26. Talking about the Revolution & Stuff

By David PriceJuly 1, 2021July 1, 2021 American Revolution

For today’s post, I wanted to share with you—through the link at the bottom—my recent appearance on “Back Story with Joan Goldstein” on Princeton Community Television, hosted and produced by Joan Goldstein, Ph.D., a sociologist and retired college professor.

The program, which runs about 28 minutes and was first aired on June 9, focuses on the meaning of the Revolution and how it relates to current circumstances. And any fans of the most famous and least accurate depiction of Washington crossing the Delaware—see above—will get loyts of Lotsa, I mean lots of Leutze. Best of all, there’s no commercial interruption. (For example, you won’t hear me say, “I’m not a historian but I play one on TV.”)

Apologies are due in advance for at least one verbal gaffe—inexplicably substituting “decades” for “centuries” at one point when it’s obvious I meant the latter (no, really)—and excessive use of the convenient but less-than-silver-tongued expression, “um.” My only other regret was not managing to squeeze into our exchange the gustatory aphorism about how democracy resembles pizza. (When it’s good it’s very, very good and when it’s bad it’s still pretty good.)

Hope you enjoy the show.

25. A Fourth To Be Reckoned With

By David PriceJune 30, 2021June 30, 2021 Declaration of Independence

John Adams and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress voted for independence from Great Britain on July 2, 1776. Two days later, they adopted the precise language setting forth their assertion of national sovereignty by approving the Declaration of Independence.

Up and Adams

Perhaps no one has conveyed the drama and passion of America’s birth more eloquently than Adams did when writing to his wife Abigail from Philadelphia between the congressional actions of July 2 and 4.

The following are selected excerpts from that letter:

Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony “that these united Colonies, are, and of right ought to be free and independent States, and as such, they have, and of Right ought to have full Power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things, which other States may rightfully do.” You will see in a few days a Declaration setting forth the Causes, which have impell’d Us to this mighty Revolution, and the Reasons which will justify it. in the sight of God and Man. . . .

Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their Judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphlets, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. . . .

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the history of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

A voice of less renown but no less conviction, that of Colonel John Haslet of the Delaware Continental Regiment, weighed in on the significance of the delegates’ action in Philadelphia in a letter to his friend and Adams’s fellow congressman, Caesar Rodney, on July 6. Haslet, a former Presbyterian minister who had served in Delaware’s colonial assembly prior to donning a uniform and would become a martyr to the cause of independence just six months later, penned the following: “I congratulate you, Sir, on the Important Day, which restores to Every American his Birthright—a day which Every Freeman will record with Gratitude, & the millions of Posterity read with Rapture.”

And Now?

The Founding Fathers—particularly the slave owners who constituted at least a third of those signing the Declaration of Independence—launched a struggle to achieve liberty and independence for some but not all their fellow Americans. Most of these Patriots beheld a vision of freedom and equality that did not extend to those in bondage and was severely restricted for women, Indians, and men without property.

Since then, our vision of American democracy has expanded to become a decidedly more inclusive one, its application being gradual and sometimes painful in a process marked by both ballots and bullets. We’ve seen the Nation’s governance evolve into what our sixteenth president, on a long-ago Independence Day, termed “that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial wights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life” (Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861). It is the framework—with all its flaws and limitations—of which a British prime minister once spoke in addressing the House of Commons: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Winston Churchill, November 11, 1947).

Ultimately, of course, our governance is rooted in how we perceive ourselves. An observation that lays claim to earnest contemplation, from political philosopher Steven B. Smith, speaks to what is unique about American patriotism: “It is not based on European beliefs about ‘blood and soil,’ or biblical beliefs about attachment to the land, but from the beginning has contained a deliberative and self-questioning character. American patriotism is not only a statement of who we are, but also an aspiration to what we might become. To be an American is to be continually engaged in asking what it means to be an American” (Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, Yale University Press, 2021).

Ready. Aim. Aspire.

And may the Fourth be with you.

24. A JAR Blog Post

By David PriceJune 24, 2021 Ten Crucial Days

Today’s post comes to you courtesy of the Journal of the American Revolution (JAR).

I’m incorporating by reference here an article of mine that just appeared in the JAR (hope the lid is on tight) entitled “When War Came to the Thompson-Neely Farmstead.” It’s about the Continental army’s encampment on the grounds of the Thompson-Neely house (TN), which is the historical focal point of the upper park section at Washington Crossing Historic Park.

Hopefully this article will enhance the salience of the park and other sites relating to the 1776-1777 “Ten Crucial Days” winter campaign among the Rev War aficionados who subscribe to JAR. TN deserves that recognition—which I suppose you might call an article of faith.

23. The Other Side

By David PriceJune 9, 2021June 9, 2021 British Soldiery

“Rule, Britannia”

The patriotic British song of that name, written in 1740, originated from the poem ‘Rule, Britannia’ by James Thomson and was set to music by Thomas Arne. One might be tempted to cue its lyrics when contemplating the experience of the British army during the period leading up to the American Revolution, described by one historian as a record of “victory without equal in the world.”

