and her entire crew seized.

In retaliation about five hundred men of Newport seized one of the Maidstone’s boats, dragged it through the streets of the town and burned it on the common in front of the court house, while a crowd, composed of the major part of the inhabitants of Newport, witnessed and applauded the deed.  The St. John and Liberty were burned.

The Gaspee, a schooner of eight guns, with Lieutenant Dudingston in command, arrived in Narragansett Bay in the spring of 1772 to carry on the work for which the St. John and the Liberty had proved ineffectual. 

By 1772 the Gaspee had become a daily nuisance in Narragansett Bay because her crew had an incentive to collect as much customs duty as possible: They shared in it.

A letter exchange began between Rhode Island’s elected Governor, Joseph Wanton, and the captain of HMS Gaspee, Lieutenant Dudingston. The earliest exchange of letters (April 6, 1772) reveals the colonists’ frustrations with Dudingston’s actions, as well as a dispute regarding whether he has the authority to operate in Narragansett Bay.

Rhode Island was fed up with the Gaspee; so much so that on May 20, 1772, Gov. Joseph Wanton wrote a letter to the British secretary of state complaining about her. He argued the Gaspee’s crew didn’t have the right to seize a quantity of rum and try the owner outside of the colony of Rhode Island. On top of that, they insulted the colonists with ‘the most abusive and contumelious language.’

Lieutenant Dudingston continued his harassment, infuriating merchants and threatening to cripple the economy. Eventually Governor Wanton appealed to the Earl of Hillsborough, England’s Secretary of State for the colonies, for assistance. However Dudingston had pushed Rhode Islanders too far.

Her captain’s persistent harassment of Rhode Island merchants led to a group of Rhode Islanders to retaliate. The attack is the first major armed act of rebellion against the British crown, and the subsequent investigation prompted the colonies to consider united action against England.

On  the morning of June 9, 1772, Hannah, a medium-sized packet boat captained by Benjamin Lindsey, began sailing north from Newport to Providence.

As expected, Lieutenant Dudingston aboard Gaspee gave chase and the two ships worked their way up Narragansett Bay. About six miles from Providence, Hannah tacked across shallow water, and Gaspee, a much larger ship, followed and ran aground.  Hannah continued on to Providence, leaving Gaspee stranded on Namquit Point.

They concluded the Gaspee would be grounded until well after midnight when the rising tide could free her and now saw a way to rid Rhode Island’s merchants of the ship commanded by the much-hated William Dudingston.

Brown ordered eight longboats delivered to Fenner’s Wharf, their oars and oarlocks muffled. He sent a drummer around town to announce the grounding of the Gaspee.  Anyone interested in destroying that troublesome vessel should go to James Sabin’s house, right next to Fenner’s Wharf.

Ephraim Bowen, about 19 years old, answered the call. He grabbed his father’s gun, powder and shot and found a crowd at Sabin’s. His friend, 18-year-old Joseph Bucklin, a tavern-keeper’s son, had arrived, too.  Later that evening, men gather at Sabin’s Tavern in Providence and plan an assault.

On that moonless night, more than 100 Sons of Liberty silently rowed out in a line of longboats to the Gaspee;

Dudingston leaned over the starboard gunwale in his white shirt and demanded, “Who goes there?”

Capt. Abraham Whipple replied, ‘I want to come on board.’

The return was, ‘Stand off, you can’t come on board.’

On which Capt. Whipple roared out, ‘I am the sheriff of the County of Kent; I am come for the commander of this vessel, and have him I will, dead or alive. Men, spring to your oars!’

Joseph Bucklin, standing on the main seat of the longboat, realized he had a shot at Dudingston.

“Ephe, reach me your gun and I can kill that fellow,’ he said to Ephraim Bowen. Bucklin then fired at Lt. William Dudingston, hitting him in the arm and lower abdomen. He exclaimed, “I have killed the rascal.” (Dudingston fell back, but was only wounded.)

Today, Rhode Islanders celebrate that shot as the ‘First Shot of the Revolutionary War.’

Soon after all the party were ordered to depart, leaving one boat for the leaders of the expedition, who soon set the vessel on fire and consumed her to the water’s edge.

