Views from historians and quotes

Women

Mary Beth Norton believes that although the revolution did not liberate women, it opened the door to significant changes for them, both immediately and in the long term: "The re-evaluation of domesticity that began during the revolutionary years would eventually culminate in the nineteenth-century culture's glorification of woman's household role"

Women, she claims, were no longer content to be 'good wives' and ignorant of the larger world

Professor Joan Hoff Wilson contends that the revolution diminished women's power ad place, while enhancing men's: "The revolutionary generation of females were less prepared than most men for the modern implications of independence"

Harry M Ward believes that the revolution did not alter the position that women held in society, though identifying their control over property: "few changes that occurred during the revolutionary era affected women's property status"

Gordon Wood discusses the positive outcome of women following the revolutionary war, insinuating that the new society was more equal in terms of gender rights: "the revolution made Americans conscious of the claim for the equal rights of women as never before". Wood additionally argues that the commercial expansion of American allowed for women to attain greater financial freedom which they would later build on with jobs outside the home: "the new newly enhanced roles for wives"

"No new social class came to power through the door of the American revolution" (Carl Degler)

Zinn states the not much changed in regards to the role of women in society

Common Man

Dan Lacy discusses the issues that arose between the American people in terms of class "the conflicts of low countrymen and frontiersman, of rich men and poor… these two sets of conflict sometimes coincided and sometimes cut across each other"

Harry M Ward adopts a similar viewpoint, discussing the differences in social class which was widened by the revolution: "there was a widening gap between the well-to-do and the rest of society"

American workers became more class conscious. They had already learned the value of collective action for their revolutionary war experience, beginning with the activities of the Sons of Liberty"

Zinn discusses the difference between the elite and the common: the lower class "saw themselves under the rule of a political elite, win or lose against the British"

Slaves

Gordon Wood strongly suggests that immediately after the revolution, the slave

Trade was effectively banned: the revolution "suddenly ad effectively ended the social and intellectual environment that had allowed slavery to exist everywhere for thousands of years without substantial questioning"

Harry Ward explains the unjust treatment of the  African American slaves in terms of the Declatarion of Independence, which pronounced all men as equal, and all Americans to the rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness': "if all persons were indeed endowed with natural and fundamental liberty, race of itself could not justify human bondage"

Harry Ward additionally displays the unjust attitude of the new American society and its prejudice towards the African Americans: "blacks hearkened to the message of independence, only to discover that liberty wasn't meant for them"

Ira Berlin takes up African-American experiences during the revolution to show that slaves did in fact, achieve some significant advances: "the number of blacks enjoying freedom swelled under the pressure of revolutionary change… Freedom, even within the limited boundaries of white domination, enhanced black opportunities by creating new needs and allowing blacks a chance to draw on the rapidly maturing Afro-American culture to fulfil them"

Gordon Wood discusses the negative treatment of African American slaves, however emphasizes that many Americans became aware of their mistreatment towards the slaves: "slavery was a national institution, and nearly every American leader knew that its continued existence violated everything the revolution was about

Loyalists

Harry M Ward portrays the negative way the loyalists were treated through explaining their harsh handling by the patriotic Americans following the war: "legal penalties covered all degrees of loyalism, from behaviour exhibiting non-support for the American cause to treason, entailing punishment ranging from reprimand to death" Ward additionally emphasizes the types of punishment the loyalists received "confinement, exile, deprivation of civil rights, confiscation of property and execution"

"the loyalists became a mere floating refugee population" (Brogan)

Dan lacy discusses the economic gain that occurred for the Americans through the loyalists, which is viewed positively at a time of financial difficulty for the Americans: "all told, more than two million five hundred thousand acres, including some of the best land in the state, was taken from fifty nine loyalists who had monopolised these thousands of square miles"

Howard Zinn discusses the benefits to the new American society that occurred through detriment to the loyalists: "the huge landholding of the loyalists had been one of the great incentives to revolution"

"The confiscation of loyalists property gave the states and citizens a financial interest in persecuting loyalists" (Harry M Ward)

Cantwell empathises with the loyalists who were treated harshly for their views "the way in which the newly independent united states treated those who did not agree with them, that is those who remain loyal to Britain, is an important indicator of the extent to which they stayed true to the ideals of the revolution"

Native Indians

Thompson empathises with the Indians who suffered under the ruling of the patriotic Americans, discussing the treaties which were established with the Indians, however highlighting the way they "naturally tended to favour congress often formalising the surrender of large tracts to the US"

