Young Writers Society

'Course I know how large the families were! Try trying to trace them.. nightmare. 'Specially when everything matches but dates. But I'm trying to trace my dad's family, and I have several different DOB abd DOD for most members of the family, especially that far back, so I'm trying to cross reference as much as possible, and one of the periods puts one of my male relatives at 30-40 give or take 10 years.. and at Conn. (I think, don't have my stuff with me right now), and there was a delagate from there with the same name. it's more of a common name (both first and last. not john doe common, but enough for me to want at least 5 soures (preferably original documents) toconfirm.. rambling again, I know), hence all the cross referencing. now that I've rambled sufficiently.. maybe we should take this to "history lovers".. hehe

I'm going to check that site, now.. thanks for that!

hehe.. it was Jersey.. not Conn. other side of dad's family.

About the Boston Massacre which both fishr and I touched on. Ben Franklin had artist renditions of the event printed in all his gazettes. Talk about the effect of propaganda.

God, I wish I had my notes with me, my prof went really indepth on the Articles of the Confederation and why they didn't work. One of the main reasons it was weak was because it didn't and couldn't regulate trade and tax law. Because the Articles gave states more rights than Congress at the time, States bickered and couldn't agree on boundry lines, tarrif laws and trade between states. Under the Articles, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service and to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit. In reality, though, the Articles gave the Congress no power to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops, and by the end of 1786 it was useless. It gave the ability to but not the ability to enforce. But something good did came out of it, The Northwest Ordinance established an evolving government in the territories north of the Ohio River. As well, learning from the weakness of the Articles it paved the way for the Constitution.

For example Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, practically killed its effectiveness:

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

So because the congress couldn't regulate states rights, promises of money and men were broken, boundry lines were fought over, and tarrif wars between states caused the infighting to grow.

As for more on the Revolutionary War, as I'm sure you are aware of Jack, the americans at the time developed a way of fighting that most had never used before, certainly not the big nations of europe. It was guerrilla warfare, which works quite well if your enemy wears red and white, stands in straight lines, and has drum and fife playing while they march. For example, at Saratoga, sharp shooters were placed in trees, picking off the officers. These sharp shooters also had a special code to talk from one tree to the next which evidently sounded like birds. So yeah, guerrilla warfaring colonists.

As a side not on the signers of the declaration, according to the genelogy archives in washington I am related to Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of the signers from Maryland.

CL

As a side not on the signers of the declaration, according to the genelogy archives in washington I am related to Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of the signers from Maryland.

Really? Wasn't he one of the last surviving signers if the Decleration? Er, I mean the last one to die of the signers?

Agreed with CL. It seemed to be a whole different way of fighting, unlike today. Since the muskets couldn't aim accurately, the idea was to 'break the other's line' of defense and charge through. Their pistols were only good at close range.

My notes are on the other side of the room, (yes, I'm being lazy) but from memory I think the type of muskets that were used in the 18th century were called flintlock muskets. I think rifles were also used but if I remember they were much slower to reload but could fire three shots, rather than the single-shot musket.

Hessian Flintlock Musket


Rifles sure have had a 'face lift' in the last three hundred years


Source : http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/index1.html
I highly recommend this link. It has loads of information about weapons of the Rev. War and other useful information.

On a side note, I'm looking for more websites with accurate information of weapons used and the different aspects of the War, such as Rifleman for example. I'm particularly interested in the hand to hand combat also. So if anyone has information with weapons used in the Rev. War, could someone PM me, please? Thanks!

I wonder if Firestarter is still reading this thread? Well, if so, is there anything you particularly wanted to know Firestarter? The war itself, or the pre-Revolutionary War years? Or both?

Haha, yeh I'm still reading, I just lost this particular story idea. Thanks for all your help though.

Haha, yeh I'm still reading, I just lost this particular story idea. Thanks for all your help though.

