Marc Liebman's Blog, page 15

Causes of the American Revolution and the U.S. Today

It’s the spring of 1776, and the American Revolution had been going on for more than a year. Between April 19th, 1775, when the Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought and July 4th, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was promulgated and published, the British  evacuated Boston in March 1776 after an 11-month-long siege. Ticonderoga was captured in May 1775, and the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17th, 1775. The rebels failed to take Quebec City in December 1775 and managed to repulse a British attempt to take Charleston in June, 1776. These were only a few of the battles fought during this period.

My point is that by the time the Declaration of Independence was written and disseminated, the war had been going on for 15 months. Roughly two million colonists, a.k.a. the Patriots (80% of the 2.5 million living in the Thirteen Colonies) were taking on eight million Brits who lived in what was probably the wealthiest country in the world with the best army and navy.

If this happened in 2023, the talking heads on every media channel in the world would be questioning the sanity of those who rebelled. So, the question is why did the revolution take place?

The answer in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which states (with the original capitalization and punctuation) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

By April 1775, the Patriots were fed up with the British government. It simply wasn’t responsive or caring of its needs. Call it arrogance, call it ignorance, but there is no doubt that English citizens living on their island looked down on their fellow citizens living in the Thirteen Colonies. The Founding Fathers were often referred to as “damn Colonials.”

The Patriots wanted to establish a nation free of the English government’s arbitrary and often punitive policies. See three blog posts –

When Did the American Revolution Really Start  –https://marcliebman.com/when-did-the-american-revolution-really-start/ dated 2/12/23

Who Were the Sons of Liberty, https://marcliebman.com/who-were-the-sons-of-liberty/ dated 2/26/23

Vice Admiralty Act of 1768 Led to the Fourth Amendment – https://marcliebman.com/the-vice-admiralty-act-of-1768-led-to-the-fourth-amendment/ dated 3/5/23

It shouldn’t have taken a genius in Parliament to realize that the Patriots were serious about their rebellion. One British MP commented on the record after listening to the struggles of the British Army was that “These rebels were a stubborn lot…”

He should have looked in the mirror because most of the Patriots immigrated from England. Eight-plus years and four British governments later, the peace treaty was signed.

So, on this July 4th Holiday Weekend, I suggest you take a minute and visit the U.S. National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript) and read the entire Declaration of Independence, including all 28 grievances the Founding Fathers had with the British government.

Then, ask yourself, “Is the Federal government and its bureaucracy meeting the needs of the average U.S. citizen as laid out in the Declaration of Independence?” Or, as our Founding Fathers believed in 1770 – 1775, is there a need for change?

Image is of an original printed copy of the Declaration of Independence printed by John Dunlap and delivered to the Continental Congress on July 5th, 1775. This copy is one of 200 printed and was found in England and is kept in the British National Archives.

The post Causes of the American Revolution and the U.S. Today appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Causes of the U.S.’s Second Struggle for Liberty

Most think that when the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3rd, 1783, everything was hunky-dory. Our Founding Fathers had rebelled against arguably the richest and most powerful country in the world and had come out on top.

But like most peace treaties, enforcement is much more difficult than the negotiations. According to the treaty, the British were supposed to leave the territory they ceded to the new United States of America. Thanks to the treaty, the U.S. owned all British territory south of the Canadian border, east of the Mississippi and north of Florida.

In 1803, we bought what became the Louisiana Territory which, as a practical matter, doubled the size of the United States and extended its border with Canada. Unfortunately, none of the country’s original borders nor the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase were accurately surveyed and therefore could be disputed. Once the Lewis and Clark Expedition returned in 1806, Jefferson and the other leaders of the Federal government had more insight, but not a comprehensive “view” of what was purchased from France.

Relations with the U.K. in the first decade of the 19th Century ranged from tense to contentious. On this side of the Atlantic, war was inevitable. The most popular reasons historians give for the June 18th, 1812 declaration of war are:

Stop British interference in U.S. trade;End impressment of U.S. seamen into the Royal Navy; andCease British support for Native Americas resisting westward expansion.

