Gustav Mahler on tradition

 

The Virginia Gazette, 8 June 1776 - "An Address to the Convention of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia"

It is always worth pointing out that narrow nationality wasn't the reason for the American Revolution, but rather transatlantic liberty - liberties which, although imperfect, had been secured in law on both sides of the Atlantic in 1688 & 1689, but which the new 1770s London government of Lord North's Tory Party was taking away.

Almost half of the MPs in Parliament were supportive of the stand for liberty being taken by the American colonists.

There will always be a ruling elite of some kind, no matter what form of government is in place - the real issue is how much liberty does the citizen have.

This is what Northern Ireland's nationalistic binary mentality does not compute. Some people here have been so irreparably moulded by nationalistic thinking that they would happily choose chains, as long those chains had their preferred national flag attached, and their preferred tyrant in charge.

However, if government truly serves the people, then nationality is not the end goal, the people's liberty is. 

For example, why was there such widespread opposition to Home Rule for Ireland in the late 1800s and early 1900s? The text of the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant gives four reasons, the second of which was liberty. The likelihood was that the form of Home Rule that would be implemented across Ireland would be "subversive of our civil and religious freedom". As Rev John Pollock, the minister of Ireland's largest Presbyterian congregation said in 1914, "I am a Home Ruler on principle ... I have no objection to a free Parliament on College Green in Dublin, but I do object to Italian rule". Here's the introduction from the rare 1913 book Intolerance in Ireland; by an Irishman …

They expected that 20th century Ireland would be ruled by Catholic integralism; 21st century Ireland Ireland is ruled by what the author Paul Kingsnorth calls an authoritarian progressive integralism. In 21st century United Kingdom you can be imprisoned for tweets.

Back to 1776. The American colonists weren't rejecting British rule, they were reclaiming their full British liberties. Had those liberties been restored to them there would never have been a Declaration of Independence. Independence became necessary, not as an end in itself, but in order to pursue liberty.

Below is the voice of an anonymous writer, described only as "A Native", in The Virginia Gazette (Dixon & Hunter Edition) on 8 June 1776 - less than a month before the Declaration of Independence would be published. 

..................

"What has been the government of Virginia, and in a revolution how is its spirit to be preserved, are important questions. The better to discuss these points, we should take a view of the constitution of England, because by that model ours was constructed, and under it we have enjoyed tranquility and security.

Our ancestors, the English, after contemplating the various forms of government, and experiencing, as well as perceiving, the defects of each, wisely refused to resign their liberties either to the single man, the few, or the many. They determined to make a compound of each the foundation of their government, and of the most valuable parts of them all to build a superstructure that should surpass all others, and bid defiance to time to injure, or any thing, except national degeneracy and corruption, to demolish.

In rearing this fabric, and connecting its parts, much time, blood, and treasure, were expended. By the vigilance, perseverance, and activity of innumerable martyrs, the happy edifice was at length completed under the auspices of the renowned King William in the year 1688. They wisely united the hereditary succession of the Crown with the good behaviour of the Prince; they gave respect and stability to the legislature, by the independence of the Lords, and security, as well as importance, to the people, by being parties with their Sovereign in every act of legislation. Here then our ancestors rested from their long and laborious pursuit, and saw many good days in the peaceable enjoyment of the fruit of their labours. Content with having provided against the ills which had befallen them, they seemed to have forgot, that although the seeds of destruction might be excluded from their constitution, they were, nevertheless, to be found in those by whom their affairs were administered...

... However necessary it may be to shake off the authority of arbitrary British dictators, we ought, nevertheless, to adopt and perfect that system, which England has suffered to be so grossly abused, and the experience of ages has taught us to venerate..."

Another early 1700s usage of the term 'Scotch Irish'

With thanks to the friend who sent me this:

"They call themselves Scotch Irish, and the bitterest railers against the Church [of England] that ever trod upon American Ground. I wish I had better neighbours or keener weapons to stop their career."

- Rev. George Ross, Delaware, September 1723

Other examples are listed here, compiled by the late Michael Scoggins.

Jake the Lawyer - breaking down the Declaration of Independence, and explaining the Bill of Rights

 These YouTube presentations are excellent – energetic, detailed, fun where appropriate, informal, yet information-rich.

William Findley, Ulster-born, Scotch Irish, Pennsylvanian 'Anti-Federalist'

William Findley was born in Co Antrim, and was one of the strongest voices to challenge the potential overreach of the proposed new United States Constitution of 1787. He and the other 'Anti-Federalists' eventually secured a new Bill of Rights in 1789 to help safeguard the rights of the individual.

In an autobiographical letter written in 1812, Findley said – 

"I arrived in Pennsylvania in August 1763 in company with a great number of protestant emigrants from the North of Ireland who are chiefly the descendants of those who fled from the persecution of the Presbyterians, carried on in Scotland during the reigns of the two last of the Stuarts, therefore frequently called Scotch Irish.

They are the majority of five or six Counties of the Province of Ulster, in the north of Ireland. My grandfathers both came from Scotland in early life, and him of my name assisted in the memorable defence of London derry, the only place that was successfully defended against King James army.

I being a younger son of a younger son, is the reason why I am only the second in descent during more than 120 years. The descendant of those Scottish emigrants to Ireland have contributed exceedingly to people this Country and composed a great proportion of the Pennsylvania line including several Generals during the revolutionary war".

 

Fascism thrives on "Mythic History - a Golden Age that never really existed"

Here's another short video from Professor Tad Stoermer, majoring on the 1789 Bill of Rights as an act of resistance against the possible tyrannical abuse of the United States Constitution. He talks about the present day, and the very obvious 20th century regimes which re-created a mythical past to suit their own agendas. It's part of the centuries of social toxicity in Ireland too.

As he says "it's not just about making up history, it's about selectively remembering the parts that justify your power ... things were better back then because the right people were in charge, and we need to put them back in power".

Maybe as humans we all do that to some extent in our own individual lives. But when "power" does it, the results can be catastrophic. 

  

December 1775 and the US Navy: From the "Colonies" to the Copeland Islands

250 years ago this month, the American 'Continental' Navy was born and a new flag, "The Grand Union" was created.

It was a normal red Royal Navy ensign, but with 6 new white stripes sewn onto it, which in turn made 7 red stripes, which together represented the 13 Colonies. Previously the Colonies had been separate, individual, commercial rivals and culturally different – but the oppressive London government policies of the Tory Party, eroding their liberties, had brought them together.

The visual message was one of self-defence, hope of reconciliation, but NOT independence –  "The rebels declared their loyalty was to the king while asserting their independence from the British government." (source here). The East India Company used the same flag design.

The new navy's leaders were John Paul Jones (originally from Kirkbean on the south west coast of Scotland) and John Barry (originally from Wexford).

The first victory for the US Navy would take place in 1778, just off the Copeland Islands - in waters that Benjamin Franklin would have sailed across in 1771 on his way from Hillsborough, via Donaghadee, to Edinburgh (see page 169 here). Still today, US Naval Academy graduates revere Jones; his remains were interred in Annapolis.

In the intro to his book A Deeper Silence, ATQ Stewart described the 1778 battle between Jones's ship 'Ranger' and HMS 'Drake', and the aftermath –

"At sunset the gentlemen of Donaghadee watched the Ranger tow her prize through the still sound between the Great Copeland and Orlock Head, and the following day both ships were hove-to off Ballywalter. On that day Jones achieved two other feats of incidental significance. He gave his name to a dance in which you capture a new partner when the music stops. And he changed the course of Irish history."

Patrick Henry - Liberty's Champion – from Declaration to Revolution to Constitution to Bill of Rights

Patrick Henry is one of the biggest names in the story of the American Revolution.

His father, Colonel John Henry, had been born in Aberdeen in 1704. John's parents, Patrick Henry and Jean Robertson, were born in 1670s Scotland during the bloody persecutions of King Charles II against the Presbyterian Covenanters. One of the most infamous prisons where Covenanters were held was Dunnottar Castle just south of Aberdeen (see here), in a dungeon known as the "Whigs Vault" - many of them were transported as slaves to North America.

A branch of the Henry family came to Ulster in 1616 and settled at Loughbrickland in County Down; a Rev William Henry from Loughbrickland became minister of Dromore Presbyterian Church in 1753.

Patrick was born in Virginia in 1736; his two sisters married 'sons of Ulster' – Annie married William Christian (his parents were from the Londonderry area), and Elizabeth married William Campbell (his parents were Ulster Presbyterians). In later life Elizabeth became a dynamic Methodist lay preacher across America.

In the early 1770s, Patrick lived on the plantation estate known as Scotchtown.

1) 1775 – Patrick was just 39 years old when he took his seat on a pew of St John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, on 23 March 1775. He famously rose to his feet and gave the historic speech which closed with the immortal lines "Give me Liberty or give me Death". You can visit the church today - there was a re-enactment of the event on the 250th anniversary earlier this year. 

..................................

2) 1776 – Henry wrote two of the articles of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was published in Williamsburg in June 1776, during the Fifth Virginia Revolutionary Convention (depicted above). A later author examined the text, which had mostly been written by George Mason, and said this –

"... When we look at the Declaration of Rights prepared by him, and which, with a few alterations, was adopted by the Convention, we shall find it a condensed, logical, and luminous summary of the great principles of freedom inherited by us from our British ancestors, the extracted essence of Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, the acts of the Long Parliament, and the doctrines of the Revolution of 1688 as expounded by Locke—distilled and concentrated through the alembic of his own powerful and discriminating mind. There is nothing more remarkable in the political annals of America than this paper ..."

Henry's most acclaimed biographer, his grandson William Wirt Henry (Wikipedia here) wrote this in his three volume Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches (1891; online here):

"... The Bill of Rights of 1689, upon the accession of William and Mary, was the most complete statement of the principles of government ever attempted. This was written by the great Lord Somers, and it embodied the Pettion of Right of 1628, written by Sir Edward Coke. The Virginia Bill of Rights contained all that was of value in these celebrated papers, and much more, and as a summary of the rights of man, and of the principles of free government, stands, and is destined to stand, without a rival in the annals of governments..." 

When I was in Williamsburg in 2016 I bought one of these in the historic printers shop:

  ..................................

3) 1788 – Patrick Henry may have thought that the subsequent Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776, his election as the first post-independence Governor of Virginia, the Revolutionary War (which ended in 1783), and his re-election as Governor for a second term in 1784, might all combine to secure the liberties he had long sought. Not a bit of it.

However, with his second term expired, it looked like the fledgling United States of America was about to install a new élite with centralised power that was not much different than the London version they had overthrown, with power in the hands of the few.  George Washington sent Henry a copy of the emerging new Constitution and Henry had grave concerns at what he read. As the famous quote by Mather Byles says:

"Which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" 

 

So in June 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention gathered to debate the Constitution. Once again in Richmond, Virginia, 52 year old Henry delivered another historic speech, asking the audience what it was that the new United States truly wanted – Liberty or Empire? Perhaps shockingly to his post-Independence audience, Henry invoked ancient British liberties –

“We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors ...

... Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel and you may take everything else. But I fear I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned: if so, I am contented to be so..." 

It's another brilliant example of how - even after the War was over, and the British government had been defeated by her own colonial subjects - a change of nationality was not the essential point, securing liberty was. The Constitution's famous introduction "We the People of the United States..." was insufficient rhetoric. A new national government in America was no guarantee of liberty for ordinary Americans.

Here's the plaque in Richmond:

The outcome was that an additional, new, document, would be required to protect the freedoms of the individual citizen from American Federal government overreach – the 1789 Bill of Rights (Wikipedia here). The Anti-Federalists, of which Henry was one, had succeeded. Unsurprisingly, sections of it were pretty much directly lifted from William III and Mary II's previous 1689 Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights lacks the poetry and drama of the Declaration and the Constitution, but it has substance. It begins with these words:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

..................................

4) 1889 – Exactly a century later, Patrick Henry's grandson, William Wirt Henry, addressed the very first Congress of the Scotch-Irish Society of America, which met at Columbia in Tennessee in May 1889. He delivered a presentation entitled The Scotch-Irish of the South.

Far bigger than the title suggests, it's a broad sweeping narrative through centuries of history. He quoted John Knox confronting the Queen - "if princes exceed their bounds, no doubt they may be resisted even by power",  he quoted Andrew Melville confronting the King - "there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland".

It's good solid stuff, and as an intro to the grand story of the Ulster-Scots / Scotch-Irish, its a pretty good starting point and ticks most of the boxes, with a few tastefully low-key references to his august ancestor. It also includes a superb account of a "Whig Wedding" in Pennsylvania in 1778 of an Ulster-born couple, Jane Roan and William Clingan. It's online here, from page 110 – 131.

"... the earliest Scotch-Irish emigrants to America were men who had been participants, or children of those who were participants, in the terrible drama which closed with the battle of the Boyne. Accordingly we find that these men were among the earliest champions of freedom, and the most earnest and persistent defenders of the rights; of the people, as against the unjust actions of the British government ... These devoted men kept alive the flame of liberty ..."

• Two years later, in 1891, William Wirt Henry's three volume biography of his grandfather, entitled Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches was published and is online at HathiTrust here.

"... Jefferson in after years said that the members from the upper counties invariably supported Mr. Henry in his revolutionary measures, and there can be no doubt they did so on this occasion, and that to the Scotch-Irish; and Huguenot members he was indebted for his triumph..."

• In 1898, he visited Belfast to continue his researches (see page 33 here) 

Tad Stoermer – "Resistance is not defined by what it opposes - but by what it refuses to surrender" - two videos.

• Why The Founders Feared You

This video is a superb summary of the 1786 Daniel Shay's Rebellion in western Massachussetts (Scotch-Irish country - the epicentres being Colrain, New Lisburn, Palmer and Blandford), the 1787 US Constitution, and the consequential 1789 Bill of Rights - and the ideological battles and manipulations among the new power structures and ruling class.

The role of Patrick Henry in securing the Bill of Rights based upon the threat of his popular support – "he had come close to toppling Virginia's Royal government in 1775 ... mobilising the same sort of people who followed Shays ... protect our rights and liberties or there will be consequences for the Constitution" – is fascinating stuff. And look at this quote below – resolutely Ulster-Scots covenantal philosophy:

"... The awareness that the people can revoke the consent that they give to the government, and return it to their own hands to redeploy it wherever they like, is a human political right - one of those pesky 'inalienable' things Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration, and its a real legacy we have contend with as a reality today" (14:25)

• The Book that Reframed How I Understand Resistance: Halik Kochanski's Resistance: The Underground War in Europe, 1939-1945 (published 2022)

This is another fascinating video, mainly about how this author described "conditions, choices and consequences" of the French Resistance movement under Nazi occupation. As Stoermer says at around 4:00, "Resistance is not defined by what it opposes - but by what it refuses to surrender".

1776 and the (Scots) Irish - presentation by Professor Richard Bell

 Loads of first class content in this sweeping overview - a Zoom presentation by Professor Richard Bell of the University of Maryland. His personal website is here.

The "Hearts of Steel" in South Carolina? A letter from the Lieutenant Governor, 3 August 1774

A generation before the more celebrated United Irishmen movement, there had been earlier militant groups in Ulster. One of those groups was the Hearts of Steel; they are shamefully overlooked in our time. Active from 1769 in heavily Presbyterian areas of counties Antrim and Down and other counties too – and roughly contemporary with the Sons of Liberty movement which arose in America in 1765 – the authorities in the 13 Colonies were wise to be aware of potential transatlantic connections.

South Carolina had its version, called the Liberty Boys, with leaders such as Andrew Hamilton and Antrim-born James McCaw. There was also a group called Liberty Boys in Dublin.

On 3 August 1774 in South Carolina, the Lieut-Governor William Bull II (Wikipedia here) wrote to the overall Colonial Secretary the Earl of Dartmouth (Wikipedia here), expressing concerns about the machinations of the newly-established General Assembly of South Carolina, effectively a provisional government.

It had been formed just a month before, on 6 July 1774, with a Committee of 99 members. The General Assembly rushed through an early morning request that the Lieutenant Governor send guns to the "many poor Irish" who had settled along the western backcountry frontier, ostensibly to defend themselves against possible future attacks from Native Americans. Bull was dubious –

"Your lordship will see by this instance with what perseverance, secrecy and unanimity they form and conduct their designs, how obedient the body is to the heads, and how faithful in their secrets. 

They had prepared a message to me, which the prorogation prevented, to desire I would purchase a number of small arms to be given to many poor Irish and others in our western frontiers, with ammunition, upon the apprehensions of an Indian war. Whenever that appears to me unavoidable, I shall take every step in my power to enable them to defend themselves.

It is not improbable but many of the poor Irish may have been White Boys, Hearts of Oak or Hearts of Steel, who have been accustomed to oppose law and authority in Ireland, may not change their disposition with their climate, and may think of other objects than Indians.”

William Bull saw the potential for this 'poor Irish' western backcountry frontier community to one day use government-approved firearms against the governmental authorities.

• One of the South Carolina Committee of 99 was Edward Rutledge; his father Dr John Rutledge is believed to have been from the north of Ireland, and Edward would eventually be the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence, aged just 26.

• Letter is online here

• https://southcarolina250.com

• Charleston's Sons of Liberty by Richard Walsh (1959) is online here

.......................

Hearts of Steel activities were reported in newspapers in America, such as The New York Journal of 14 May 1772 which referred to attacks carried out by 'Steelmen' in Banbridge, Gilford and Newry; the Pennsylvania Gazette of 18 June 1772 carried more. Richard MacMaster's book Scotch-Irish Merchants in Colonial America has further information.

• Illustration below by JW Carey; published in Historical Notices of Old Belfast and Its Vicinity.

Thomas Paine 1796 letter, citing the Glorious Revolution

In his infamous letter to former President, George Washington (online here), Thomas Paine accused him of having been as deceitful during his two Presidencies from 1789-97 as King James II had been a century earlier from 1685-1689:

"... Elevated to the chair of the Presidency you assumed the merit of every thing to yourself, and the natural ingratitude of your constitution began to appear.. You commenced your Presidential career by encouraging and swallowing the grossest adulation, and you travelled America from one end to the other, to put yourself in the way of receiving it.

You have as many addresses in your chest as James the II.

As to what were your views, for if you are not great enough to have ambition you are little enough to have vanity, they cannot be directly inferred from expressions of your own; but the partizans of your politics have divulged the secret ..."

Putting this kind of stuff in writing against a two-time President is how to end up in an unmarked grave.

"A war serves a nationalist purpose – a revolution threatens it"

This is iconoclastic stuff, a response to the new Ken Burns series The American Revolution, by Tad Stoermer, which he calls "national therapy through origin story". I know nothing about him, but YouTube's algorithm sent me it today. He quotes the seminal John Adams comment that the revolution was not the war.

As Stoermer says – the Revolution was "not for independence, not for union – for their rights – something bigger and more interesting than a political outcome".

"What do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution."

– John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818

...............

"... During his retirement years, he was fond of saying that the War for Independence was a consequence of the American Revolution. The real revolution, he declared, had taken place in the minds and hearts of the colonists in the fifteen years prior to 1776. According to Adams, the American Revolution was first and foremost an intellectual revolution..."– source here

Bridget Lisle – Cotton Mather & Samuel Sewall: the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion & the 1689 Boston Revolt

Bridget Lisle's life is hard to fathom – her father was shot dead by order of one king, her mother was beheaded by order of the next king...

In August 1664, Sir John Lisle was shot dead in Switzerland by an assassin sent to do the job by King Charles II.

His widow Lady Alice Lisle was left to raise their seven children. Their daughter Bridget emigrated to New England, where in 1672 she married the President of Harvard College, Leonard Hoar, and became a prominent figure in Massachusetts society. Leonard died in 1675, and Bridget remarried, to the wealthy Boston bookseller Hezekiah Usher junior.

A decade passed; King Charles II died and was succeeded by his brother, James...

....................

1. COTTON MATHER, 25 SEPTEMBER 1685

News of the failed double rebellion against the new King James II in June & July 1685, by the Earl of Argyll and the Duke of Monmouth, eventually reached New England. There were no newspapers there at the time, but a few important diaries and letters still exist which capture some of the details. On 25 September 1685, the renowned Cotton Mather wrote this letter to his uncle, Rev John Cotton of Plymouth, Massachussetts (I have put it through an AI tool to modernise it into present-day language):

My ever-honored Uncle,

Now some people will hang their harps upon the willows. The great God has given them the wine of astonishment to drink. The news which was so fresh at your departure hence was a grievous abuse put upon the silly doves.

First, a vessel comes in from England, which, lying at the Isle of Wight and at Falmouth, received certain intelligence that the Duke of Monmouth is utterly routed, taken prisoner, and on the 15th of July beheaded on Tower Hill, undergoing his death with much magnanimity, refusing to make any answers to what was asked him on the scaffold, saying that he came there not to speak but to die. He never had much above ten thousand men, most unarmed; had once beaten the King’s forces, but the second time, through the ill-management of the Lord Grey, he was overpowered—though he himself, it is said, fought in his own person with incredible valour till he lost the day. It is suspected that Grey was treacherous; for he and one or two more are reserved for discoverers of all that had any hand, and so much as a little finger, in the conspiracy—rather for his great estate, which upon his death would have gone to his brother.

And what use is now made of this attempt to ruin all Protestants is obvious to any considerate person, nor is it to be thought on without bleeding lamentations. But since, there comes in another vessel from Scotland which brings hither some of Argyle’s men to be sold for slaves, and they inform us that the Earl landed in a place where he could never get much above a thousand men, the forces of the kingdom being raised against him before he came ashore and intercepting all passages, so that they who had promised him their assistance failed him. He had a little brush or two with his enemies—once overnight—but their hearts were so taken from them, that before morning they every one went to shift for himself. Argyle was taken in the disguise of a grazier, and on the last of June he was beheaded at Edinburgh. Some that are come over were present at his execution. We have here a copy of his speech, which does abundantly justify and augment the opinion that we had of him. I am sorry I cannot get a copy of it to send you; but in due time expect it. His death had this odd circumstance in it, that after his head was off, he rose up on his feet and had like to have gone off the scaffold if they had not prevented it.

A standing army is that by which both kingdoms are now kept in subjection. Colonel Kirk is at Taunton; and there, in cold blood, has butchered five hundred people in that fanatic town.

You know what to think of these things, and you are no doubt so much of a Protestant as to make this use of the hideous calamities which these things will occasion to all Protestants: that you will quicken the importunate, groaning prayers of your own people, and those that are in the neighbour towns, with due privacy and discretion. Lift up prayers—he that does not now arise and call upon God and cry mightily is one of those sleepy sinners who make the times perilous. But you need not me for your monitor.

Remember me with my due services to my aunt and respect to my cousins, and to all friends that inquire after my welfare—especially to the good aged Simeon, your elder, to whom tell my wishes, that he may not think of departing until his eyes have seen the salvation of God.

I am

Your observant kinsman,

C. Mather

.................... 

2. SAMUEL SEWALL, 13 NOVEMBER 1685

When writing the letter, Cotton Mather would not have known that in the aftermath of the rebellion Lady Alice Lisle had already become the first of over 300 people to be publicly executed - she was a high-profile start to King James II's Bloody Assizes. Aged 68 and with failing eyesight, she was beheaded in the street in Winchester by order of King James II's infamous Judge George Jeffreys on 2 September 1685.

It took ten weeks for news of this to reach Boston; Samuel Sewall recorded it in his diary of 13 November 1685:

"... Friday, Novr. 13. Barington arrives, brings word of the beheading of my Lady Lisle, Mrs. Hez. Usher’s Mother, at Winchester. Four executed at London, Mr Jenkins’s Son, Alderm Hayes Son, and two more, and whipping the Taunton Maids. Capt. Jolls dead in London.

To which he added a glimmer of hope:

"... Is a Rumor that the Government will be Changed, this Fall or Winter, by some Person sent over, or a Comission to some here..."

 .................... 

3. JOHN WINSLOW AND THE BOSTON REVOLT, 18 APRIL 1689

The cruelties of King James II of course would lead to the Boston Revolt of 18 April 1689, which was inspired by the news that William, Prince of Orange had arrived in England with a vast European army. A copy of William's Declaration had been brought ashore at Boston Harbour by John Winslow a few weeks earlier on 4th April. The Memorial History of Boston (published 1881) says this:

"(the Revolt) was a desperate venture, since the continuance of the rule of King James would have brought a speedy and terrible punishment upon the malcontents. The inhabitants of Boston in 1689 were fully aware of the scenes which followed Monmouth's failure. Some refugees indeed had found shelter here, and the daughter of that most noted victim, Lady Lisle, had recently been living here as the wife of President Leonard Hoar (of Harvard University)"

And the above-mentioned diarist, Samuel Sewall, wrote about it all (see previous post here)

....................

Maybe somebody has already assembled these incredible jigsaw pieces. The picture they reveal is one of 'absolute monarch' tyranny. It's a compelling picture, telling a transatlantic story, and of people who refused to bow the knee.

• A detailed biography of Bridget Lisle / Hoar / Usher is here on page 321–324 in the journal of Worcester Historical Society, Volume 1, Number 6, April 1933 edition

(The painting above of Alice Lisle being arrested in her home in 1685 was painted by Edward Matthew Ward in 1857 and is in the UK Parliament art collection). Alice Lisle was posthumously pardoned by King William III and Queen Mary II upon their accession to the crown in 1689.

Thomas Jefferson's Music - "The music of Scotland may almost be called the national music of Virginia"

 This is a superb article, from Slate magazine in 2012:

"... In 1838, his spunky granddaughter Ellen Wayles Randolph Coolidge wrote in her travel diary that “The music of Scotland may almost be called the national music of Virginia. The simple, plaintive or sprightly airs which every body knows and every body sings are Scotch. … This music is natural, intelligible, comes home to every body’s business and bosom.”

America also borrowed from the Scotch and Irish the fiddle tune. Though Jefferson himself didn’t do much fiddling at Monticello, others did. Isaac Jefferson Granger, one of his slaves, said that Randolph Jefferson, Thomas’ little brother, “used to come out among the black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.” The sons of Sally Hemings played frequently when Jefferson’s daughters and granddaughters wanted dance music. According to Jefferson’s granddaughter, “On Saturday next the youngsters of Monticello intend to adjourn to the South-Pavilion and dance after Beverley [Hemings’] music.”..."

.................

Ellen was 30 years old when her grandfather Thomas died in 1826, and she wrote the above account twelve years later. That the music of Scotland was so prominent is no surprise – the Jefferson homeplace at Monticello outside Charlottesville was in the flat, plantation-ready plains – sweeping down from the Appalachian mountains, which had of course been so heavily settled by Ulster-Scots. Thomas Jefferson would later write of "the wild Irish who had gotten possession of the valley between the blue ridge and North mountain".

And the first published collection of fiddle tunes, George P. Knauff's Virginia Reels was published just a year after Ellen's diary entry, in 1839 - a collection described by Paul Wells in 2012 as 'strongly Scottish' (previous post here).

"It is most certain that all Men, as they are the Sons of Adam, are Coheirs; and have equal Right unto Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life." - Samuel Sewall, Boston, 1700

Samuel Sewall was in England at the time of the Boston Revolt of April 1689 – his Diary (online here) shows that he had set sail from Boston Harbour on 22 November 1688 and arrived at the Isle of Wight on 10 January 1689 into an England where the Prince of 'Aurang' [Orange] had taken charge. Sewall stayed for most of 1689, sailing back to America from Plymouth on 10 October 1689.

Sewall co-authored the publication The Revolution in New England Justified, and the People there Vindicated (printed by Samuel Green for Joseph Brunning in 1691; online here) in which Sewall defended the Boston Revolt, stating that King James II's governor Edmund Andros had "made laws destructive of the liberty of the people".

"... The uprising against Andros certainly bears the signs of a popular movement, not based upon any knowledge of the success of the revolution in England, and for that reason not probably the work of any of the citizens of position and wealth. It was a desperate venture, since the continuance of the rule of King James would have brought a speedy and terrible punishment upon the malcontents. The inhabitants of Boston in 1689 were fully aware of the scenes which followed Monmouth's failure. Some refugees indeed had found shelter here, and the daughter of that most noted victim, Lady Lisle, had recently been living here as the wife of President Leonard Hoar (of Harvard University), and later of Hezekiah Usher ..." - from The Memorial History of Boston (online here)

Almost a decade later Sewall turned his pen to challenge aspects of slavery. In 1700 he published The Selling of Joseph; A Memorial which was written regarding the high-profile case of a man called Adam who was enslaved by Boston merchant John Saffin. Sewall drew parallels with the Biblical enslavement of Joseph in Egypt –

"... Originally, and Naturally, there is no such thing as Slavery. Joseph was rightfully no more a Slave to his Brethren, then they were to him ...

... Tis pity there should be more Caution used in buying a Horse, or a little lifeless dust; than there is in purchasing Men and Women: Whereas they are the Offspring of GOD, and their Liberty is 'auro pretiosior omni' (more precious than gold)... 

... It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in taking Negros out of Africa, and Selling of them here, That which GOD has joyned together men do boldly rend asunder; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives, Parents from their Children. How horrible is the Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the Ships are guilty of that bring great Crouds of these miserable Men, and Women. Methinks, when we are bemoaning the barbarous Usage of our Friends and Kinsfolk in Africa ..."

However, Sewall appears to have also sold African slaves. Humans are a mess of hypocrisies and contradictions. In every culture, in every era, the desperate and poorest and weakest have always been fuel for the indulgences of the comfortable classes – from William Blake's "dark Satanic mills" to Wilfred Owen's "Dulce Et Decorum Est", to the deadly coalmines of Lanarkshire, Yorkshire, and Appalachia.

I wonder which unthinkable inhumanities our era turns a blind eye too, to preserve our comforts and pleasures? The sweat shops where designer brands make incredible fortunes out of vanity, and where the shiny device you are reading this on is made by tech companies who have nets around their buildings to try to stop staff "unaliving" themselves.

Ursula K LeGuin's short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is worth a (harrowing) read. 

As Sewall wrote in 1700, "It is most certain that all Men, as they are the Sons of Adam, are Coheirs; and have equal Right unto Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life."

• Thomas Hutchinson's account of the Boston Revolt is in his History of Massachussetts (online here, from page 332). His grandfather Elisha Hutchinson had been a merchant in Boston at the time of the 1688 Glorious Revolution. 

"The Revolution in New England Justified, and the People there Vindicated" - 1688 & 1776 again

Another superb source! Following the Boston Revolt of April 1689 (when, following the arrival of copies of William Prince of Orange's Declaration, colonists rose up to overthrow the colonial government of King James II and his Governor Edmund Andros) two accounts of the Revolt were published.

• The first was by lawyer John Palmer (bio here) who had been one of those seized and imprisoned by the 'rebels'. While imprisoned, he wrote his An Impartial Account of the State of New England, or the late Government there vindicated - it circulated in manuscript form and was printed in London in 1690 (online here).

• The second account, a response/rebuttal of Palmer entitled The Revolution in New England Justified, and the People there Vindicated was written in 1691 by Edward Rawson (Wikipedia here) and Samuel Sewall (Wikipedia here). Their preface explained what a liberty-oriented 'limited monarchy' was:

"but there are a sort of men, who call those that are for English liberties, and that rejoice in the government of their majesties, king William and queen Mary, by the name of republicans, and represent all such as enemies of monarchy and of the church. It is not our single opinion only, but we can speak it on the behalf of the generality of their majesties subjects in New-England; that they believe (without any diminution to the glory of our former princes) the English nation was never so happy in a king, or in a queen, as at this day. And the God of heaven, who has set them on the throne of these kingdoms, grant them long and prosperously to reign"

and the introduction:

"THE doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, which a sort of men did of late, when they thought the world would never change, cry up as divine truth, is by means of the happy revolution in these nations, exploded, and the assertors of it become ridiculous." 

It included an appendix entitled A Narrative of the Proceedings of Sir Edmund Androsse and his Accomplices who acted by an Illegal and Arbitrary Commission from the late King James, during his Government in New England - written by five gentlemen who had served under Andros (Wikipedia here). But few revolutions are truly complete, and Andros was made Governor of Virginia by William III and Mary II.

.....................

• Nearly a century later with a new revolution in the air, in April 1773 the 24 year old Boston printer, and member of the Sons of Liberty movement, Isaiah Thomas (Wikipedia here) dusted down the Rawson and Sewell book and reprinted it, to remind the city's readership that there had been a justified revolution before. The Sons of Liberty would occasionally hold meetings in his print shop, and perhaps they imbibed the contents of 1689. Thomas advertised his reprint in the 8 April 1773 edition of his seditious newspaper The Massachussetts Spy or Thomas's Boston Journal.

And just eight months later, tea was floating in Boston Harbour....

• The 1773 Thomas edition is on Archive.org here

• Text is online here

"the three strands of political thought that shaped America’s founding - Lockean liberalism, classic republicanism, and Protestant Christianity"

This 2022 article by Kevin DeYoung on World News Group is worth a read...

The founders' emphasis on liberty was not a rejection of Christianity but based on Christian ideas about the sanctity of the conscience and the corruptibility of too much power in the hands of too few persons.

Professor David Armitage on the 1688 & 1776 connections - "move beyond nationalist paradigms"

I saw this Zoom broadcast, hosted by the National Army Museum in London, back in April of this year. Professor David Armitage (Harvard webpage here) makes a number of critical points here. I've lifted these from the YouTube transcript, but do listen to the whole for proper context.

..........................

From 3:00 –

"... it's very useful indeed and very important historically to reconsider the war of independence as a Civil War and I think that's for three reasons - I'm sure my fellow panelists will have others to add to these.

The first is that it returns the War of Independence to its full British transatlantic and imperial context by thinking of the commonalities on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed around the Atlantic that framed and shaped the course of the War of Independence;

secondly it liberates the War of Independence from a nationalist teleology that was imposed back upon those events particularly from the 19th century making it an event in the history of the United States even before the United States existed, but more importantly in this context, it restores the very deep divisions that characterise the war itself within North America but also again within the British Empire and in Britain itself, and also reminds us of the often terrible violence that took place during the war of independence something that later nationalist accounts tended to gloss over;

and thirdly and finally I think it's historically important to rethink it rethink the War of Independence as a civil war because that those are exactly the terms that contemporaries used to describe it, for example the very first Declaration from the Second Continental Congress in July 1775 the Declaration on taking up arms said that the American cause was not to declare independence but rather to save the Empire from the calamities of Civil War and very similarly the official British government response to the Declaration of Independence accused the Americans themselves of fomenting Civil War ..."

..........................

From 14:16 –

"... the overall way to think about this is again not in the terms of the nationalist narrative which effectively tells the story of the American Revolution as a crisis of disintegration - as it were proto Americans discovering their own identity attached themselves to a certain set of values which then they put into practice against the predatory invasions of Ministry, Parliament and the Crown - we should think of it in in fact in the exactly the opposite way, as a crisis of integration. By the 1760s and 1770s most of the white colonists in the 13 colonies and indeed the other British colonies on the western side of the Atlantic thought of themselves as more British in their mores in their attachment to common law in the way in which they organised property relations but also in the ways in which they were for example bound together by the fruits of a modernising consumer revolution ..."

..........................

From 48:00 –

“... this is also relevant to the ideological context for the colonies going all the way back to the attachment of Britons, the common attachment of Britons as Britons, to what they saw as their peculiar inheritance of civil liberty guaranteed by the Revolutionary settlement of 1688 to 1689 - so as well as expanding our geographical range to see the American crisis in a global context we also need to pull out the temporal context and take it all the way back to 1688-89 to see how debates about civil liberty, the definitions of those, how they're related to conceptions of consent, of representation of parliament ..."

..........................

The 1689 London Baptist Confession, and the aftermath of King James II's 1685 'Bloody Assizes'

Above: the 50 locations of 315 public executions during King James II's 'Bloody Assizes', August - December 1685.

................

This article, in the Baptist Quarterly, January 1930 edition, is worth a look. Baptists were one of the 'non-conformist' denominations in England who were persecuted under the 'absolute monarch' regimes of Charles II and then James II, from 1661-1688. G.M. Trevelyan, in his England Under the Stuarts (1904; online here), described these as 'The Reigns of Terror'.

State power was unleashed upon the civilian populations who believed that no King was head of the church. Persecuting 'Clarendon Code' laws targeted them. 2000 non-conformist ministers ejected in England alone. John James was executed. Benjamin Keach persecuted. John Bunyan imprisoned. Isaac Watts senior* imprisoned twice. Richard Baxter put on trial... men whose writings are revered in theological circles today, but whose sufferings are almost forgotten.

Some Baptists turned their farming implements into weapons and joined the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion of summer 1685, forging their ploughshares into swords. The rebellion failed.

The lists of the 850 'rebels' who were sold as slaves, and of the 315 more who were publicly executed, still exist. The Baptist Quarterly article picks up on those sources –

These lists deserve close attention from the secretaries of the Somerset and Dorset Baptist churches, which contributed scores, if not hundreds, to the ranks of the insurgents.

The Lyme Regis church was foremost, and it is not surprising to see the pastor, Sampson Lark, with John Holloway, the tobacconist, amongst the earliest who paid forfeit.

Other Dorset names well known in Baptist circles are Bevis, Collier, Cox, Elliot, Sprake, Waldron. Colonel Abraham Holmes and Will Hewling were Baptist, but had landed with Monmouth.

Benjamin Hewling was convicted at Taunton; the story is well known how his grandfather, (William) Kiffin of London interceded but could only obtain that he should not be quartered, but buried whole...

The grave losses sustained by our churches in Somerset and Dorset, still affected them four years later, and so when the churches of all England were represented at London in 1689, the West did not give its usual lead, which it only recovered after ten years. Some real harm was done, the effects of which persisted for nearly a century.

We commend to some Baptist antiquary in the Taunton district, that he take the official lists in the Calendar of State Papers, and try to trace his spiritual ancestors who fought against James as their fathers against his father.

 

Above: a photo I took of Lyme Regis Baptist Church back in 2016. Local pastor, Sampson Larke, was one of twelve who were hanged, drawn and quartered on the beach on 12 September 1685; another of them was William Hewling referred to above. When visiting Lyme Regis earlier this year I went to the churchyard of St Michael the Archangel Parish Church, where William Hewling's remains had been buried. His gravestone had been taken away some time in the early 1900s - see previous post here. The significantly-named Monmouth Street is directly opposite the church.

...........................

In November 1688 King James II was of course overthrown by a European-wide alliance headed by William, Prince of Orange, who, in 1689, with his wife Queen Mary II jointly signed into law a new Bill of Rights for the people.

From 3rd - 11th "of the seventh month" of 1689 (back then the seventh month of the year was not July, but September) an assembly of 37 Baptist pastors gathered in London, and published the 1689 Baptist Confession. This dedicated website contains the full text, and also lists all of the local pastors who were signatories.

• Those who were from the ravaged south west - Samuel Buttall of Plymouth, William Phipps of Exeter, John Ball of Tiverton (where the local congregational pastor was beheaded, and his head then displayed on the market cross), James Hitt of Dalwood, Thomas Winnel of Taunton, Toby Willes of Bridgwater, Andrew Gifford of Bristol and James Webb of Devizes - must have brought horrific tales to the liberated capital. 

• Among the 37 was William Kiffin, the pastor of Devonshire Square Baptist Church in London, whose nephews William and Benjamin Hewling had been publicly executed at Lyme Regis and Taunton respectively. Decades before, Kiffin had been one of the authors of the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith. The 1823 edition of Remarkable passages in the life of William Kiffin is online here.

...........................

* The hymnwriter Isaac Watts (1674-1748), perhaps reflecting on his Southampton childhood memory of the persecutions under Charles II and James II (men were hanged drawn and quartered at Wareham in 1685 - see previous post here), wrote these words:

“Must I be carried to the skies, On flowery beds of ease?
While others fought to win their prize, And sailed through bloody seas?”

Above: The 1689 Baptist Confession was reprinted in the USA, by Benjamin Franklin in 1743 and later reprinted by John Dunlap in 1773. They would of course collaborate in the publishing of the Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776.

It's almost a century since that Baptist Quarterly article highlighted the need for further research, perhaps that still needs to be done.

Above: the locations of the 37 pastors named in the 1689 Baptist Confession

...........................

• Connected with all of this is the remarkable Daniel Defoe. This superb analysis of his most famous work Robinson Crusoe, by Tom Paulin in the London Review of Books in 2001, is a masterclass. As Paulin shows, the executed William and Benjamin Hewling had been schoolfriends of Defoe when they attended Cornwall-born Charles Morton's Dissenting Academy at Newington Green in London. Morton left England for America in 1686, where he became Vice-President of Harvard.

Above: tattoo of Joe Thorn's hand (online here).

Gideon Blackburn (1772-1838) - "The great Elijah of our day" / Cherokee chief Doublehead / John Gloucester

Gideon Blackburn was born in Augusta County, Virginia - on the cusp of the Revolution and three years before his community expressed their desire for liberty in their Augusta Resolves at Staunton. Augusta was the county that George Washington's famous (unconfirmed) "if defeated everywhere else" quote was based upon.

Gideon's grandfather William Blackburn was from Ballymena and was onboard one of the first big Ulster-Scots emigration waves, leaving in 1719 and settling at Yorktown. His son Robert Blackburn was among those to enter the Shenandoah Valley in the 1750s - he married Sarah Ritchie. Gideon was born in 1772.

The Tennessee Encyclopedia has this amazing biography of Gideon – pioneer settler of Tennessee, Presbyterian minister, educator, missionary, whiskey smuggler ...

"a staunch ally of the powerful acculturationist chief Doublehead, to whom he offered sanctuary shortly before Cherokee nationalists assassinated him in 1807"

... a friend of Andrew Jackson, purchaser and liberator of the Black slave John Gloucester, whom Gideon tutored and who later became the first African American Presbyterian minister in America. Gloucester was the first African American to enrol at Greeneville College / Tusculum University in Tennessee, which was co-founded by Ulsterman Samuel Doak.

• a detailed bio of Gideon Blackburn, written in 1934 by VM Queener for the East Tennessee Historical Society, is online here.

• An article in the Journal of Presbyterian History (Vol 5, Fall 1974) begins:

"Gideon Blackburn was a child of the southwestern frontier. Born in Augusta County, Va., on 27 August, 1772, to Scotch-Irish parents with little or no property, the boy was early orphaned and lived with his paternal grandfather until the latter's death when Gideon was about twelve years old. Thereafter he lived with an unmarried maternal uncle, Gideon Richie, a manual laborer who

like so many others of his class and age followed the current of migration toward the West. When the younger Gideon was about fifteen, he moved with this uncle to Washington County, Tennessee, then within the bounds of North Carolina. About three years later the two moved seventy miles further west, to Jefferson County, Tennessee".

(PS: in the trio of photos above I have used this image of Doublehead's brother, which has been used as the basis of recent depictions of Doublehead himself).

Sydney George Fisher - "The True History of the American Revolution" (1902)

Ropey history is nothing new.

In 1898, Pennsylvania author Sydney George Fisher (1856-1927; Wikipedia here) incurred the ire of the Scotch-Irish Society. At the Ninth Annual Meeting and Banquet of the Pennsylvania Scotch-Irish Society (at the Hotel Bellevue in Philadelphia; publication online here) various remarks were made – and the Society's Second Vice President Judge John Stewart (bio here) offered a lengthy critique – about Fisher's portrayal of the Scotch-Irish in his 1896 book Pennsylvania, Colony and Commonwealth (online here). To the Society's credit, they also printed Fisher's rebuttal (page 107 here).

A few years later Fisher published his True History of the American Revolution, in 1902 (online here). The title is itself a bold claim, which encapsulates his frustrations and how the subsequent re-tellings of 1776 had warped and mutated away from the original sources. It's packed with brilliant material. He sets out his assertive stall right away in the first sentences of the preface:

"... The purpose of this history of the Revolution is to use the original authorities rather more frankly than has been the practice with our historians. They appear to have thought it advisable to omit from their narratives a great deal which, to me, seems essential to a true picture. I cannot feel satisfied with any description of the Revolution which treats the desire for independence as a sudden thought ..."

And his concise summary of the contemporary context in Britain and Ireland is a masterclass in simplicity, in capturing the Whig/Tory distinctions, explaining the issue as one of liberty rather than nationality –

"... It is important to remember the condition of parties in England and the phases of opinion among them during the Revolution. 

As time went on a large section of the Rockingham Whigs, and men like the Duke of Richmond and Charles Fox, were in favor of allowing the colonies to form, if they could, an independent nation, just as, in the year 1901, a section of the liberal party were in favor of allowing the Boer republics of South Africa to retain their independence.

The rest of the Whigs, represented by such men as Barré, Burke, and Lord Chatham, would not declare themselves for independence. They professed to favor retaining the American communities as colonies; but they would retain them by conciliation instead of by force and conquest. Their position was an impossible one, because conciliation without military force would necessarily result in independence. They professed to think that the colonies could be persuaded to make an agreement by which they would remain colonies. But such an agreement would be like a treaty between independent nations, and imply such power in the colonies that the next day they would construe it to mean independence.

The Tories could see no merit in the independence of any country except England. They believed that the colonies should remain completely subordinate dependencies, like the English colonies of the present day; and be allowed no more liberty or self-government than was for the advantage of the empire, and such as circumstances should from time to time indicate.

As to the method of reducing the colonies to obedience, the Tories were somewhat uncertain. At first most of them, led by such men as Lord North, Lord Hillsborough, and Lord Dartmouth, were in favor of a rather mild method of warfare, accompanied by continual offers of conciliation and compromise. They were led to this partly by considerations of expense and the heavy debt already incurred by the previous war, by the desire to take as much wind as possible out of the sails of the Whigs by adopting a semi-Whig policy, by the desire to avoid arousing such hatred and ill-will among the colonists as would render them difficult to govern in the future, and by the fear that the patriot party, if pressed too hard, would appeal to France or escape beyond the Allegheny Mountains and establish republican or rights of man communities which would be a perpetual menace and evil example to the seaboard colonies.

Exactly how much conciliation and how much severity the ministry wished to have in their policy is difficult to determine. Within two or three years they changed it and favored a quick, sharp, relentless war, with such complete destruction and devastation of the country as would collapse the patriot party, avoid all necessity of any sort of compromise and leave the colonies to be remodelled and governed in any way the ministry saw fit.

It is quite obvious that, besides getting aid from France, Spain, or Holland and their own personal powers, it was very important for the patriot party in the colonies to have the Whigs go into power, or come so near going into power that they would influence Tory policy. 

Many people believed that the whole question depended on the patriots holding out long enough to let the Whigs get into power, and that if the Whigs were successful for only a few months the whole difficulty would be settled. 

When, finally, peace was declared and the treaty acknowledging independence signed in 1783, it was done by a Whig ministry. Tories do not sign treaties granting independence ..."

 

He also included multiple references to the 1688 origins of 1776, such as:

"... but perhaps their greatest [Whig] triumph was in the revolution of 1688, when they dethroned the Stuart line, established religious liberty, destroyed the power of the crown to set aside acts of Parliament, and created representative government in England. For the most of their existence; however, they would have been able to live in America more consistently with their professed principles than in England.

On the present occasion, in the year 1775, after they had expended all of their eloquence and stated all of their ideas, and shown themselves in the eyes of the majority of Englishmen absolutely incompetent to settle the American question, except by giving the colonies independence, the Tory majority proceeded to its duty of preserving the integrity of the empire in the only way it could be preserved ..."

 

• In 1912 Fisher followed up with The Legendary and Myth-Making Process in Histories of the American Revolution (online here).

• Back in 1897 he had published The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States (online here), showing how many of the clauses had their origins in the reign of William III and Mary II

I hope that "USA 250" avoids myth-making and ropey history, and instead presents a narrative that is true to the 1776 era, unaffected and uninfected by our present-day prejudices on both sides of the Atlantic.