As for more on the Revolutionary War, as I'm sure you are aware of Jack, the americans at the time developed a way of fighting that most had never used before, certainly not the big nations of europe. It was guerrilla warfare, which works quite well if your enemy wears red and white, stands in straight lines, and has drum and fife playing while they march. For example, at Saratoga, sharp shooters were placed in trees, picking off the officers. These sharp shooters also had a special code to talk from one tree to the next which evidently sounded like birds. So yeah, guerrilla warfaring colonists.

Although the term "guerilla" was not coined until around 25-30 years later in the Peninsular War when the Spanish and Portuguese used it against the French.

You're right about the use of flintlock muskets, Fishr, rifles did in fact take longer to load but were more accurate and could fire further. I don't think they could fire three shots - there were probably experimental rifles used but these were not common. Most were single-shot.

is there anything you particularly wanted to know Firestarter? The war itself, or the pre-Revolutionary War years? Or both?

Well, I'm getting a good education here, so why not teach me about the pre-revolutionary war years?

Although the term "guerilla" was not coined until around 25-30 years later in the Peninsular War when the Spanish and Portuguese used it against the French.

- Well yes...

hmmm... pre-rev years, let me get back to you on that, I pass the koosh to fishr.

*bows*
*grabs notes*
I'll try and break it down in a general time line but knowing my writing style it will probably be long-ish. First, I'm gonna skip over the French and Indian War (1754-63) because I haven't done as much research in it but it technically plays a role in the start of the War. After the Seven Years War, G.B. was severally in debt. What better way to raise their funds then taxing the Colonies they were protecting? Other sources I've read also state, the taxing was started to insure the right that England had over the Colonial Legislators; the right to tax them, without concent. Hence, where 'taxation without representation started.

Pre- Revolutionary Years

The Sugar Act (1764)
The first tax to go into effect. I can't find it in my notes but if my memory serves me right, this tax was very similar to the Molasses's Act of '33'. Passed by Parliament, the purpose of the Act was to put heavy duty on sugar, molasses, and rum imported into the American colonies from non-British islands in the Caribbean. At the request of the British West Indies, who feared American trade would destroy the British sugar industry. The Molasses's Act was repealed due to colonial smuggling and Parliament's failure to enforce it. The Sugar Act replaced the Molasses's Act, or rather repealed by the Sugar Act.

The Sugar Act was slightly different but fairly the same. Levied duties were placed on sugar, textiles, coffee, indigo, and French Wines. While the tax itself was fairly small, what caused the spark of outrage among the colonies was they were force to pay a tax by King George, without a say in how they were to be taxed. Boycotts began and the first tax (technically the second because of the Molasses's Act) would spark a series of events; both triumphant for the States where as failures on both the American and British side would have to endure for many years until the war ended.

Stamp Act ('65)

Ah, one of my favorite time frames in the Rev. War. This is where The Sons of Liberty are born, which will be explained later on. If I remember correctly, the Sugar Act was never repealed, at all. Anyway, Parliament imposed all Colonists to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper such as ship's papers, legal documents, licenses, newspapers, other publications and playing cards. Same as the Sugar Act; England sought a way to fund their losses in the French and Indian War and its direct attempt to raise money without approval from the colonial legislatures, it angered them to say the least.

Haha, well scanning my notes, I noticed the Sons of Liberty actually came into play in 1765. This organization, in my opinion, was a HUGE contributor of the start of the war. Shrouded in secrecy, these group of men consisting of merchants and shopkeepers met in private to discuss plans and most likely politics in regards to the taxing to 'shape' their young country. In the beginning, the organization was very small, consisting of only nine members. It is said that the Sons of Liberty grew out of Boston, Massachusetts first, where other historians argue and claim it originally started in New York City first. Regardless where the group was formed, these radicals stopped at nothing to voice their opinions. By this I mean many publications were written in the Boston Gazette under pen names to alert the colonies of their (Sons') views. However, it should be mentioned that this group attempted to voice their opinions as peacefully as possible and not physically provoke the King's men (British). Well, like all things, nothing ever works out, lol. Of course there was violence, being the Sons of Liberty were responsible. Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Hutchinson (acting Governor) is one example. His house was gutted and burned. There's a lot of information on the Web and in books about this event if you want to take a look. Also, other practices that caused chaos - stoning people or houses, tar and feathering, and murder, such as hanging. There were other things that caused complete chaos but I think you all get the idea.