Two more causes led Madison and his fellow “War Hawks” to declare war that don’t get nearly as much ink are:

End British presence in North America and create an independent Canada or annex it;Restore U.S. honor after the S.S. Chesapeake was illegally boarded and four U.S. citizens impressed into the Royal Navy

The leading War Hawk was James Madison’s Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun from South Carolina who spoke of the need for a “Second struggle for our liberty….”

While Madison was Jefferson’s Secretary of State, he concluded that British policy toward the U.S. in North America was one of containment. By supplying Native American tribes in what we called the Northwest Territories (modern Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana) with arms and encouraging them to attack American settlers, the British were in clear violation of Article 7 of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The Brits maintained the forts were trading posts. The U.S. made several diplomatic attempts to get the British to cease and desist and all failed.

Some historians contend that the British wanted to create a buffer state of Native Americans between British Canada and the U.S. Given the fact that many of the leaders of the U.S. and England participated in the American Revolution and remembered the U.S. invasion of Canada gives credence to this theory.

However, during the period leading up to the War of 1812, Great Britain was engaged in a titanic struggle for supremacy with the French. Given that the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were global in nature, the last thing the Brits needed was new theater where they were fighting an enemy.

And yet, the British continued policies and actions that irritated the Americans. So the question is why?

This historian believes that it was a combination of arrogance (the Americans won’t fight back) and anger (we’re still pissed at losing the American Revolution). Many British leaders who were in power during the American Revolution believed England was embarrassed by its defeat and wanted revenge. They still had influence on British foreign and economic policies and helped concocted policies that stuck sharp needles into the eyes of the Americans with the goal of goading the Americans into a war in which they could reacquire the land they lost.

It didn’t turn out that way, but for the U.S. the War of 1812 was a near thing.

Image is British drawing of the bombardment of Fort William McHenry.

The post Causes of the U.S.’s Second Struggle for Liberty appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Loyalist NEO

NEO is the U.S./NATO acronym for Non-combatant Evacuation Operations. You can read how one should be conducted by downloading Joint Publication 3-68 from https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3-68.pdf.

Throughout the American Revolution, Great Britain told Loyalists that they would be re-settled in a British colony should England lose and you wanted to leave.

In two separate proclamations, the British government promised that any slave that ran away and joined the British Army would be given British citizenship. He and his family would be taken to a British Colony if the British lost. For more info on these proclamations, see Blog Post #63 dated August 30th, 2020 – Two Proclamations with Unintended Results – https://marcliebman.com/two-proclamations-with-unintended-results/).

The war didn’t turn out the way King George III and Lord North had intended. During the peace negotiations in Paris, what to do with the Loyalists and their property was a contentious issue.

The 5th Clause in the treaty holds the Continental Congress responsible for ensuring that for 12 months, none of the new states could take legal action against a Loyalist who is, by the Treaty of Paris, entitled to recover any property seized by the individual states or individuals during the war or receive fair compensation. Loyalists could travel to and throughout the states and leave the new country if they wished.

The 6th Clause prohibits any state or the Continental Congress from prosecuting Loyalists for their actions during the American Revolution.

When the Treaty of Paris was signed in September 1783, there were many hard feelings – to put it mildly – between those who fought for independence and those who preferred to remain subjects of King George III. In many ways, the American Revolution was a civil war that pitted father against son, brother against brother. Families were divided, and atrocities were committed on both sides. The treaty was an attempt at waving a magic wand to solve a complex and testy issue.

To their credit, the British government lived up to its promise. On July 11th, 1782, the Royal Navy evacuated 6,000 soldiers and Loyalists from Savannah. Then on December 14th, 1782, the last Royal Navy ship left Charleston with the rear guard of the British Army. Approximately 3,400 Loyalists and 5,000 freed slaves were taken from South Carolina to Canada or British Islands in the Caribbean.

The last city to be evacuated was New York. The British occupation ended on November 25th, 1783, over three months after the Treaty of Paris was signed. In addition to the last British soldiers on U.S. soil, the Brits took about 29,000 of their Loyalist friends from New York and the surrounding area.

Estimates of the total number of Loyalists who left for British possessions vary widely. Some say the number is around 60,000, while others are closer to 100,000. In either case, it is a large number considering the total population of the Thirteen Colonies was, at the start of the war, about 2.5 million.

Most Loyalists – about 33,000 went to Canada – where they were offered free land in what is now Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Ontario. Another 5,000, mostly from Georgia and South Carolina, chose to go to Florida, which was a Spanish possession at the time. They brought with them 7,000 slaves. Seven thousand whites, including Benjamin Franklin’s son William, left for England, along with an estimated 5,000 freed slaves.

Given this was the 18th Century, international travel went by sea on transports or merchant ships. Note that these ships made five to six knots in a moderate breeze, and usually in a zig-zag course since the ships could not sail into the wind. By sea, New York to Halifax is 630 nautical miles. A ship making five knots over the bottom would need at least five days to make the trip.

What is also remarkable is that the British merchant fleet was decimated by the war. The Continental Navy and privateers captured or sunk between 10 and 15% of the ships.

One must give credit to the Royal Navy for executing this NEO without much drama, without satellite communications, without GPS, and at a time of the year when the weather in North America can be downright unpleasant.

If you read Joint Pub 3-68, you’ll find that the services of choice by the U.S. government for NEO operations is the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps team. The whys and wherefores are beyond the scope of this post, but NEOs by the Royal Navy began well before the American Revolution. It is a skill/capability that the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps learned/inherited from them and, when called upon to conduct a NEO, successfully conducts them with professionalism and little fanfare.

Image is the cover of the U.S. Joint Publication 3-68, dated November 15th, 2015.

The post Loyalist NEO appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Patents and One’s Sex

Most of us have heard the phrase from either parents or friends that “life is not fair.” For example, when Sybilla Masters, a resident of the town of Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania Colony, came up with a better idea of how to turn kernels of maize into hominy to make grits. She called the result Tuscarora Rice, and she and her husband sailed to England in 1712 to apply for an English patent. It was approved with one minor alteration, i.e., it was granted to her husband, Thomas Masters, a successful merchant.

In Colonial America, as in the Mother Country (England) and the rest of Europe, few women attended school unless she was a member of a wealthy family or the nobility. Even fewer went to college.

Depending on one’s station in life, marriages were often arranged to create an alliance with another country, for business or economic reasons, or to improve a family’s position in society. Ugly as it sounds, women were considered “property.” In the 21st Century, that sounds incredible, and some women will tell you even today, the fight for equal rights/pay/recognition, etc., still goes on.

We, as a country, inherited those views and laws from England, so when the Founding Fathers wrote Article I (Legislative), Section 8, Clause 8 – To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries –  their intent was to follow the English example of protecting the rights of the creators of intellectual property. Note there’s no mention of one’s sex in the clause’s words in what is known as “The Patent Clause.”

The Constitution was ratified on September 17th, 1787, and the task of issuing patents was initially given to the Secretary of State, who created a board to review each application. It took a few years for the first patent to be issued on July 31st, 1790, to Samuel Hopkins for a process of turning potash into fertilizer.

One couldn’t “file by mail.” Inventors were required to come to the seat of government, initially, New York City, then Philadelphia, and ultimately, Washington, D.C., to present their ideas and patent application.

So, given the societal norms of the 1790s, imagine what happened when Hannah Slater arrived at the Patent Office in 1793 to apply for a patent that created a stronger cotton thread than was possible via existing technology. The patent was issued in the name of Mrs. Samuel Slater.

We know that in 1798, Mary Metcalf, a well-known hatmaker in New England, invented a method of braiding straw. She was encouraged to apply for a patent but declined because, at the time, women couldn’t own property in Massachusetts, and a patent was considered property.