Richard Brown offers a sympathetic approach: "Congress was never friendly to Native Americans, and calculations of self-interest lay at the core of American policy" alternatively providing a motive for the treaties that the Americans were establishing with the Indians

Howard Zinn additionally emphasizes the violence the Indians endured: "Now, with the British out of the way, the Americans could begin the inexorable process of pushing the Indians off their lands, killing them if they resisted"

Gary Nash discusses the American intention, laying a foundation for the American's resistance to Indians due to their desire for western land: "Facing a white society in 1783 that was heavily armed and obsessed with the vision of western lands, tribes such as the Iroquois and Cherokee were forced to cede most of their land"

Declaration of Independence

"The political objective of the revolution, Independence from British rule, was achieved after one relatively short effort. 1776 had no sequel and needed non: the issue was separation, and separation was accomplished" (Daniel J Boorstin)

"the charter of national liberty" (Julian P Boyd)

"The declaration announced the failure of reform by petition" Congress therefore "had to restate the grievances for which redress had been sought through national channels" not for any "light and  transient causes" but because of "a long train of abuses and usurpations" by the ruling government Americans who were driven to revolution and independence (Gary Wills)

War of Independence

Brogan emphasizes the importance of Washington during the revolutionary war. Although he was not a great fighting general, though he was a "capable and aggressive one" He "possessed various other qualities that made him, if not unique among commanders , at any rate highly unusual."…" always at his post" Brogan also creates a sense of sympathy for Washington through highlighting the difficulties he experienced: "Again and again his army dissolved about him because civilian authorities did not keep it paid, clothed, fed, sheltered, armed or reinforced… it is much to their credit, as to Washington's, that the army never melted away completely"

American victory at Trenton and Princeton

"… at Christmas Washington turned, and in two lightening attacks across the Delaware River defeated the royal forces at Trenton and Princeton… Strategic effect important. They saved Pennsylvania for the time being and cleared most of New Jersey. Patriot morale, which had been very low, made rapid recovery. Washington could live to fight in the spring… He had won precious time and prestige for America: time for an alliance to ripen, prestige to clinch it."

Search for allies

"Dr Franklin… arrived in Paris 20th Dec 1776 to use his charm and scientific prestige to lure Louis XVI and his minister into the war"

Brogan also says that all Americans regardless of social statues experienced the war "whether as a bloody struggle on their doorstep, or as a terrible inflation which upset patterns of trade, or as a general scarcity of goods… or most of all, as a revolution: an overturning of all the old political ways and means"

Zinn: The revolution has also been studied and interpreted by left-wing historians, both moderate and radical. Focusing on class, economic conditions, race and gender, these writers have explored the role ordinary people played in the unfolding rebellion. Zinn observes the revolution as beginning as a series of responses, aimed at harnessing popular anger and diverting it away from colonial governments and towards the British. Zinn also likes this somewhat artificial revolution to an act of theft, as colonial elites sought to "carve off" part of the British empire for their own benefit.

Washington is not presented as a hero advancing the cause of liberty but as a member of the elite in whose interest the war was fought. Franklin is also viewed in this way. Zinn argues that during the war much of the actual fighting was done by the poor who suffered through the war unpaid, cold, dying of sickness, watching the civilian profiteers get rich. Washington maintained tight discipline, using the lash, and by suppressing mutinies as they occurred.

Articles of Confederation

Edward Countryman praises the articles of Confederation as the first body of work produced by the new American States, claiming that the articles "gave form to a ramshackle structure that events had already thrown together". However in spite of this, Countryman denounces the congress for lacking qualities of a national government, classifying it more so as an '"alliance of sovereign power"

Gordon Wood emphasizes the creation of Congress, claiming that in the new society, it had the power to exercise "an extraordinary degree of political, military and economic power over Americans" therefore failing to recognise the role of Congress under the articles of Confederation, which in fact left the new national government with limited power.

Albert Bushnell Hart is critical of the Articles, and argues that they failed to build a sense of national unity or to provide central controls over trade, currency, credit or banking: "on important questions, approval of nine states was necessary"

Richard Morris maintains that the US suffered economically between 1783 and 1787, because British trade policies sabotaged its post war recovery, while the states behaved spontaneously and in their own self-interest, giving little regard to national concerns. The articles of Confederation failed to provide the national government with sufficient muscle to deal with these critical problems

Merrill Jensen poses a different view, observing that they encountered opposition from the start, and the federalists who desired trade and currency regulation pushed for the states to grant Congress stronger imperial controls. When this failed, they began to poison public perception of the articles, in the hope they would be discarded: they "undertook to convince their countrymen of the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation" thus arguing that the criticism of the articles was largely the work of fear-mongers and federalist propagandists

THE CONSTITUTION

Howard Zinn-

 “The inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians from the new society, the supremacy for the rich and powerful in the new nation – all this was already settled in the colonies by the time of the revolution. With the English out of the way, it could now be put on paper, solidified, regularized, made legitimate, by the Constitution of the United States, drafted at a convention of a Revolutionary Leaders in Philadelphia. ”

P90” To many Americans over the years, the constitution drawn up in 1787 has seemed a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. This view is stated, a bit extravagantly, by the Historian George Bancroft (early 19th century). Bancroft argues that” The constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality and individuality. It knows nothing of difference by descent, or opinions, of favored classes or legalized religion or the political power of property …”

Early 20th century Charles Beard puts forward another view – studied the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the 55 men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the constitution. Majority lawyers, majority were men of wealth in land / slaves and property, half of them had money loaned out on interest, and that 40 of the 55 held government bonds. Thus Beard argued most of these men had direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government e.g. the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts, slave owners wanted federal security against runaway slave revolts, land spectators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands …  Founding fathers represented the economic interests they understood through personal experience.

Beard notes 4 groups were not represented in the Constitution Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of these groups.

Zinn flaws the constitution of the states, suggesting that they were similar to the previous conventions "The new constitutions that were drawn up in all states from 1776 and 1780 were not much different from the old ones. Although property qualifications for voting and holding office were lowered in some instances, in Massachusetts they were increased. Only Pennsylvania abolished them totally".

Zinn also comments on the variation of social class in the new American society, by stating that "The Constitution serves the interest of a wealthy elite- it enables the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law all made possible by the fanfare of patriotism"

Federalists and Anti-Federalist

"The Federalists were not men of the future after all… it was the anti-federalists who really saw best and farthest. If either side in the conflict over the Constitution stood for modernity, perhaps it was the Anti-Federalists. They, and not the Federalists, may have been the real harbingers of the moral and political world we know- the liberal, democratic, commercially advanced world of individual pursuits of happiness" (Gordon Wood)

Henry Steele Commager praises the Federalists, painting them in a positive light "The Federalists… had the assets of youth, intelligence, something positive to offer and, absolutely invaluable, the support of Washington and Franklin." Commager additionally emphasizes the ideology of the Federalists, claiming that they believed that "America needed integration, not state rights; that the immediate peril was not tyranny but disorder or dissolution; that the right to tax was essential to any government"

James Ely places emphasis on the Federalists the outcome that the Federalists wanted to achieve "ratification… would facilitate the restoration of credit and would encourage commerce and manufacturing"

John Dilulio portrays the anti-federalist in a negative way, claiming they were simply "men united by narrow regional interests… by selfish economic interests… or by  [support] for slavery"

Gordon Wood criticises the anti-federalists: "Tended to lack the influence and education of the federalists, and often they had neither social nor intellectual intellect"

Joseph Murphy endorses the anti-federalists, praising their ability to relate to the ordinary American citizens and the belief that the "republics were most likely to succeed as small political entities where the government could consist of delegates selected from the people, were well known by the people and intimately knowledgeable of the wants and needs of the people"

Bill of Rights

Brogan: Bill of Rights- would have been far fewer victories for the ordinary man and women without the Bill, and at least since 1953 it has  been the foundation for most of the solid advances towards greater liberty which American society has made

Brogan: The constitution as it emerged between 1787 and 1791 (including Bill of rights) crowned the American Revolution and provided a safe compass for the future… eliminated features of the old world which seemed obsolete/ unjust in new world.

Zinn: The constitution became even more acceptable to the public at large after the first congress, responding to criticism, passed a series of amendment known as the Bill of rights. Those amendments seemed to make the government a guardian of people's liberties: to speak, to publish, to worship, to petition, to assemble… It was therefore perfectly designed to build popular backing for the new government.

Economic

The economic depression can be linked back to the limitations of the articles of Confederation. Thus, these issues were solved with the writing of the Constitution. Hugh Brogan notes that the political framework established in 1787-91 contained enough of the old order to provide continuity, with enough innovation to reflect the new world being created in North America: "The constitution as it emerged between 1787 and 1791 crowned the American Revolution and provided a safe compass for the future"

 Charles Beard's analysis of the American Revolution is concerned with the economic aspects of American society at the time: "Large and important groups of economic interests were adversely affected by the system of government under the Articles of Confederation- namely those of public securities, shipping and manufacturing, money at interest- in short capital, as opposed to land"

Shays' rebellion

Richard D. Brown: To the elite, mob violence was threatening towards social order and political autonomy, therefore provoking a need for the central government to be strengthened and improve economic conditions in order to deal with potential unrest like Shays' rebellion. Thus, it was deemed that the articles of Confederation be altered: "In the midst of this turmoil, the U.S Congress under the articles of Confederation could offer no remedies… it was this realization-the sense that the national interest was failing and that a vigorous national government could reverse the direction of American politics-that led nationalists… to press for constitutional reform"

"Shay's rebellion gave impetus to strengthen the national government" (Thompson)

The people noticed that if there was another rebellion, it may not be able to put down as easily- "nowhere in America was there sufficient force to defeat another such challenge" (Brogan)

George Washington

Brogan emphasizes the importance of Washington during the revolutionary war. Although he was not a great fighting general, though he was a "capable and aggressive one" He "possessed various other qualities that made him, if not unique among commanders , at any rate highly unusual."…" always at his post" Brogan also creates a sense of sympathy for Washington through highlighting the difficulties he experienced: "Again and again his army dissolved about him because civilian authorities did not keep it paid, clothed, fed, sheltered, armed or reinforced… it is much to their credit, as to Washington's, that the army never melted away completely"

Washington is not presented as a hero advancing the cause of liberty but as a member of the elite in whose interest the war was fought. Franklin is also viewed in this way. Zinn argues that during the war much of the actual fighting was done by the poor who suffered through the war unpaid, cold, dying of sickness, watching the civilian profiteers get rich. Washington maintained tight discipline, using the lash, and by suppressing mutinies as they occurred.

Benjamin Franklin

"Dr Franklin… arrived in Paris 20th December 1776 to use his charm and scientific prestige to lure Louis XVI and his minister into the war" (Brogan)

"No one in eighteenth-century American assumed more personas and played more role than he" (Gordon Wood)

"He worked hard to reconcile the colonies and the mother country" (Robert M Crunden)

Thomas Jefferson

"no one embodied American's democratic ideals and democratic hopes more than Thomas Jefferson" (Gordon Wood)

"Jefferson stood for the rights of individuals" (Gordon Wood) 

Society~ WOMEN, SLAVES, NATIVE AMERICANS, COMMON MAN AND LOYALISTS

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Philadelphia convention and the Constitution

The War of Independence

Common Sense Thomas Paine

Battles

The Battle of Lexington-Concord took place on 19^th April 1775 in Boston, Massachusetts against the British Troops and the Militia of Massachusetts.  It is agreed by historians that the shots fired during the Battle of Lexington-Concord were the first shots of the Revolution and was the result of the building Anglo-American tensions. The tensions were a result of acts and events that directly affected Massachusetts as well as the other colonies such as the stamp act. Boston, the sight of the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a main point of resistance and as a result King George III increased the military presence in Boston and put in place the Boston Port act which closed the port of Boston until they paid for the tea that they had dumped overboard in the Tea Party. Powder Alarms were also a cause of tension in which minutemen, soldiers who were ready to find at moment’s notice, were mobilised during a series of war scares in 1774 which involved General Gage seizing gun powder stores.  The ‘tinderbox was lit’ (Thompson) when General Thomas Gage, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, order British troops to march on Concord where a large amount of gunpowder was stored.

On the morning of 19^th April the British arrived at Lexington. These troops were met with a group of 77 men and boys who formed a part of the colonial militia on the village green. The commander of these men was Captain John Parker, a veteran of the French and Indian War, who allegedly told his men ‘Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here’. Due to the hindrance of the colonial militia the British captain ordered his men to adopt an attack formation and then called on the rebels to disperse and Parker ordered his militia to retreat. Some, reportedly, began to retreat until a shot was fired which prompted gunfire from both sides. The British advanced and killed eight colonial militiamen; only one British soldier was wounded. The Warning systems of the local Committee of Safety sent news of the fighting to Boston and in Concord the militia soon became fully aware of the British advance. The first English platoons arrived at 7:30 am and began searching the area for weapons and gunpowder but with little success. During the search the church was accidently set on fire which led some colonials to believe that the British were torching the whole town. A large number of militia gathered and started shooting at the soldiers who returned the fire before being ordered to retreat to Boston. During the retreat to Boston the soldiers were met with ambushes from the colonial militia as well as an occasional sniping from civilians. By the end 130 men were dead, a majority of them being British soldiers. On the 20^th April General Gage woke up to find Boston surrounded by a 12,000-strong militia who had arrived overnight and were intent on revenge after hearing about the battle of Lexington Concord. Massachusetts was now in ‘a state of war’

Due to the militia that surrounded Boston the Charlestown peninsula and Dorchester heights lay abandoned. See this as an opportunity to make the British ‘masters of these heights’ General Gage planned to seized these positions before the colonists did so. News of this filtered across from Boston and New Hampshire on 15^th June. In possession of this intelligence the Massachusetts Committee of Safety orders General Artemas Ward, commander of the militia surrounding Boston, to capture both Bunker Hill and the Dorchester hills before the British did. The next day Ward ordered Colonel William Prescott to take and fortify Bunker Hill. Unknown to the British Prescott and his troops arrived at the Charlestown peninsula the same night. Prescott decided to bypass Bunker Hill and gave order to march to Breed’s Hill. The British woke on the 17^th June to newly erected defences that the colonials had toiled during the night to make.  During the day British ships bombarded the colonial militia as they worked and Colonel Prescott walked the bulwarks to raise morale. In the afternoon, over 2,000 British soldiers commanded by General Howe landed on the shore of Charlestown. Snipers fired at the British as they marched and General Howe ordered a combustible shell to be launched on Charlestown. From rooftops and hilltops spectators watched as Charlestown burnt. The British troops started uphill and the colonials help their fire until the troops were 50 metres away. The gunfire decimated British ranks during both the first and second attacks. After the third attack, however, the colonial militia were running short on ammunition and were overrun by the British. The battle of Bunker Hill was a pyrrhic victory for the British with 226 dead and a further 828 wounded. Despite the British control of the peninsula, colonial forces still trap the British in Boston. As supply shortages become an issue the British prepare for further military commitment to defeat the colonies, during this the colonies assemble more soldiers. British replaced General Gage with General in October 1775 and two weeks after the battle George Washington arrived in Cambridge to take command of the Continental Army.

The revolutionary idea that is evident in both the battle of Lexington Concord and the battle of Bunker Hill refers to the natural right of life and the right to exist without the threat of death. In a speech by the Committee of Safety to several towns in Massachusetts it says that ‘the barbarous murders committed on out innocent brethren…have made it absolutely necessary that we immediately raise an army to defend our wives and children’. The fact that innocent people were killed went against the natural right of life and also created an incentive for the colonies to fight. 

First Continental Congress

The Coercive/Intolerable acts

The Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party

'That there is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly admire' (John Adams about the tea party)

Tarring and feathering & spreading the world

Townshend act

Cantwell:

Stamp act and other acts

The French-Indian War

Important people (so far) and important terms (so far)

John Adams (1735-1826)

A regular diarist, prolific writer and correspondent. Born in Massachusetts. A Harvard graduate who became a successful Boston solicitor with Whig Sympathies. He defended the British soldiers who shot the citizens in the Boston Massacre. By 1770 he had become a prominent member of the Sons of Liberty. In his essays Novanglus (1774-5) he defended colonial resistance and argued that the British Empire was, in reality, a league of autonomous entities. During the war he was sent as a diplomatic representative to the Dutch Republic and he had the responsibility for opening negotiations with Britain. He was one of the three men who negotiated the treaty of Paris and ended the war.

Sam Adams (1722-1803)

A founder of the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence, he played a key role in resistance to British rule in New England. Graduated from Harvard with an established prejudice against British authority. He became James Otis’s lieutenant in the struggle against British authority. From 1770 he assumed more of a leadership role in the colonial cause in Massachusetts and played a major part in the organisation and execution of the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party. He was a crucial propagandist with a constant stream of articles in the New England press. He was a delegate to both Continental Congresses and played an important role in the move to declare independence.

 

Benjamin Edes (1732-1803)

In 1755, he became, with John Gill, editor and proprietor of the Boston Gazette  which was a key propaganda tool used effectively by all the Whigs, but especially by Sam Adams in opposing the Royal governor and British Policy. Eds was a member of the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Caucus, and the influential ‘Loyal Nine” which masterminded many protests against the British. It was said that the Mohawks of the Boston first met for a drink at his premises before smearing ink from the Gazette on their faces and making their way to the docks. “The temper of the people may be surely learned from the infamous paper” (Andrew Oliver)

John Hancock (1737-1793)

In 1764 he inherited the largest fortune in Massachusetts on the death of his  uncle, and became responsible for a large trading area. In 1765 Sam Adams began to introduce him to Whig politics. He became a leading member of the Sons of liberty, often financing may adventures, advertisements and so on. The finance provided was crucial in helping gain support and motivate protesters. It was said of him that “his brains were shallow and pockets deep” Tories often referred to him as the “milch cow” of the revolution.

The Loyal Nine

The men in this group were the secret and highly influential nucleus of the Boston Sons of Liberty. They organised and coordinated many of the protests against the Royal governor and British policy. The following were all known to be members but at times they were joined by various others-the name is a title rather than an exact count of members.

·         Benjamin Edes

·         John Adams

Patrick Henry (1736-1799)

Patrick Henry was a Virginian lawyer, colonial politician and radical who became one of the American Revolution’s best known orators. While farming he read law books in his spare time; in 1760 he was granted a lawyer’s license, despite never having graduated. In 1763 Henry achieved a degree of prominence when he represented Hanover County in the ‘Parson’s Cause’ case, a civil hearing centring on the payment of Anglican priests in Virginia. Henry argued forcefully against both the rights of Anglican clergy and the limits of British authority in the American colonies. Despite having little wealth and negligible experience, Henry was elected to the Virginia legislature, the House of Burgesses, in 1765. Weeks after taking his seat he responded to the Stamp Act by introducing the Virginia Resolves, challenging parliament’s right to pass revenue measures in America. Folklore attributes several provocative statements to him, including “If this be treason, make the most of it” (1765) and “Give me liberty or give me death” (1774) – however there is no extant historical evidence to suggest he uttered those exact words. What is certainly verifiable is that Henry’s oratory was angry and radical, and sometimes exceeded standards of the time. Henry attended both Continental Congresses, though he contributed little; his real niche was in Virginian politics and he refused several offers to serve in the national government. Henry was a supporter of American independence but later an opponent of the Constitution, becoming probably the most famous leader of the anti-Federalist movement.

James Otis

James Otis (1725-1783) was a Massachusetts lawyer and politician, best known for coining the slogan “taxation without representation is tyranny”. Born in Cape Cod, Otis was the son of a prominent lawyer and the brother of Mercy Otis Warren, a future chronicler of the revolution. He was educated at Harvard then began practising law in Boston. In the early 1760s Otis began representing colonial merchants who were seeking relief from the hated writs of assistance (search warrants). He delivered long but eloquent courtroom speeches, challenging the legality of the writs of assistance, describing them as the “worst instrument of arbitrary power”. In the mid-1760s Otis penned several tracts asserting the rights of the American colonists to oppose taxation and intrusive measures decided in London. This made Otis one of the earliest of the revolutionaries (one historian dubbed him the “pre-revolutionist”) – but he advocated reform and purification of the status quo rather than American independence from Britain. Otis also sat as a member of the Massachusetts legislature, however mental illness saw him withdraw from public and political life in the late 1760s. He lived long enough to see an American victory in the Revolutionary War, dying after a lightning strike.

Paul Revere (1734-1818)

Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a Boston artisan who became a prominent revolutionary and member of the Sons of Liberty.  Revere served briefly with the Massachusetts militia during the French and Indian War, before returning to take over his father’s silversmithing business on his 21st birthday. Like most other Boston businessmen, Revere was affected by and opposed to the British revenue policies of 1764-65. In the mid- to late-1760s he became an important street-level revolutionary leader, attending clandestine meetings and producing engravings and other objects with anti-British slogans or themes. Revere’s political activities increased with the arrival of British troops in Boston. He is well known for copying Henry Pelham’s drawing of the March 1770 shootings and selling it as The Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street. He was later instrumental in the Committees of Safety, which monitored and reported on British military in Boston. Revere has been feted as a revolutionary hero for his 1775 ride to warn of British troops approaching Lexington and Concord – however both the importance of this, as well as Revere’s personal contribution, have been greatly exaggerated.