The Sons of Liberty grew nearly every colony. They remained in close correspondence but finally disbanded in late 1783.

Here's a little picture of the Stamp, to ensure the colonies were paying the tax:



Quartering Act ('65') If things couldn't have escalated any higher in tensions, here comes a series of regulations to King Georges' men. Each colonial assembly was required to supply basic needs for soldiers stationed within its borders. Specific items included bedding, cooking utensils, firewood, beer or cider and candles.

March 18, 1766; Stamp Act repealed.

Townshend Act ('67') A lot of 'acts' aren't there? If anything else this seemed to be the most hated tax of them all. This Act would carry the surname of its creator, Charles Townshend; Chancellor of the Exchequer. Townshend inserted imperial authority and raised revenue on levied import duties of glass, paint, paper, and tea. *scratches head. There was a reason for this but I can't seem to find the exact reason in my notes. The purpose was not necessarily to raise funds for Britain this time. From my memory, Townshend wanted to sententiously strengthen British officials and the Act insured colonial officials such as judges and governors would receive salaries directly from the Crown. Boycotts were renewed and the colonies came together as a unit. Since the repeal of the Stamp Act, colonists realized strength in unity was stronger then fighting alone. This statement is very important because it would later signal the rise of the Boston Massacre and Tea Party.

B.M. (AKA Boston Massacre) ('70') Yeah for Propaganda! The phrase was coined by Samuel Adams in hopes to force something that really wasn't an extreme and make it larger then what really happened. Paul Revere also engraved a wonderfully pleasant scene on King Street (now State Street) depicting Crispus Attikus as a white man.

Let's break it down, shall we? Due to increment of hostility with the Colonists regarding the Townshend Act and a circular letter sent to alert colonies of the common plight by Samuel Adams; October 1st, 1768 British regulars are sent to Boston to maintain order. I think around 4,000 troops were sent when at the time Boston was a mere population of 16-18,000.

Basically, there were seven British regulars and a small group of Colonists on King Street. The Colonists threatened and provoked the soldiers. Captain Thomas Preston came on the scene (1770) to try and calm the taunting crowd. Unable to disperse the crowd, as they chanted, "Fire and be Damned!" He ordered his troops, "Don't FIRE!" It is said that with all the noise and commotion with the Colonists that the soldiers only heard, "Fire!" and released a volley of bullets. Three men were killed instantly and two would later on die. Several other Colonists were injured.

The Victims:
Crispus Attucks, a mulatta, killed on the spot by two balls entering his head.
Samuel Gray, killed on the spot.
James Caldwell, killed on the spot by two balls entering his back.
Samuel Maverick, seventeen years old - mortally wounded. He died the next morning.
Patrick Carr

Eh, since I love history, here's a few pictures of the B.M. :
The Obituaries:


Final Resting Place of the victims - Boston, Massachusetts - Granary Burying Ground:


Paul Revere's famous engraving (although I'm pretty positive everyone has seen it. But since Firestarter was never taught our history, which in reality is just as much as his as it is ours, here it is):


Boston Tea Party ('73')

Townshend Act repealed; March, 1770. All except the tax on tea. History states the tax on tea remained to assert the right that England still could tax the colonies. There are MANY, many factors that led to the Tea Party but that would take all night and result in a lengthy report.

In the winter over 5,000 colonists gathered at the Old South Meeting House, and the groups was so large it spilled into the streets, awaiting council to protest against the tax on tea.

The short version - After hours of debate, Samuel Adams supposedly declares, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country!" Protester stormed and met at a wharf, dumping three shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor.