After Mrs. Slater, Hazel Irwin was issued a patent for a cheese press in 1808. A year later, in 1809, Mary Kies was issued a patent for a more efficient/cost-effective process of weaving straw with silk thread to make hats. The award of Kies’ patent generated a personal letter of congratulations and encouragement from Dolly Madison, wife of President Madison. Many historians consider the award of a patent to Mary Kies as the first to break the damn holding back the award of patents to women.

The point of this post is two-fold. First, we don’t know how many women came up with “patentable” ideas in the first years of our nation since they suspected they (like Metcalf) wouldn’t benefit from holding the patent. If they were granted a patent, they couldn’t own it; their husband did.

Two, the existence of Mrs. Slater, Mrs. Metcalf, Mrs. Irwin, and Mrs. Kies proves women were actively involved in creating new ideas and technology back in the early days of this country.

Image is of woman wearing a straw hat made possible by Mary Kies’ 1809 patent. Library of Congress.

The post Patents and One’s Sex appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Fulton’s Folly Changed Transportation and Interstate Commerce Forever

Few people, other than those who knew Robert Fulton and his wealthy backer and father-in-law, Robert Livingston, watched as black smoke billowed from the Clarmont’s single stack. Most who knew about his ship scoffed at the idea that steam could propel a vessel through the water. Lines were cast off, and slowly, the paddle wheels of the first practical steam-powered ship began to turn.

Clarmont, dubbed by some as Fulton’s Folly, was a small ship, even by the standards of the early 19th Century. It was only 142 feet long, with a beam of 18 feet, and displaced 121 tons. Clarmont was about the size of a small sailing frigate. The big difference was that it only had two small masts for sails since its four-foot wide and 15-foot diameter paddle wheels powered by a 19-horsepower steam engine built by the English firm of Boulton & Watt pushed the boat through the water.

The ship’s other name was the North River Steamboat, and it was designed to carry passengers and cargo up the Hudson River to Albany, non-stop. It had three cabins and berths for 52 other passengers and facilities to cook food and serve its passengers. Clarmont averaged five miles an hour and made its first journey to Albany in 32 hours, not including a stop at Clarmont Manor, the Livingston family estate about halfway to Albany for 20 hours.

Fulton’s ship started a revolution in transportation. Clarmont could travel up and down a river without depending on the wind. If there was enough water under the keel, Clarmont and the ships that followed could traverse any bay, river, or ocean. The limiting factor would be the amount of coal the ship carried. As steam-powered vessels, particularly with screw propellers, proliferated later in the 19th Century, they would reduce the transit times from North America to Europe from months to one or two weeks.

Freeing ships from the tyranny of wind direction was not the only impact Clarmont had. In 1798, long before Clarmont was built, Robert Livingston had acquired 20-year license exclusive rights to carry passengers and cargo up and down the Hudson River in boats powered by fire or steam. The venture was successful, and two more ships – Car of Neptune and Paragon – were built to travel the Hudson.

Based on the success of his Hudson River service, in 1811, Livingston tried to use his political clout to get exclusive rights to carry passengers and cargo via steamship up and down the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. These efforts didn’t go unnoticed by other businessmen, and their monopoly on the Hudson River was challenged in court.

Livingston died in 1811, and his heirs granted an exclusive franchise to Aaron Ogden to start a ferry service to carry passengers from New Jersey to Manhattan. This contract was contested by Cornelius Vanderbilt and Thomas Gibbons, who had started a competing venture.

In Gibbons vs. Ogden, the U.S. Supreme Court found that New York’s and the Louisiana Territory’s grant of exclusive licenses to Livingston and his businesses were a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (a.k.a. the Commerce Clause) of the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government, not states of territories, the power to regulate interstate commerce. This March 2nd, 1824 ruling opened the door for others to apply to the Federal Government for licenses to operate ships engaged in interstate commerce.

