1: Chapter 1 introduces King George III and the conditions in England prior to and during the deployment of British troops to Boston. Described as “a person of simple tastes and few pretensions,” the king is shown to slowly feel disdain towards America.…
Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. Print.…
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Oxford History of the United States). New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.…
Boston in 1770 was a very volatile place in regards to disdain between the colonists living in America and their British counterparts. Two years prior in 1768, two regiments of British regulars were quartered in Boston to assist in instilling British rule on Boston1. This, along with the Stamp Act and Townshend duties, which were more taxes the colonists had to pay, placed upon Boston which angered the people to the point of riots before set a tone for an anti-British sentiment in early 17702. The soldiers in Boston in many cases caught the brunt of this anger. Due to the Quartering Act of 1765 there were British regulars stationed in colonies that had to be housed and fed by the colonial authorities3. This meant that the colonies themselves were responsible for the billeting and feeding of these British regulars. This did not sit well with the colonists. These British soldiers were also seen as a lower class in the colonies and angered many workers because these soldiers would often work another job when not on duty at a lower wage than the typical…
Rakove, Jack N.. Revolutionaries: a new history of the invention of America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.…
When examining the events of The Boston Massacre, the similarities and differences between Patriot and Loyalists’ perspectives must be considered.…
The colonists were political activists waiting to happen. Politics had been relatively quite in the New World since its boom. In the Puritan societies, citizens took turns serving political offices; it was part of their duty to the community. As cities grew, they elected their own councils or other forms of government. Not until the grumbling began did Britain feel the need to place its own officials over the colonies. The colonists, especially those in Boston, were only waiting for the spark they needed to ignite a political, and later a military, war. For some, this spark may have been the tarring and feathering of John Malcolm, a hated customs informer. According to Alfred Young in his book The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, this particular event "was part of the upsurge of spontaneous action in the wake of the Tea Party that prompted the Whig leaders to promote a "Committee for Tarring and Feathering" as an instrument of crowd control"(50). The crowds seemed to zealous even for the rich opposition leaders who believed they needed to inhibit many mob uprisings. Hewes' political life started years earlier than this last event. For Hewes, "the Massacre had stirred [him] to political action"(Young 39). Notice that he was "stirred" to action, not reluctantly pushed or forced.…
The benefit of hindsight allows modern historians to assume that colonists in British America united easily and naturally to throw off the bonds of tyranny in 1775-1776. The fact that "thirteen clocks were made to strike together" (p.4) surprised even the revolutionary leader John Adams. Prior to the mid-1700s many residents of British North America saw themselves in regional roles rather than as "Americans", they were Virginians or Bostonians, regional loyalties trumped any other including those as British colonial citizens. In T. H. Breen's work, The Marketplace of Revolution, he offers an explanation for the sudden creation of a unique American identity. In his words, "What gave the American Revolution distinctive shape was an earlier transformation of the Anglo-American consumer marketplace" (p. xv). Breen contends that before Americans could unite to resist the British Empire, they needed to first develop a unity and trust with one another in spite of their regional differences. "The Marketplace of Revolution argues, therefore, that the colonists shared experience as consumers provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest" (p. xv). The transformation of the consumer marketplace allowed the colonists of British North America to create a unique British and the American identity that would later result in revolution and the formation of a new nation. This trust based on consumption, Breen concludes, was absolutely necessary for the boycott movement to be an effective tool against the British government. "Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people protest remains a local affair easily silence by traditional authority" (p.1).…
In an attempt to civilize the patriotic memory of the Tea Party, the genteel “ladies” ironically participated in parties that domesticated the tradition of dissent with toy chests of tea, women dressed in “ye old costumes”, actual drinking of tea and speakers who espoused America’s exceptionalism while also dismissing the “lawless violence” of the Boston Tea Party.8 For example, Robert C. Winthrop, a Republican congressman and president of the Massachusetts Historical Society disavowed the “destruction of the tea” saying, “We are not here today I think to glory over a mere act of violence, or a merely successful destruction of property.”8 Other speakers at the city-sponsored celebration continued to tone down controversy in the Tea Party narrative. These popular parties attempted to tame its memory, concealing its radical and rebellious history, making its memory a literal tea party. In contrast to to the genteel ladies celebrating the Boston Tea Party as an eloquent reminder of the country’s greatness, the suffragists resurrected the voices of the early protestors to remind the nation how much of that greatness had yet to be…
