American Revolution | Page 3 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

March 22, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Stamp Act

The French and Indian War had been enormously expensive and left Great Britain with a heavy debt. And, the expense of protecting the English possessions in America seemed likely to increase rather than diminish.

The war and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in increasing colonial resentment of British attempts to expand imperial authority in the colonies.

One of the early taxes to be imposed was the Stamp Act; on March 22, 1765, the British Parliament passed the “Stamp Act” to help pay for British troops stationed in the colonies during the Seven Years’ War.

Its title and text noted it was, An Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same …

Then, a long list of items related to “every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be ingrossed, written or printed within such British Colonies .. [shall pay] a stamp duty …”

Effectively, the Act 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)

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.

They raised the issue of taxation without representation, and formed societies throughout the colonies to rally against the British government and nobles who sought to exploit the colonies as a source of revenue and raw materials.

In October 1765, delegates from the colonies convened in New York City at the Stamp Act Congress, where they drew up formal petitions to the British Parliament and to King George III to repeal the act. It was the first unified colonial response to British policy and it provided the British a taste of what would come soon thereafter.

The British had been receiving reports of mob violence in the colonies, and Prime Minister Grenville had been replaced by Lord Rockingham, who proved more sympathetic than his predecessor to the colonists’ demands. (Khan Academy)

The colonists also took exception with the provision denying offenders trials by jury. A vocal minority hinted at dark designs behind the Stamp Act. These radical voices warned that the tax was part of a gradual plot to deprive the colonists of their freedoms and to enslave them beneath a tyrannical regime.

By October of that year, nine of the 13 colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress, at which the colonists drafted the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances,” a document that railed against the autocratic policies of the mercantilist British empire.

Realizing that it actually cost more to enforce the Stamp Act in the protesting colonies than it did to abolish it, the British government repealed the tax the following year. (History-com)

Click to access Stamp-Act.pdf

March 10, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Common Friends to Mankind

On April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies of British North America.

Following this, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and it was signed by 56-members of the Congress (1776.)

The next eight years (1775-1783) war was waging on the eastern side of the continent. The main result was an American victory and European recognition of the independence of the United States.

It was the turning point in the future of the continent and an everlasting change in the United States.

At this same time, there was a turning point in the future of the Islands.

Captain James Cook’s third and final voyage (1776-1779) of discovery was an attempt to locate a North-West Passage, an ice-free sea route which linked the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Cook commanded the Resolution while Charles Clerke commanded Discovery. (State Library, New South Wales)

In the dawn hours of January 18, 1778, British explorer Cook first sighted apparently uncharted islands in the middle of the Pacific.

“They were named by Captain Cook the Sandwich Islands, in honour of the Earl of Sandwich, under whose administration he had enriched geography with so many splendid and important discoveries.” (Captain King’s Journal; Kerr)

Hawaiian lives changed with sudden and lasting impact, when western contact changed the course of history for Hawai‘i.

At the time of Cook’s arrival (1778-1779), the Hawaiian Islands were divided into four kingdoms: (1) the island of Hawaiʻi under the rule of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, who also had possession of the Hāna district of east Maui; (2) Maui (except the Hāna district,) Molokai, Lānai and Kahoʻolawe, ruled by Kahekili; (3) Oʻahu, under the rule of Kahahana; and at (4) Kauai and Niʻihau, Kamakahelei was ruler.

Throughout their stay, the ships were plentifully supplied with fresh provisions which were paid for mainly with iron, much of it in the form of long iron daggers made by the ships’ blacksmiths on the pattern of the wooden pāhoa used by the Hawaiians.

After a month’s stay, Cook got under sail again to resume his exploration of the Northern Pacific. Shortly after leaving Hawaiʻi Island, the foremast of the Resolution broke. They returned to Kealakekua.

That night a skiff from the Discovery had been stolen. “Our unfortunate Commander, the last time he was seen distinctly, was standing at the water’s edge, and calling out to the boats to cease firing, and to pull in.”

“If it be true, as some of those who were present have imagined, that the marines and boat-men had fired without his orders, and that he was desireous of preventing further bloodshed, it is not improbable that his humanity, on this occasion, proved fatal to him.”

“For it was remarked, that whilst he faced the natives, none of them had offered him any violence, but that having turned about to give his orders to the boats, he was stabbed in the back, and fell with his face in the water.” (Voyages of James Cook) On February 14, 1779, Cook was killed.

At this same time, recall that back in the Atlantic, the American Revolutionary War was still ongoing with the Americans (with support from the French) fighting the British.

At Canton, King learned that the the American and French governments had issued a directive to all French sea captains exempting Cook from military action on his way back to England.

“Not long after Captain Cook’s death, an event occurred in Europe, which had a particular relation to the voyage of our Navigator, and which was so honourable to himself, and to the great nation from whom it proceeded”. (King)

On March 10, 1779, Benjamin Franklin, who at age seventh-three, had himself issued a similar directive to the captains of American ships,

“A Ship having been fitted out from England before the Commencement of this War, to make Discoveries of new Countries, in Unknown Seas, under the Conduct of that most celebrated Navigator and Discoverer Captain Cook …”

“… an Undertaking truely laudable in itself, as the Increase of Geographical Knowledge, facilitates the Communication between distant Nations, in the Exchange of useful Products and Manufactures, and the Extension of Arts …”

“… whereby the common Enjoyments of human Life are multiplied and augmented, and Science of other kinds encreased to the Benifit of Mankind in general.”

“This is therefore most earnestly to recommend to every one of you; that in case the said Ship which is now expected to be soon in the European Seas on her Return, should happen to fall into your Hands …”

“… you would not consider her as an Enemy, nor suffer any Plunder to be made of the Effects contained in her, nor obstruct her immediate Return to England, by detaining her or sending her into any other Part of Europe or to America …”

“… but that you would treat the said Captain Cook and his People with all Civility and Kindness, affording them as common Friends to Mankind …”

On March 19th, 1779, just a few days after Franklin’s, Monsieur Sartine, secretary of the marine department at Paris, sent to all the commanders of French ships the following statement/directive:

“Captain Cook, who sailed from Plymouth in July, 1776, on board the Resolution, in company with the Discovery, Captain Clerke, in order to make some discoveries on the coasts, islands, and seas of Japan and California …”

“… being on the point of returning to Europe, and such discoveries being of general utility to all nations, it is the king’s pleasure that Captain Cook shall be treated as a commander of a neutral and allied power …”

“… and that all captains of armed vessels, etc., who may meet that famous navigator, shall make him acquainted with the king’s orders on this behalf, but at the same time let him know that on his part he must refrain from all hostilities.”

“By the Marquis of Condorcet we are informed that this measure originated in the liberal and enlightened mind of that excellent citizen and statesman, Monsieur Turgot.”

“Whilst great praise is due to Monsieur Turgot for having suggested the adoption of a measure which hath contributed so much to the reputation of the French government, it must not be forgotten that the first thought of such a plan of conduct was probably owing to Dr. Benjamin Franklin.”

Franklin’s gesture of good will toward Cook was not least among the honors he brought to his fledgling country. On the return of the Discovery and Resolution, they met neither French nor American ships on the way home. (Captain Cook Society)

For more, Click the following link:

https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/Common-Friends-to-Mankind.pdf

March 5, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Boston Massacre

As we approach the semiquincentennial (250th) anniversary on the forming of the United States, here is a brief summary of issues and actions that led to the Revolution and the Revolutionary War … this is about the Boston Massacre.

After the Seven Years’ War had drained Britain’s coffers, the royal government imposed tighter controls over its North American colonies in order to raise revenues. The arrival of British soldiers in October 1768 heightened tensions in a city already on the edge of an uprising.

Over the next two years, Boston existed in a state of virtual British military occupation – one out of three men in the city was a Redcoat, a common nickname for British soldiers due to the color of their uniforms. Radical townspeople and idle young men harassed the soldiers, leading to numerous skirmishes and scuffles. (Khan Academy)

Conflicts between the British and the colonists had been on the rise because the British government had been trying to increase control over the colonies and raise taxes at the same time. (Library of Congress)

In March 1770, British officials ordered the removal of all occupants of the Boston Manufactory House – a halfway house for people living in poverty, those who were ill, and those who were homeless – so that a regiment of British soldiers could be garrisoned there. The Manufactory House’s homeless occupants put up a resistance, and the British backed down, but other confrontations ensued.

On March 5th, one such confrontation turned violent. On that cold, snowy evening in 1770, Private Hugh White was the only British soldier guarding the King’s money stored inside the Custom House on King Street. Private White came under threat of attack from Boston citizens after having an altercation with Edward Garrick.

Soon the town’s church bells rang signaling for more local citizens to come and observe the commotion.

Fearing for his life, White sent word to Captain Thomas Preston. Captain Preston soon arrived with six other armed men, Privates John Carroll, Mathew Kilroy, William McCauley, Hugh Montgomery, William Warren and Corporal William Wemms.

As the crowd continued to grow, Captain Preston ordered his men to load their muskets and then proceeded to tell the mob to disperse. The crowd continued to taunt the soldiers daring them to fire their weapons and throwing snowballs, ice and oyster shells. Private Montgomery was then struck by an object from the crowd and fell to the ground.

Once Montgomery recovered, he stood up and fired into the crowd without orders given to do so. One by one the other soldiers discharged their muskets. (NPS)

Nervous Redcoats opened fire into the crowd, killing five Bostonians and wounding several others. When the smoke cleared Crispus Attucks, James Caldwell, and Samuel Gray lied dead in the street with Samuel Maverick mortally wounded, dying the next day and Patrick Carr dying two weeks later

It was initially referred to as the “Incident on King Street,” the “Bloody Massacre on King Street” and the “State Street Massacre.” Several decades later, and since, it has been called the “Boston Massacre.”

Boston Massacre Trial

The crowd strained forward in the Queen Street courtroom on October 17, 1770. Seven months had passed since the “horrid, bloody massacre” took place; but the passions of the people remained strong.

“Sons of Liberty” such as Samuel Adams and John Hancock had seen to that. They reminded the good citizens that the British soldiers were not welcomed, and that mobs had as much right to carry clubs as the soldiers had to carry loaded muskets.

But now the jury was set and the true drama was beginning. Only a fair trial would show the world that Massachusetts, and by association all Americans, deserved their liberty by an appeal to justice and not by the rule of a mob. Captain Preston had his doubts that a fair trial was possible. Yet there was something about his lawyer, John Adams.

Despite his hostility toward the British government, Adams agreed to defend the British soldiers who had fired on a Boston crowd. His insistence on upholding the legal rights of the soldiers, who in fact had been provoked, made him temporarily unpopular but also marked him as one of the most principled radicals in the burgeoning movement for American independence. He had a penchant for doing the right thing.

Adams seemed at home in the courtroom, like an experienced mariner navigating the shoals of a dangerous coastline. He had been able to impanel a jury from out-of-town, not a single Boston man among them and, Preston felt, the jury seemed uncommonly thoughtful for upstart colonials.

Following one of the first trials in American history to last for several days, even the frenetic crowd seemed exhausted. Testimony after testimony had been used to show both sides of the “massacre” story.

But as Adams said in his summary, “facts are stubborn things … if they [the soldiers] were assaulted at all … this was a provocation for which the law reduces the offense of killing, down to manslaughter …”

When the jury quickly returned with a “not guilty” verdict against Preston and the others, Adams felt a great weight lifted from his shoulders.

Adams would later describe his role as “the greatest service I ever rendered my country.” Why? In a town where British soldiers were hated, there had been a fair trial by jury. In a land where mobs could sway events, the world saw that justice and liberty were valued as the legal rights of all. (NPS)

The Boston Massacre is one of several pivotal events leading to the Revolutionary War, and ultimately, the signing of the Declaration of Independence. (NPS)

Click the following links to general summaries about the Boston Massacre:

Click to access Boston-Massacre-SAR-RT.pdf

Click to access Boston-Massacre.pdf

March 1, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

While the Declaration of Independence was under consideration in the Second Continental Congress, and before it was finally agreed upon, measures were taken for the establishment of a constitutional form of government; and on June 11, 1776, it was

‘‘Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these Colonies’’

Some Continental Congress delegates had informally discussed plans for a more permanent union than the Continental Congress, whose status was temporary.

Congress began to discuss the form this government would take on July 22, 1776 disagreeing on a number of issues, including whether representation and voting would be proportional or state-by-state.

The Albany Plan, an earlier pre-independence attempt at joining the colonies into a larger union, had failed in part because the individual colonies were concerned about losing power to another central institution.

As the American Revolution gained momentum, however, many political leaders saw the advantages of a centralized government that could coordinate the Revolutionary War.

Again, the New York provincial Congress sent a plan of union to the Continental Congress, which, like the Albany Plan, continued to recognize the authority of the British Crown.

Benjamin Franklin had drawn up a plan for “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” While some delegates, such as Thomas Jefferson, supported Franklin’s proposal, many others were strongly opposed. Franklin introduced his plan before Congress on July 21, but stated that it should be viewed as a draft for when Congress was interested in reaching a more formal proposal. Congress tabled the plan.

The disagreements delayed final discussions of confederation until October of 1777. By then, the British capture of Philadelphia had made the issue more urgent.

Delegates finally formulated the Articles of Confederation, in which they agreed to state-by-state voting and proportional state tax burdens based on land values, though they left the issue of state claims to western lands unresolved.

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777.

The Articles of Confederation served as the written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States after it declared independence from Great Britain. It established a weak central government that mostly, but not entirely, prevented the individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy.

Congress sent the Articles to the states for ratification at the end of November. Most delegates realized that the Articles were a flawed compromise, but believed that it was better than an absence of formal national government.

On December 16, 1777, Virginia was the first state to ratify. Other states ratified during the early months of 1778. When Congress reconvened in June of 1778, the delegates learned that Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey refused to ratify the Articles. The Articles required unanimous approval from the states.

These smaller states wanted other states to relinquish their western land claims before they would ratify the Articles. New Jersey and Delaware eventually agreed to the conditions of the Articles, with New Jersey ratifying on Nov 20, 1778, and Delaware on Feb 1, 1779. This left Maryland as the last remaining holdout.

Irked by Maryland’s recalcitrance, several other state governments passed resolutions endorsing the formation of a national government without the state of Maryland.

However, other politicians, such as Congressman Thomas Burke of North Carolina, persuaded their governments to refrain from doing so, arguing that without unanimous approval of the new Confederation, the new country would remain weak, divided, and open to future foreign intervention and manipulation.

Meanwhile, in 1780, British forces began to conduct raids on Maryland communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Alarmed, the state government wrote to the French minister Anne-César De la Luzerne asking for French naval assistance.

Luzerne wrote back, urging the government of Maryland to ratify the Articles of Confederation. Marylanders were given further incentive to ratify when Virginia agreed to relinquish its western land claims, and so the Maryland legislature ratified the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781.

Under the Articles, the new nation was organized as a federal union of independent states with authority vested in a single body, the Congress of Confederation. There was no Executive Branch and no provision for a federal Judiciary except for certain cases of court-martial.

Congress had only those powers, and they were few, specifically granted to them by the states as common concerns. These chiefly related to military and foreign diplomatic initiatives required in the face of war with Great Britain.

The Continental Congress voted on January 10, 1781 to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs; on August 10 of that year, it elected Robert R. Livingston as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary’s duties involved corresponding with US representatives abroad and with ministers of foreign powers. (Williams)

The Secretary was also charged with transmitting Congress’ instructions to U.S. agents abroad and was authorized to attend sessions of Congress. A further Act of February 22, 1782, allowed the Secretary to ask and respond to questions during sessions of the Continental Congress.

The weakness of this confederation became increasingly apparent when the War for Independence was over and the staggering debt repayment, which Congress under the Articles could proportionally assess but not directly collect, became a point of conflict between the states and a source of intense domestic strife within several of the states. (Williams)

The Articles limited the rights of the states to conduct their own diplomacy and foreign policy proved difficult to enforce, as the national government could not prevent the state of Georgia from pursuing its own independent policy regarding Spanish Florida, attempting to occupy disputed territories and threatening war if Spanish officials did not work to curb Indian attacks or refrain from harboring escaped slaves.

Nor could the Confederation government prevent the landing of convicts that the British Government continued to export to its former colonies.

In addition, the Articles did not allow Congress sufficient authority to enforce provisions of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that allowed British creditors to sue debtors for pre-Revolutionary debts, an unpopular clause that many state governments chose to ignore.

Consequently, British forces continued to occupy forts in the Great Lakes region. These problems, combined with the Confederation government’s ineffectual response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced national leaders that a more powerful central government was necessary.

The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.

Click the following link to a general summary about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:

Click to access Articles-of-Confederation-and-Perpetual-Union.pdf

February 7, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Smallpox

For more than 3,000 years, smallpox killed or badly disfigured many millions of people. On average, the disease killed up to thirty percent of those infected, and the majority of survivors carried deep scars (pockmarks), oftentimes concentrated on their faces.

Throughout history, disease outbreaks sparked fear for many. Before the invention of vaccinations in 1796, people had very few ways to protect themselves from disease.

When Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors arrived in the Americas, they brought smallpox with them, which devastated the Indigenous populations of South and Central America. During the French and Indian War, British forces used smallpox as a biological weapon to weaken the Indigenous tribes that assisted the French.

With every smallpox outbreak, people observed that those who had survived the infection typically did not get smallpox again. For those who contracted smallpox a second time, the infection was much less severe and usually not fatal.

These observations led to the creation of inoculation, the process of contracting smallpox on purpose to induce immunity and reduce the risk of death. Smallpox inoculation was a simple procedure: a doctor removed pus from an active pustule of an infected person, and then inserted that pus into the skin of a non-infected person via a small incision.

Because few American colonists had contracted the disease before, the colonies experienced sporadic and deadly outbreaks of smallpox. There was never a widespread epidemic that resulted in herd immunity. (NPS)

Colonial Boston had faced many smallpox outbreaks throughout the 1700s, the most severe of which occurred in 1721, 1752, 1764, and 1775.

When American colonists launched their revolution against Britain, they quickly encountered a second but invisible enemy that threatened to wipe out the new Continental Army: highly contagious smallpox. (National Geographic)

Despite the progressive acceptance of inoculation throughout the colonies, another smallpox outbreak seized Boston in 1775. After the Battle of Bunker Hill in June of 1775, military actions between the British, led by General William Howe, and the colonists, led by George Washington, stalled.

In 1775, Continental soldiers, led by Colonel Benedict Arnold, marched from Cambridge, Massachusetts towards Quebec to prevent the city from falling to the British. Just one month later, in December, smallpox was reported among the soldiers.

Smallpox crippled the forces in Canada, preventing them from launching an attack on Quebec in late 1775. Many soldiers’ scheduled enlistment ended on January 1, 1776 and a majority warned their superiors they planned to not reenlist due to fear of the disease.

These soldiers would rather desert the cause than risk death by smallpox. These soon-to-be expired enlistments forced Arnold and General Richard Montgomery to launch their assault on Quebec before the year’s end.

Montgomery later reported that only about 800 men were able to fight, as the rest were sick with smallpox. The lack of healthy soldiers resulted in a spectacular failed attack on Quebec on the 30th of December. British forces killed Montgomery, wounded Arnold, and captured hundreds of colonists.

Arnold maintained substantial forces around Quebec in hopes of launching a second, successful assault, however, the lack of reinforcements and the ravages of smallpox impeded any future attack.

Washington understood the grave threat smallpox imposed upon the Continental Army and their chances of winning the war. He even described smallpox as “more destructive than the sword.”

Personal experience played an important role in Washington’s attitude toward and understanding of the variola virus. While traveling in Barbados in November of 1751 with his brother Lawrence, Washington himself had been stricken with smallpox.

Confined with the illness for twenty-six days, he suffered greatly and was permanently pocked by the experience. Only nineteen at the time of the attack, Washington developed lifelong immunity as a result.

The disease may also have rendered him incapable of fathering children, as modern scientists have documented infertility as a complication of smallpox. (Becker)

However, Washington also feared the spread of smallpox between soldiers who did not quarantine after inoculating.

In a February 6, 1777 letter to Dr. William Shippen Jr., director of the medical department of the Continental Army, Washington proclaimed: “Finding the Small pox to be spreading much and fearing that no precaution can prevent it from running through the whole of our Army, I have determined that the troops shall be inoculated.”

“Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army in the natural way and rage with its usual virulence we should have more to dread from it than from the Sword of the Enemy.”

“Under these circumstances I have directed Doctr Bond to prepare immediately for inoculating in this Quarter, keeping the matter as secret as possible,”

“If the business is immediately begun and favoured with the common success, I would fain hope they will be soon fit for duty, and that in a short space of time we shall have an Army not subject to this the greatest of all calamities that can befall it when taken in the natural way.”

With this order, George Washington enacted the first medical mandate in American history. Washington declared his order to Congress that all troops must be inoculated, and he ordered that all new recruits entering Philadelphia must be inoculated upon entry.

To offset the temporary loss of soldiers while they healed from the inoculation, military doctors inoculated divisions in five day intervals. The military used private homes and churches as isolation centers to control spread of the disease.

Smallpox was under control, supplies were adequate, patients were, for the most part, housed in buildings specifically designed for their care, the staff was large in proportion to the number of patients, fresh vegetables were available from local gardens, and evidence even indicates that sheep and cattle were now being delivered on the hoof.

By May 1777, therefore, the Hospital Department in the North was well prepared to handle the casualties of another hard campaign.

Click the following link to a general summary about Smallpox:

Click to access Smallpox.pdf