When Fulton died in 1814, his firm had built 17 steam-powered vessels. Many served for years until they were replaced by more efficient, bigger, faster ships. In 1909, a replica of Clarmont was built and operated in New York Day’s line until she was sold for scrap and broken up in 1937.

Image is of the 1909 replica of Clarmont, courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The post Fulton’s Folly Changed Transportation and Interstate Commerce Forever appeared first on Marc Liebman.

The First Deposit on Our Freedom

On this Memorial Day weekend, we remember those who paid the ultimate price for the freedoms we enjoy today. The focus is often on the wars of recent memory – Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the casualties – dead, maimed mentally and physically– are a reminder of the sacrifices our nation’s servicemen and women made, the reality is that less than one-tenth of a percent of our population is affected. Not so, the American Revolution where between 1775 and 1783, 4.9% of those in favor of independence in the Thirteen Colonies died.

Yes, died – one out of roughly every 20 people perished during our fight for independence. So, here are the numbers from the Department of Commerce. In 1775, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was 2.5 million. According to USHistory.org, about 20% (~560,000) of those were Loyalists, which drops those fighting for freedom to ~2,240,000.

Again, according to the Department of Commerce, in 1780, the U.S. population had grown to ~2.8 million and, by 1790, to ~3.9 million. The Revolution ended in 1783, so three-tenths of the difference between the 1780 and 1790 population estimate is ~330,000. Added to the ~2.8 million from the 1780 count, one can estimate the U.S. population when the 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed at ~3.13 million. (If you want to see more on the early years of the U.S. population growth, check out this September 11th, 2022 blog – https://marcliebman.com/the-u-s-population-shift-begins/.

During the eight years of the Revolutionary War, only 6,800 Americans died of wounds on the battlefield. However, another 17,000 Patriots died from disease – mostly yellow fever and pneumonia, etc. The big killer was smallpox which killed ~130,000 people. Added together, ~153,800 Patriots died during our fight for our freedom.

As an aside, after smallpox decimated the troops that invaded Canada in 1775 and 1776, George Washington ordered every man in the Continental Army and Navy to be variolated against smallpox. See August 2nd, 2020 Blog Post – Smallpox, Variolation and George Washington – https://marcliebman.com/smallpox-variolation-and-george-washington/ .

. Washington’s orders eliminated the disease within the Continental Army. Unfortunately, the general population was not variolated and continued to suffer from smallpox.

Even though variolation was common among many wealthy Britons, the British Army did not use the method to prevent smallpox amongst its ranks. As a result, during the American Revolution, many of its regiments were reduced in size by the disease.

Back to putting the human cost of the American Revolution in perspective. The U.S. Census Bureau projected that on January 1st, the U.S. population would be 334,233,854. Assume that we were fighting for our independence today from an occupying country and that 4.9% or  16,377,459 U.S. citizens would die.

That’s a sobering number. So, on this Memorial Day weekend, think about the price those who went before you paid for your ability to choose what you want to do with your life.

Graves at Arlington National Cemetery of former slaves who died in the service of our country. Carol Highsmith photo.

The post The First Deposit on Our Freedom appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Our Invasion of Canada Failed, But It Changed British Strategy

To get to Crown Point after being defeated, Generals Arnold and Sullivan followed the Richelieu River that starts at the Northern end of Lake Champlain and empties in the St. Lawrence River. During the retreat, the Continental Army either commandeered or burned boats for their own use. Without shipping to haul his cannon and supplies, British Army Burgoyne’s Redcoats had to carry them on their backs or on horses which slowed their pursuit.

The 2,000 men of the Continental Army that arrived at Crown Point had suffered through disease, privation, hunger, and exposure. It was far from an effective fighting force and was held together during the transit by Arnold’s and Sullivan’s leadership.

General Horatio Gates was sent by the Continental Congress to command what would ultimately be a 10,000-strong army. He left 300 men to defend the fort at Crown Point and kept the rest to defend Ticonderoga.