The more detailed version - After a crapload of reading and familiarizing myself all over again, the Tea Party was very well planned. A group of Boston residents burst from the Old South Meeting House and headed to Griffin's Wharf, dressed as Mohawks. Three ships; their names - the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver were loaded with hundreds of crates of tea. To gain access, the patriots armed themselves with hatchets and axes. Now, I haven't figured which is more accurate but some books and accounts I've read claim the men boarded the ships, destroyed the cargo and hurled the shipments of tea in the harbor. The other account I read is, and I feel it's more accurate is men boarded the ships, opened (not damaged) the cargo, and picked the tea up by hand and tossed it into the harbor. Whether which one is correct, one thing is always clear. The Tea Party was actually done in a precise and peaceful manner. No deaths or injuries occurred.

One other thing that should be mentioned; the men that boarded the boats had a unique way of communicating with each other. They grunted or rather mimicked a Mohawk (Indian).

A some of over 350 crates were supposedly dumped in Boston Harbor. Also, in March; 1774, there was a second Boston Tea Party, dumping 16 chests of British Tea in the harbor. The second Tea Party I was supposed to be another example of boycotting. I think I remember the tally was over 2 million by today's currency in the loss of the tea.

Now that's all said and done, now what? Well... Needless to say, the King wasn't too happy, lol. So, a series of regulations went into full order. England had had enough of the colonies spitefulness and the stakes were risen to strict levels.

The Intolerable Acts ('74')
Without going into a great deal of explaining and more babbling, I'll break them down as simply as possible.

Boston Port Act - March 31, 1774 - Main ship ports that delivered cargo were closed off until Colonists payed back Britain the tea they threw overboard. No ships were allowed, none. Not even small ones.

Administration of Justice Act - May 20, 1774 British officials and custom officers that who would be charged with a major crime, such as murder, would be tried in England instead of America. In England most likely there would be no evidence against them, therefore the trials would be unjust.

Massachusetts Government Act - May 20, 1774 In a nut shell, no town meetings could be held with out approval from a Governor. Supposedly one meeting was held per year and if the answer was a 'No,' Colonists had to wait the following year.

Quartering Act - June 2, 1774 No exceptions; if a British soldier came to your doorstep you had to take care of the troops while they were in your home. My guess is if someone turned a soldier away - treason and mostly likely the consequences would be extreme.

Quebec Act - June 22, 1774 I actually don't know enough about the Quebec Act to write my comments. I have minor notes but they're not enough to be totally accurate. The other problem is I don't completely understand its purpose, which is probably due to the fact I haven't read much on the French and Indian War yet. But here's a link anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act
Maybe someone can also shed some light and explain the purpose of the Quebec Act.

So, that concludes the Pre-Revolutionary years.

After The Intolerable Acts, Paul Revere makes his Famous Ride with William Dawes and the first series of the earliest battles and events are as followed in 1775:

Battle of Point Pleasant (technically the first battle of the Revolution)
Battles of Lexington and Concord
Ethen Allen and Green Mountain Boys capture Fort Ticonderoga
Battle of Bunker (Breed's) Hill

And as they say, the Rest is History!

Hehe... I love writing these articles. I did two massive ones for Mesh regarding Revere and the Adams because she was researching her descendants in the 16-1800 eras. Wee...

My information? I don't have the strength to write pages for a bibliography, lol. When my novel is finished, then I'll cross that road. So all in all, have fun Firestarter!

This thread is amusing, mostly because I just wrote a 3,000 word essay on the causes of the American Revolution, and also because next semester I'm writing a 5,000 word essay on the nature of the actual revolutionary movement. And I completely forgot about this thread.

Wow, I forgot all about this thread. And it's amazing to see how much I've grown in the way of mindset, knowledge and opinion, which basically sums it up as those Doodles were *beep* holes.

Jack -

I'll be happy to assist in anyway possible. PM me with any questions.

Hu-zzah!