The following morning, Sessions learned of the attack and began an investigation, taking testimony from two of the Gaspee crew.

On June 12, 1772, Governor Wanton issued a proclamation offering a reward to anyone who can offer information regarding the Gaspee burning.

In August 1772, with the investigation making little progress, King George III issued a proclamation offering rewards of up to £1000 to anyone who can supply the names of those responsible for the destruction of the ship and the injury to its commanding officer.

He names five officials from different colonies to carry out his orders. They are known as the Gaspee Commission.

With his proclamation, King George III also sends instructions for the Gaspee Commissioners. They include a command to send any accused attackers to England for trial.

From September 1772 to June 22, 1773, the Commission conducts its investigation, issuing warrants and taking testimony from Gaspee crew and people believed to have knowledge of the attack.

After ten months, the Commissioners end their investigation. In their final report to King George III, they explain that due to contradictory evidence and coerced testimony, they are unable to name any of the perpetrators of the crime.

The burning of the Gaspee is celebrated in Rhode Island as an important early strike against the tyranny of the crown. However it was the King’s threat to try the accused in England, rather than on native soil by a jury of their peers, that had the most lasting effect.

Soon after, understanding that the colonies’ many grievances are best addressed with a “unity of action,” a meeting of deputies from every colony is proposed. These deputies become the First Continental Congress.

Click the following link to a general summary about the Gaspee Affair:

Click to access Gaspee-Affair.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Crispus Attucks

Crispus Attucks has been immortalized as the first casualty of the American Revolutionary War and the first African American hero.  (PBS and Crispus Attucks Museum)

On March 5, 1770, toward evening that day, a crowd of colonists gathered and began taunting a small group of British soldiers. Tension mounted rapidly, and, when one of the soldiers was struck, the others fired their muskets, killing three of the Americans instantly and mortally wounding two others.

Attucks was the first to fall, thus becoming one of the first men to lose his life in the cause of American independence.

His body was carried to Faneuil Hall, where it lay in state until March 8, when all five victims were buried in a common grave. (The five included Crispus Attucks, James Caldwell, and Samuel Gray who died at the scene; Samuel Maverick mortally wounded, dying the next day and Patrick Carr dying two weeks later.) Attucks was the only victim of the Boston Massacre whose name was widely remembered.

Attucks has been celebrated not just as one of the first martyrs in what became the fight for American independence, but also as a symbol of African Americans’ struggle for freedom and equality.  The life of Crispus Attucks is far less documented than his death.

Early coverage and investigations into the details of the Massacre refer to Attucks as Michael Johnson, a name he may have used as an intentional alias.  After uncovering his actual name, newspapers published a few details about his life, notably his profession, a sailor; his birth in Framingham, Massachusetts; his current residence of New Providence in the Bahamas; and his ship’s destination of North Carolina.

His last name, ‘Attucks,’ is of Indigenous origin, deriving from the Natick word for ‘deer.’

His first name reflects the trend in the colonial era of enslavers forcing an Ancient Roman name onto their enslaved people. Attucks shares the name ‘Crispus’ with the son of Emperor Constantine.

Contemporary sources at the time of his death do not identify Attucks as enslaved or formerly enslaved. How and when he gained his freedom is unknown, but it is possible that Attucks used the name Michael Johnson to protect himself from a return to slavery.

Attucks was born around 1723 somewhere near Framingham, Mass., perhaps Natick, the Praying Indian town.  His mother belonged to the Wampanoag tribe, and his father was an African-American slave. His mother may have been descended from John Attucks, hanged for treason because he sided with his people during King Philip’s War.

Crispus Attucks was enslaved for 27 years, probably by a man named William Brown of Framingham. In 1750 he won his freedom by running away to sea. Or he may have bought his freedom.

In any case, he often worked on whalers, and in between voyages he worked as a ropemaker.  Seafaring was one of the few occupations free men of color could enter. Twenty-five years after the American Revolution, one-fifth of the 100,000 men employed as sailors were African-American.

Click the following link to a general summary about Crispus Attucks:

Click to access Crispus-Attucks.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC