Images of Old Hawaiʻi

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

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Townshend Acts

To help pay its massive debts from the Seven Years’ War, the British Parliament – at the advice of Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the British Exchequer – voted to levy new taxes on the American colonies.

The Seven Years’ War had involved virtually every great power of Europe and spanned the entire globe. While it ended French influence in North America east of the Mississippi River, the war also left the British monarchy facing massive debt.

Since parts of the war had been fought in North America (known as the French and Indian War), and British forces had protected the American Colonies from attack, the British Crown expected the colonists to pay a share of the debt.

Britain also needed additional revenue to fund the administration of its growing efforts toward global imperialism. Before the French and Indian War, the British government had been hesitant to tax its American Colonies. (Longley)

The Townshend Acts (June 15–July 2, 1767) were a series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right to exert authority over the colonies through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assembly and through strict provisions for the collection of revenue duties.

They bear the name of Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is – as the chief treasurer of the British Empire – in charge of economic and financial matters and who sponsored them.

  • The Suspending Act (New York Restraining Act) (June 5, 1767) banned the New York Colony Assembly from conducting business until it agreed to pay for the housing, meals, and other expenses of British troops stationed there under the Quartering Act of 1765.
  • The Revenue Act (Townshend duties) (June 26, 1767) imposed direct revenue duties – that is, duties aimed not merely at regulating trade but at putting money into the British treasury. These were payable at colonial ports and fell on tea, wine, lead, glass, paper, and paint imported into the colonies.  Since Britain held a monopoly on these products, the colonies could not legally buy them from any other country.  It was the second time in the history of the colonies that a tax had been levied solely for the purpose of raising revenue.
  • The Commissioners of Customs Act (June 29, 1767) established an American Customs Board. Headquartered in Boston, the five British-appointed commissioners of the Customs Board enforced a strict and often arbitrarily applied set of shipping and trade regulations (including additional officers, searchers, spies, coast guard vessels, search warrants, writs of assistance), all intended to increase taxes paid to Britain.
  • The Indemnity Act (June 29, 1767) was aimed at enabling the East India Company to compete with the tea that was smuggled by the Dutch. It lowered commercial duties on tea imported to England by the East India Company and gave the company a refund of the duty for tea that was then exported to the colonies. Compensating for the loss of revenue brought about by the Indemnity Act was another reason for the imposition of the Townshend duties.

The acts renewed a fierce debate over whether the British Parliament had the right to tax the North American colonies solely for the purpose of raising revenue.

The colonists protested, “no taxation without representation,” arguing that the British Parliament did not have the right to tax them because they lacked representation in the legislative body.  They asserted that only colonial assemblies elected by themselves should have the power to impose taxes.  (Khan Academy)

The most influential colonial objection to the Townshend Acts came in twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”  Published starting in December 1767, Dickinson’s essays urged colonists to resist paying the British taxes.

Moved by the essays, James Otis of Massachusetts rallied the Massachusetts House of Representatives, along with other colonial assemblies, to send petitions to King George III demanding repeal of the Revenue Act.

Colonists organized boycotts of British goods to pressure Parliament to repeal the Townshend Acts. As British customs officials arrived to collect taxes and prosecute smugglers, colonial opposition intensified, resulting in street demonstrations and protests that sometimes turned violent.

The presence of British troops in Boston was a standing invitation to disorder. On March 5, 1770, antagonism between citizens and British soldiers again flared into violence.  What began as a harmless snowballing of British soldiers degenerated into a mob attack. Someone gave the order to fire; this was the ‘Boston Massacre.’

Faced with such opposition, Parliament in 1770 opted for a strategic retreat and repealed all the Townshend duties except that on tea, which was a luxury item in the colonies, imbibed only by a very small minority.

To most, the action of Parliament signified that the colonists had won a major concession, and the campaign against England was largely dropped. A colonial embargo on ‘English tea’ continued but was not too scrupulously observed. Prosperity was increasing and most colonial leaders were willing to let the future take care of itself.  (University of Groningen)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Townshend Acts:

Click to access Townshend-Acts.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Declaratory Act

The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament in 1765; effectively, it required the colonists to pay a tax, represented by a stamp.

Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards.  It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.

It was a direct tax imposed by the British government without the approval of the colonial legislatures and was payable in hard-to-obtain British sterling, rather than colonial currency.

Further, those accused of violating the Stamp Act could be prosecuted in Vice-Admiralty Courts, which had no juries and could be held anywhere in the British Empire. (Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History)

The colonists had recently been hit with three major taxes: the Sugar Act (1764), which levied new duties on imports of textiles, wines, coffee and sugar; the Currency Act (1764), which caused a major decline in the value of the paper money used by colonists; and the Quartering Act (1765), which required colonists to provide food and lodging to British troops under certain circumstances.

With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists’ grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country’s attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence.

The first legislative protest against the Stamp Act came from Virginia.  On May 30, 1765, the House of Burgesses adopted four resolutions, submitted by Patrick Henry.  On the 8th of June, Massachusetts issued the call for the Stamp Act congress.

By November 1, the date on which the Stamp Act was to go into effect, the resolutions of assemblies and public meetings, and the intimidation and violence of the ‘Sons of Liberty’ and others, had made the execution of the act impossible, even if stamps could have been had.

A circular letter from Conway to the governors, dated October 24, urging them to do their utmost to maintain law and order, and authorizing them to call upon the military and naval commanders for assistance, if necessary, was unavailing.

At the opening of Parliament, December 17, papers relating to affairs in America were submitted.

Numerous petitions were also presented setting forth the losses which the Stamp Act had inflicted upon British trade.

A resolution declaratory of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, submitted February 3, was adopted by large majorities.

On the 6th the Lords, by a vote of 59 to 54, resolved in favor of executing the Stamp Act; but a similar proposition in the Commons was rejected by a vote of more than two to one.

On the 12th the King announced himself favorable to modification of the act; while the examination of Franklin before the House of Commons further strengthened the argument for repeal.

The repeal bill and the declaratory bill passed the Commons March 4, and on the 7th the declaratory bill passed the Lords.

The proposition to repeal the Stamp Act, however, encountered strong opposition in the Lords, where 33 members entered a protest against it at the second reading, and 28 at the third; but on the 17th the bill passed, and the next day both acts received the royal assent.

Parliament appeased the unruly colonists by repealing the Stamp Act.  However, the repeal of the Stamp Act did not mean that Great Britain was surrendering any control over its colonies.

The Declaratory Act, passed by Parliament on the same day the Stamp Act was repealed; members of Parliament were upset that colonists had challenged their authority and they asserted complete authority to make laws binding on the American colonies “in all cases whatsoever” and stated that the British Parliament’s taxing authority was the same in America as in Great Britain. (LOC)

The act particularly illustrated British insensitivity to the political maturity that had developed in the American provinces during the 18th century, partly in response to Parliament’s unwritten policy of salutary neglect toward the colonies during the first half of the century. (Select Charters Illustrative of American History)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Declaratory Act:

Click to access Declaratory-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Sons of Liberty

In 1765 the American Stamp Act was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Grenville; in support, Mr. Charles Townshend concluded an able speech in its support by exclaiming,

“And now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence until they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence; and protected by our arms; will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burthen which we lie under?”

On this colonel Barre rose, and, after explaining some passages in his speech, took up Mr. Townsend’s concluding words in a most spirited and inimitable manner, saying, “They planted by your care! No, your oppressions planted them in America.”

“They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth”.

“As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them, who were, perhaps, the deputies of deputies to some members of this House, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of these Sons of Liberty to recoil within them …”

“And believe me,-remember I this day told you so, the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still, but prudence forbids me to explain myself further.  God knows I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I deliever are the genuine sentiments of my heart.

“The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated. But the subject is too delicate. I will say no more.”

“These sentiments were thrown out so entirely without premeditation , so forcibly and so firmly, and the breaking off was so beautifully abrupt, that the whole house sat a while amazed, intently looking, without answering a word.”  (History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America, Gordon)

Sons of Liberty was an organization formed in the American colonies in the summer of 1765 to oppose the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty took their name from this speech given in the British Parliament by Isaac Barré (February 1765), in which he referred to the colonials who had opposed unjust British measures as the “sons of liberty.”

The origins of the Sons of Liberty are unclear, but some of the organization’s roots can be traced to the Loyal Nine, a secretive Boston political organization.  The Loyal Nine (“Loyall Nine”), a well-organized Patriot political organization shrouded in secrecy, was formed in 1765 by nine likeminded citizens of Boston to protest the passing of the Stamp Act.

The Loyal Nine evolved into the larger group Sons of Liberty and were arguably influential in that organization.

The Boston chapter of the Sons of Liberty often met under cover of darkness beneath the “Liberty Tree,” a stately elm tree in Hanover Square (at the corner of Essex Street and Orange Street (the latter of which was renamed Washington Street)).

On the night of January 14, 1766, John Adams stepped into a tiny room in a Boston distillery to meet with a radical secret society. “Spent the Evening with the Sons of Liberty, at their own Apartment in Hanover Square, near the Tree of Liberty,” Adams wrote.

After his visit, Adams assured his diary that he heard “No plotts, no Machinations” from the Loyal Nine, just gentlemanly chat about their plans to celebrate when the Stamp Act was repealed. “I wish they mayn’t be disappointed,” Adams wrote.

On August 14, 1765, violence broke out in colonial Boston. Over the course of that day and several ensuing days, rioters attacked several buildings in the city, including the homes of colonial officials.

The protest resulted from the Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament on March 22, which would require the colonists to pay taxes on most circulating paper items-such as pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and legal and insurance documents.

The August riot, which arose largely from the agitation of this group, contributed to the eventual repeal of the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty claimed as members many of the later leaders of the Revolution, including Paul Revere, John Adams, and Samuel Adams.

The Sons of Liberty rallied support for colonial resistance through the use of petitions, assemblies, and propaganda, and they sometimes resorted to violence against British officials. Instrumental in preventing the enforcement of the Stamp Act, they remained an active pre-Revolutionary force against the crown.  (Britannica)

For a number of years after the Stamp Act riot, the Sons of Liberty organized annual celebrations to commemorate the event.

Due to the increasing success of the Sons of Liberty, the British Parliament eased many of the duties in the colonies. However, the Parliament continued the high tax on tea, as the British Crown desperately needed money.

In 1773, the refusal to pay for British tea on behalf of the colonists fell upon deaf ears, and the East India Company’s trading ships were to enter Boston Harbor to sell the tea. However, rather than purchase the tea, on the night of December 16th, 1773 the Sons of Liberty boarded the trade ships docked in Griffin’s Wharf and threw the shipments of tea overboard in an event known as the Boston Tea Party.

Eventually, the patriotic resistance to British rule became too much to handle and revolution and war was inevitable. When lawmakers of Virginia gathered in 1775 to discuss negotiations with the British King, Sons of Liberty member, Patrick Henry exclaimed to the Second Virginia Convention “Give me liberty or give me death!”.

Thus, cementing the American stance for independence from British rule and initiating the American commitment to the Revolutionary War. (Battlefields)

Click to access Sons-of-Liberty.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC