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.

"The cause of liberty and the rights of mankind" – The Presbyterian Synod resumes its 'Pastoral Letter', 24 May 1783

Just after American Revolutionary war had begun, the Presbyterian Synod which covered all of the 13 Colonies issued its historic 'Pastoral Letter' to all of its member congregations, on 12 June 1775 (see previous post here). No more were issued until the war was over and independence had been secured; peace negotiations began in Paris in April 1782 (concluding with the formal Treaty of Paris of 3 September 1783).

A new 'Pastoral Letter' was issued from Philadelphia on 24 May 1783, with John M'Crery / McCrery / McCreary (1732-1800) the minister of White Clay Creek and also Head of Christiana Presbyterian Church, Newark, New Jersey, as its moderator (see the Presbytery of New Castle list here).

The letter is a retrospective on the times they had all lived through, and also expresses aspirations for the future of the newly independent United States. It's online here – the text is below.

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

A Pastoral Letter from the Synod of New York and Philadelphia to the people under their charge, May 1783.

Very dear brethren,

You will easily remember, that in May 1775, the Synod thought proper to address a pastoral letter to the people under their inspection, on the state of public affairs.

At that interesting period, hostilities had just commenced between Great Britain and America, and a long and bloody conflict was to be expected. Now that conflict is over, and we have the best reason to suppose (the preliminaries being signed and ratified) that a happy and honourable peace will be speedily settled by a definitive treaty. We could not therefore longer delay addressing to you the following letter, which will contain our sentiments on this happy occasion, and our advice as to the duty incumbent upon all ranks in return for so great a mercy.

We cannot help congratulating you on the general and almost universal attachment of the Presbyterian body to the cause of liberty and the rights of mankind. This has been visible in their conduct, and has been confessed by the complaints and resentment of the common enemy. Such a circumstance ought not only to afford us satisfaction on the review, as bringing credit to the body in general, but to increase our gratitude to God for the happy issue of the war; had it been unsuccessful, we must have drunk deeply of the cup of suffering. Our burnt and wasted churches, and our plundered dwellings, in such places as fell under the power of our adversaries, are but an earnest of what we must have suffered had they finally prevailed.

The Synod therefore request you to render thanks to Almighty God for all his mercies spiritual and temporal, and in a particular manner for establishing the Independence of the United States of America. He is the Supreme Disposer of all events, and to him belongs the glory, the victory, and the majesty. We are persuaded you will easily recollect many circumstances in the course of the struggle, which point out his special and signal interposition in our favour. Our most remarkable successes have generally been when things had just before worn the most unfavourable aspect, as at Trenton and Saratoga at the beginning, in South Carolina and Virginia towards the end of the war. It pleased God to raise up for us a powerful ally in Europe, and when we consider the unwearied attempts of our enemies to raise dissension by every topic that could be supposed inflammatory and popular, the harmony that has prevailed not only between the allied powers, but the troops of different nations and languages acting together, ought to be ascribed to the gracious influence of Divine Providence. Without mentioning many other instances, we only further put you in mind of the choice and appointment of a commander in chief of the armies of the United States, who in this important and difficult charge has given universal satisfaction, who alike acceptable to the citizen and the soldier, to the state in which he was born, and to every other on the continent, whose character and influence, after so long service, are not only unimpaired but augmented. Of what consequence this has been to the cause of America, every one may judge, or if it needs any illustration, it receives it from the opposite situation of our enemies in this respect. On the whole, every pious person, on a review of the events of the war, will certainly be disposed to say, with the Psalmist, the Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad.

Suffer us to put you in mind of the duty which you owe to God in return for this great national deliverance. You ought to testify your gratitude by living in his fear. This is the only way by which public prosperity can become a real mercy to you. It were to be wished, indeed, that in our contests about the most important interests of a temporal nature, we could still remember, not only that eternity is of greater moment than any thing that relates merely to the present life, but that all outward things, and even civil liberty itself, ought to be considered as subordinate and subservient to an everlasting happiness. It would not be an honour to us to be wholly unconcerned about the rights of ourselves and others, as men and as citizens, yet the great object of our duty, and, we hope, of our desires, is to watch for your souls, as those that must give an account to God. We therefore earnestly beseech every one who is nominally of our communion, not to be satisfied with a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. The substance of religion is the same to all denominations, neither is there any preference due to one before another, but in so far as it has superior advantages in leading men to the saving knowledge of the only living and true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, whom to know is life eternal.

There is no doubt that you look upon it as a happy circumstance in the late revolution, that the rights of conscience are unalienably secured, and even interwoven with the very constitutions of the several states. The duty which you owe to the community at large for this inestimable blessing, is to support civil authority, by being subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake, and by living quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. It is a truth of much moment, and particularly to be remembered at this time, not only that the virtue of the people in general is of consequence to the stability of every civil society, but that it is of much greater moment to the stability of republics or free states, than those of a different kind. In monarchies, a sense of honour, the subordination of rank in society, and the vigour of despotic authority, supply in some measure the place of virtue, in producing public order; but in free states, where the power is ultimately lodged in the body of the people, if there is a general corruption of the mass, the government itself must speedily be dissolved.

You cannot but have observed, that the war has occasioned great irregularity and relaxation as to the observation of the Sabbath, and attendance on public ordinances. In some places congregations are broken up; in some places, for a considerable time, attendance was difficult, dangerous or impossible. The public service also, which made some things really necessary, was often made a pretence for ir regularity when no necessity existed. It is therefore your duty, now that peace and harmony have returned, to revive and restore the respect due to the Sabbath and the worship of God's sanctuary. The regular administration of Divine ordinances is a blessing that cannot be too highly valued or purchased at too great a price. We hope, therefore, that you will, in general, exert yourselves, and do every thing in your power that will serve to promote so noble a purpose. Be cheerful and liberal in assisting to educate pious youth for the ministry. Let vacant congregations be active and diligent to supply themselves with fixed pastors ; and let those which have fixed pastors strengthen their hands in their Master's work, not only by obedience in the Lord, but by making such provisions for their comfortable subsistence as that their duty may be practicable. We make this demand clearly and explicitly, because it is founded upon the plainest reason – upon the word of God – upon general or common utility, and your own interest, and make no doubt that wherever is true religion, it will be heard and complied with.

We look upon it as a very happy circumstance in the political revolution that has happened in America, that neither in its rise nor progress was it intermixed or directed by religious controversy. No denominations of Christians among us have any reason to fear oppression or restraint, or any power to oppress others. We therefore recommend charity, forbearance, and mutual service. Let the great and only strife be who shall love the Redeemer most, and who shall serve him with the greatest zeal. We recommend the strict exercise of discipline to the societies under our care. Let us not seek to increase our numbers by relaxation, but to justify the excellence of our principles by the inoffensive, exemplary and holy conversation of those who embrace them. The ultimate trial of religious truth is by its moral influence; therefore, as he is undoubtedly the best husbandman who raises the richest crops, so these are the best principles, which make the best men. This is the great rule laid down by our Saviour, by their fruits ye shall know them,

By order,

John McCrery, Moderator

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

• McCrery was one of the early trustees of Newark College, which had developed from the 'free school' founded by Francis Alison which later became the Academy of Newark. 

• Many revolutionary figures were buried in the Head of Christiana Church cemetery - online here.

Ken Burns is wrong - "The American Revolution", his new six part mega-series, needs to be a lot smarter than this interview

Is this recent interview with YouTuber Theo Von, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns says this:

"... the great ideas are the greatest ideas ever. I actually think the American Revolution is the most important event since the birth of Christ. 

I really, really firmly believe that because if you think about it, up until that moment, everybody was under an authoritarian rule. They were subjects. They were superstitious peasants. And we created citizens. And that's a big deal. 

When we say we hold these truths to be self-evident, there was nothing self-evident about what Jefferson was about to say, that all men are created equal. No one on earth had made that proposition that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's go. That is not stuff that the world had ever really heard. 

He had distilled a century of enlightenment thinking. He'd been goaded on by what was happening in in the breakdown of relationships with the British over stuff and what became a quarrel between Englishmen suddenly got broken out into natural rights ..."

This is so far wrong, and historically illiterate, as to be mind-boggling.

If this is some insight into the narrative that Ken Burns' forthcoming mega-series will present, it will be a massive disappointment. It might play well into Trump 2.0-era 'America First' patriotism and jingoism, but not even Thomas Jefferson himself believed what Burns is here attributing to Jefferson.

Professor Garry Wills' magnificent Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (published 1978, see previous post here) is THE core text of the past generation, and expressly, repeatedly, shows the origins of the concepts, statements and vocabulary that the Committee of Five drew upon, frequently referring to Francis Hutcheson, John Locke and the 1688 'Glorious' Revolution among a host of prior inspirations.

The key words than Burns uses here – "inalienable" is from Hutcheson / "all men", "evident", "liberty" and "happiness" are from the intro to William Prince of Orange's 1688 Declaration.

The massive danger of USA250 is that it will mutate the history to play into the narrowness of present-day nationalisms – certainly in America, and probably in Ireland too – rather than challenge, educate and inform.

Liberty was not invented in Philadelphia in 1776. As Samuel Rutherford treasonously wrote in rural Scotland in 1644 – "every man is born free".

 

Demographics and the Declaration of Independence - William Warren Sweet's 'The Story of Religion in America' (1939)

A while ago, as part of a podcast style discussion I was taking part in, one of the viewers asked a question about the Catholic Irish during the American Revolution.

It's an excellent question – when I was in Boston nearly 2 years ago I saw the monument to Wexford-born Commodore John Barry of the US Navy (my photos below) on Boston Common. Tomorrow, 13 October, is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the US Navy, and Barry was given his first command on 7 December 1775, of the ship Lexington.

As a general source for the religious demographics of Revolution-era America, William Warren Sweet's 1939 book The Story of Religion in America is frequently cited.

On page 293 he says that "at the close of the Revolution the number of Catholics in the United States numbered some 24,000, the great majority being found in Maryland and Pennsylvania. There were 24 clergy...". Sweet also says that in 1784 a letter by John Carroll (later Archbishop John Carroll) specified "15,800 in Maryland, 1,500 in New York, 7,000 in Pennsylvania, and 200 in Virginia".

That's the total figure; a few sources estimate that around 10,000 of those were from Ireland. Compared with the circa 200,000 Scotch-Irish who were in the 13 Colonies at the time, that gives a ratio of about 20:1.