Once at Ticonderoga, Arnold was tasked with creating a “navy” to keep the British from using the lake to move their army south. The shipbuilding was centered in the town of Skenesborough (now Whitehall, NY). See post Birthplace of the American Navy dated February 10th, 2019 – https://marcliebman.com/birthplace-of-the-american-navy/ ). Throughout the summer, both the British and the Continentals were building ships, and by October, British General Guy Carleton was ready to move south to take Fort Ticonderoga and gain complete control of Lake Champlain.

The British fleet crewed by Royal Navy sailors battled Arnold’s ships at Valcour Island on October 11th. (See post “Admiral Benedict Arnold” dated September 6th, 2020 https://marcliebman.com/admiral-benedict-arnold/ ). As a practical matter, the battle was a draw, but Arnold sailed his battered vessels first to Crown Point and then down to Ticonderoga.

Crown Point was abandoned to the British a few days later, and Carleton camped outside of Ticonderoga for two weeks before deciding to take his army back to Canada. Meanwhile, Carleton was harshly criticized by General Burgoyne for not more aggressively pursuing the Continental Army and trying to take Ticonderoga.

However, Arnold’s and Sullivan’s skillful retreat from Montreal, the Battle of Valcour Island, and the British Army’s inability to take Fort Ticonderoga had significant strategic implications. First, the British delayed their invasion from Canada until the spring of 1777 with the goal of linking up with an army moving north from New York.

Two, General Burgoyne used his influence and second-guessing about Carleton’s actions to convince Lord German (the Secretary of State for the North American Colonies) to give command of the British Army in Canada to Burgoyne. Guy Carleton resigned as Governor General of Canada. When he returned to England, his knowledge of Canada and how to successfully conduct a military campaign in New England and Northern New York went with him.

Three, the British retreat to Canada freed up men for Washington’s army to defend New Jersey and Philadelphia.

Four, many Canadians who joined the 1st and 2nd Canadian regiments stayed in the Continental Army and fought through the war’s end. However, Carleton seized the property of anyone who joined the rebellion, so after independence was won, they petitioned first the Continental Congress and then the U.S. Congress for payments promised to them during the invasion. In the end, most were granted refugee status, and their families were given land in upstate New York saved for those coming from Nova Scotia.

The delay gave the Continental Army another year to mature, and at Saratoga in late September 1777, Gates and Arnold defeated Burgoyne. Saratoga was the victory that brought the French into the war on our side.

Photo is the remains of the U.S.S. Philadelphia which fought at the Battle of Valcour Island. U.S. Government Photo

The post Our Invasion of Canada Failed, But It Changed British Strategy appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Attacking a Country is Easier Than Taking it

After failing to capture Quebec City, Arnold led the remnants of his army south along the St. Lawrence River to a position just north of Montreal. This left General David Wooster in charge of the Montreal garrison.

Wooster was instructed to befriend the local Indian tribes to woo them away from supporting the British and gain the local residents’ support for the revolution. Most of the citizens of Montreal were of French descent who reluctantly became British citizens at the end of the Seven Years’ War. The delegates to the Continental Congress thought the French-Canadians would be fertile ground on which Wooster could recruit men to support the American cause.

Rather than attempting to persuade the locals to support the American Revolution, Wooster arrested known Loyalists and tossed them into prison. He also forced members of the local British militia units to resign their commissions and swear allegiance to the new United States or be imprisoned.

To help in this effort to win over the Canadians, the Continental Congress sent a delegation to Montreal led by Benjamin Franklin. Their goal was to meet with the local citizens to convince them to join the Thirteen Colonies in their fight against the British.

Franklin’s mission met with a tepid, unenthusiastic reception driven by three factors. One, Wooster’s heavy-handed tactics angered the local citizens. Two, many who had lived through the Seven Years War didn’t want to be involved in another one. And three, they didn’t believe the Americans could defeat the British.

Ultimately, General Thomas arrived in the late spring with an army of about 2,000 men, a far cry from the 4,500 he was supposed to have. Smallpox diminished the size of the force, including General Thomas who was replaced by General William Thompson. The Continental Army moved north to Trois Rivières, about halfway between Montreal and Quebec City, before launching another assault on the Canadian capital.

Meanwhile, the British commander Guy Carleton was reinforced with 3,000 men and sent 900 men south to attack the Americans at Trois Rivières. The May 1776 battle was short-lived and a rout, with the Americans fleeing and leaving much of their precious ammunition behind. Carleton elected not to pursue the Americans who retreated to Sorel.

However, Thompson, who believed the intelligence that the British only had about 300 troops at Trois Rivières, decided to attack. He failed to reconnoiter the route and led his army of 2,000 men right into the teeth of the British defenses.

Thompson and most of his officers were captured, leaving General John Sullivan in command. Sullivan managed to regroup what was left of the army and retreated toward Montreal.

With Thompson up at Sorel, the American garrison in Montreal was led by Benedict Arnold. When he learned of Thompson’s failure, he set out with his troops to reinforce General Sullivan. When he found them in early June 1776, the two generals decided to retreat to the fort at Crown Point on Lake Champlain.

Before the Americans left Montreal, Arnold ordered the city to be burned. The effort failed, but now the Americans were chased by a 4,000-man army under General John Burgoyne. The British Army nearly caught the Americans at St. Johns but escaped. This set the stage for the last phase of the American invasion of Canada.

Next week, what happened after the retreat from Montreal and how it affected the outcome of the American Revolution.

Painting of General John Burgoyne in 1766, courtesy of the Frick Collection.

The post Attacking a Country is Easier Than Taking it appeared first on Marc Liebman.

First U.S. Invasion of Canada

For many of the delegates in the First and Second Continental Congresses, invading Canada was a logical way to pressure England to grant the Thirteen Colonies independence. Their logic was that until 1763, Canada was a French colony until the end of the Seven Years’ War when a defeated France was forced to cede all of Canada to the British. Therefore, they reasoned, there would be many French Canadians who would prefer independence to English rule.

The campaign to conquer Canada started with a propaganda campaign (See blog dated 4/30/23 titled Three Letters to Canada – https://marcliebman.com/three-letters-to-canada/ ).

At best, reception to Canadian’s joining the American cause was tepid so in 1775, the Second Continental Congress authorized the Continental Army to march north and seize Montreal and Quebec City, the capital of Canada.

The western “prong” of the campaign under General Richard Montgomery set out in June 1775 with 3,000 men from recently captured Fort Ticonderoga at the southern end of Lake Champlain. After a 55-day siege, they captured Fort St. John on the outskirts of Montreal and nearly captured British General Guy Carleton. The fall of Fort St. John led to the capture of Montreal, the Americans’ first major objective.

Benedict Arnold, who was passed over for the command of Montgomery’s army, convinced General Washington that he could lead a small force north through Maine directly to Quebec City where he would join Montgomery.

In October 1775, Arnold and 1,100 men left Newburyport in Massachusetts by ship and disembarked at the mouth of the Kennebec River near modern-day Augusta. He planned to follow the Kennebec to its mouth, portage to the Chautière River in Quebec, and float down to the St. Lawrence River.

Leaky boats, difficult portages, and bitterly cold, snowy weather spoiled food and ruined gunpowder. When Arnold arrived outside Quebec City, 500 of his men had perished from starvation, disease – primarily smallpox – and accidents from their trek through 400 miles of wilderness. The fact that 600 men of his army arrived on the Plains of Abraham on November 14th is a testament to Arnold’s leadership.

With no cannon and a weakened force, Arnold’s troops were in no condition to engage the British much less lay siege to Quebec City. Realizing his predicament, Arnold withdrew south to Pointe aux Trembles, about 50 miles north of Montreal. Now knowing where Arnold was, Montgomery came downriver from Montreal with 500 men, food, clothing, and ammunition.

Resupplied and rested, the combined force set out on the St. Lawrence River toward Quebec City and began to lay siege on December 19th, 1775. However, the Continentals had no artillery, limited ammunition, and had to build quarters to survive the bitterly cold winter.

Meanwhile, having recovered from his defeat at Montreal, General Carleton was ready and waiting for the Continental Army. When Arnold and Montgomery tried to attack the capital on December 31st in a snowstorm, Carleton defeated them. Montgomery was killed, Arnold wounded, and Daniel Morgan captured.

Despite the defeat and his wounds, Arnold kept his army outside Quebec City until March 1776 when he was ordered to retreat to Montreal, and when he arrived, Arnold was relieved by General David Wooster.

Both sides were not giving up. Carleton was reinforced in the spring and the Continental Congress authorized, after much debate, to send General John Thomas with 4,500 men to reinforce the garrison in Montreal and take Quebec City.

Stay tuned because the American military adventure in Canada is not over. What happened during the occupation of Montreal under General Wooster’s leadership and Carleton’s drive to retake Quebec had far-reaching implications and will be covered in the next post.

Image is a 1774 British Map of Canada produced in 1923 by courtesy of Frères Maristes, Quebec City, Quebec

The post First U.S. Invasion of Canada appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Three Letters to Canada

Before the Revolution began, there were those in the First (and Second) Continental Congresses who believed that the French Canadians would welcome the opportunity to throw off the British yoke. The first letter inviting French Canadians to join the Continental Congress was sent on October 26th, 1774. Also targeted by the letter were the populations in East and West Florida, St. John’s Island (now Prince Edward Island), and Nova Scotia.

The 18-page pamphlet, written by John Dickinson, was translated into French by  Pierre Eugene du Simitiere. It highlighted the fact that the 1763 Treaty of Paris that ended the Seven Years War and transferred Canada to England also gave its residents the same five rights granted to English citizens, i.e., representative government, trial by jury, writs of Habeus corpus, ability to own land and freedom of the press. At the time, none of these rights were being “practiced” within French Canada, which was the primary target of the letter.

Translated into French, 2,000 copies were sent to Montreal and Quebec City. The British Governor General Guy Carleton managed to have his troops seize most, but not all, of the copies. The letter, according to modern Canadian historians Marcel Trudel and Gustave Lanctôt, was Canada’s first lesson in constitutional law since it highlighted how the British government was ignoring the terms of the 1763 Treaty of Paris.

The letter with the title Letter to the Residents of the Province of Quebec specifically invited English and French-speaking Canadians to send a delegation to the First Continental Congress. Reception amongst the population to the letter dated October 26th, 1774, was mixed, and no delegation was sent.

Afraid that the growing unrest in the Thirteen Colonies would spread to Canada, the British Parliament passed what is known as the Quebec Act of 1774. It was an attempt to reiterate the rights of the French-speaking and Catholics in Canada of their rights as Englishmen. Its reception was also mixed and was seen by most Canadians as another example of their not being represented in Parliament.

After the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga and Fort Saint John, the Second Continental Congress sent a second letter penned by John Jay titled Letter to the Oppressed Residents of Canada. Again, the response to the May 29th, 1775 document was tepid. However, there was enough support in Quebec to raise what became the 1st and 2nd Canadian Regiments of the Continental Army. These units took part in the 1775 invasion of Canada, which will be covered in future posts.

Still, the Continental Congress wanted to take non for an answer. It authorized a three-man committee to draft a third letter, this one signed by John Hancock and dated January 24th, 1776. When the Letter to the Inhabitants of the Province of Canada was sent, the Continental Army was occupying Montreal. In it, the Continental Congress promised to send additional troops and supplies to Canada to support a larger force that would ultimately kick the British out and provide the freedoms those in the Thirteen Colonies wanted and which were theoretically granted by England.

Just as with the first two, the letters had little effect. Ultimately, under the Royal Governor Guy Carleton’s leadership and with the support of the Catholic leaders in Quebec, Canada remained a staunch supporter of the British.

Image is of the cover sheet of the first letter to Canada.

The post Three Letters to Canada appeared first on Marc Liebman.