Young, Alfred F., The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution (Beacon Press: Boston, 1999).…
On the evening of March 5, 1770, with a foot of snow on the ground, groups of Bostonians gathered around the Custom House on King Street. Some had buckets of water, after responding to a fire alarm. Others had clubs to defend themselves or perhaps to threaten the despised “lobsterbacks.” Private Hugh White was, in fact, being threatened by several wigmakers’ apprentices (Aron 24). When Captain Thomas Preston heard of Private White’s situation, he came with seven other soldiers to help. Words escalated into snowballs and stones, and the soldiers began to fight back with the butts of their guns. The crowd of Bostonians was growing and now numbered about 100 (24). Then, a huge chunk of ice came flying in from the mob and knocked Private Hugh Montgomery to the ground. He stood up and fired into the crowd and several other shots followed. The event is known today as the Boston Massacre. Clearly these happenings occurred so quickly that it is hard for historians to see which side was responsible. However, the Boston Massacre was the fault of the British because they made the decision to station troops in Boston, they failed to remove the troops despite the rising tensions between the soldiers and the colonists, they fired into the crowd of colonists, and two soldiers were convicted despite heavy British favor in the trial.…
Historian Gary Nash argues that mainstream views of the Revolutionary era only touch the surface of what had occurred during the period and to whom it involved. He goes beyond the American colonies’; political leaders and noblemen into a much more acute idealogical standpoint. Nash’s reasoning stands on the protests from various minority groups to suggest that colonists wished to democratize society and challenge the authority of the greatest empire of its time, Great Britain. Furthermore, colonists developed a deep desire to derail its shackles of servitude to England in due process. The New England colonies did not evaluate themselves, therefore, the removal of the minority colonists rights took colonists to a point at which their position manifested itself into acts of revolt; their initiative grew into what is known as the Revolutionary War and finally, the United States of America.…
In 1767, with the passing of the Townshend Acts, the civilians began their resentment towards the British Parliament as well as the British troops stationed in Boston. The Townshend Acts were a series of Acts passed by congress on June 29, 1767 to increase taxes of commonly imported products on the Colonies. Having new taxes imposed by the British as well as their military presence in Boston angered the civilians. During this time John Adams was a local lawyer in Boston working case to case (Miller Center). In late 1768 more British troops came to reestablish order in Boston per order of the Crown. The climate of this time was a hostile one on the part of the civilians. “The civilians reacted to the redcoats like they were invaders by taunting them through name calling, spitting, and fighting” (Timeline). By the time March 5, 1770 occurred, an incident had been bound to happen. With the distress of the townspeople and the presence of British soldiers, a disaster like this was waiting to happen. When the dust settled, and the day was done, 5 civilians were killed at the hands of the redcoats.…
William Dawes was a famous tanner and patriot from Massachusetts during the 1775 American Revolution. He was born on April 6th, 1745 in Boston. He was the second child out of twelve belonging to William Dawes, his father of the same name, and his mother, Lydia Boone. In 1767, Dawes was one of the 650 people to sign the “Non-important Agreement”, which prevented them from buying imported goods from Britain. The things he was prevented from buying include clothing, furniture, various spices, and more. But he pulled through, as in 1768, he joined the ancient and honorable artillery company, a private training organization and was promoted to second major of the regiment of the Boston militia. Later, in October of 1774, be planned a break-in at…
The analogy of the shoemaking bench as a body is evident in this passage in order to demonstrate how Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross destroying Dr. Manette’s precious thing emphasizes the deep sensation of guilt created within them. Although the doctor agrees to have his bench and tools demolished, they still didn’t feel right about doing so. That was because it was the doctor’s only escape from his imprisonment, however it was also a supporter of his relapse, so it had to be done. Both Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross are very moral characters, thus, incinerating the bench to them was like, “the burning of the body (previously reduced to pieces convenient for the purpose) was commenced without delay in the kitchen fire” (188). Having the bench compared…