When the American Revolution began, Britain’s senior military officers and sergeants were seasoned veterans of a momentous global conflict—known as the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) in Europe and the French and Indian War in the American colonies—in which they had triumphed over France and Spain. During the titanic struggle, the redcoats defeated every opposing power they encountered on five continents. An impressive legacy of that remarkable record lay in the various regimental honors that spoke to Albion’s global record of military success during this period—in Europe, at Minden and Emsdorf; in India, at Plassey and Pondicherry; in North America, at Louisbourg and Quebec; in the West Indies, at Guadeloupe and Martinique); in Cuba, at Moro and Havana; in the Mediterranean, at Minorca; in the Philippines, at Manila; and on the African continent, in Senegal.

Arguably as impressive as this pre-Revolution string of victories by his Majesty’s army is the tactical skill it displayed in its effort to suppress the American rebellion during the period from 1775 to 1783. Its prowess in battle may be judged by the fact that during the eight-year-long struggle, British regulars—separate and apart from the German regiments hired by the Crown and American Loyalist units fighting on the side of the redcoats—lost only a handful of battles to rebel troops. And while that aspect of the world war fought by Great Britain against France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the American colonies ended badly for the mother country, the King’s forces succeeded in repelling the American invasion of Canada and achieved an impressive string of victories across the other theaters of combat—the West Indies, Gibraltar, India, and the Atlantic’s high seas,

Who were we fighting?

Most private soldiers in the eighteenth-century British army were of humble origins—farmers, laborers, and tradesmen—while a few were convicts who chose military service over incarceration when given the choice. They had volunteered for the army and many made it their career, as they valued the steady job and pay. However dangerous a soldier’s life might be, it represented an attractive alternative to working-class youth who otherwise faced the prospect of being employed in wearisome and sometimes hazardous manual labor or suffering through a lengthy and harsh apprenticeship.

Patrick O’Donnell observes that many of His Majesty’s soldiers “thought, and were encouraged to believe, that their unit was the best in the army” and harbored “a deep loyalty to their king that set them in firm opposition to the Americans they were battling.” (Washington’s Immortals, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2016, p. 42) These soldiers were driven by “ideals of loyalty, fidelity, honor, duty, discipline, and service that were as sacred to British Regulars as the cause of liberty was to the American rebels,” according to David Hackett Fischer, so that to them the war was not primarily about power or interest but rather “a clash of principles in which they deeply believed.” (Washington’s Crossing, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 50)

22. Why Did They Serve?

By David PriceMay 20, 2021June 9, 2021 American Soldiery

Is there a better question for a Revolutionary War blog to ask when anticipating the annual observance of Memorial Day? Of course, it’s worth considering in relation to any conflict in our Nation’s past, and there may be a good deal of commonality among them in the answers to that question. But I want to focus here on what motivated those Americans who bore arms in a young nation’s struggle for the right to rule itself, and in particular the common soldier, meaning those below the rank of commissioned officer.

Motivation

Some two hundred thousand Americans served in the Continental army or the militia out of a population of about three million. Those who voluntarily filled the Patriot ranks chose to do so for many different reasons. Some were committed to fight for liberty and independence. Others responded to the financial incentive offered in the form of a bounty—a cash payment received for enlisting—or from being hired as a substitute by someone with the means to do so, or were lured by the promise of Western land after the war. Some wanted to separate themselves from a parent or master, or wanted to indulge their desire for adventure or eagerness to serve with a friend or neighbor. Whatever the motivation, many of those under arms came to believe they were part of something larger than themselves by virtue of their shared experience of war, attended as it was by the sporadic excitement and terror of combat, the prolonged drudgery of camp life, the frequent lack of food and other supplies, the presence of debilitating disease, the misery imposed by sweltering summers and frigid winters, and the indifference of many civilians to the army’s needs. In the process, these men learned to be professional soldiers and, along with George Washington’s generals and junior officers, became more competent and assured as the conflict wore on.

The tribute I paid to the legendary Delaware Regiment of 1776-1783 in John Haslet’s World applies equally to the hard-core Continental soldiery generally, whatever their motivation to serve: “Their story is an enduring reminder that the willingness to engage in self-sacrifice in the national interest has been, and always will be, indispensable to the defense of a free society in war and the furtherance of its democratic tradition and values in peace.”

Aspiration

We can’t quantify how many Patriot combatants were consciously or explicitly motivated by the language of universal rights in the Declaration of Independence, and unfortunately that soaring rhetoric fell short when it came to the Founders’ willingness to accommodate the interests of black people, women, Indians, and men without property.

Still, the rationale for a new nation articulated in our first founding document laid the groundwork for a constitutional framework in the second that, according to political philosopher Steven B. Smith in Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes (Yale University Press, 2021), gave rise to an American civil religion “based on the promise of equality, inclusivity, and tolerance.” He cites as a singular expression of this aspiration President Washington’s correspondence with the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, which conceives of American democracy in a way no one has ever improved upon, or so Smith claims.

In his letter of August 21, 1790, our foremost Founding Father wrote: “For happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” He conveyed his hope that “the children of Abraham who dwell in this land [may] continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

If that’s not a way of life worth fighting for, what is?

21. Don’t Tread on Me

By David PriceMay 1, 2021June 9, 2021 Flags

The Idea

It appears that Benjamin Franklin, as with so many other things, was behind this piece of eighteenth-century Americana. It stemmed from an anonymous article he wrote—identifying himself as “An American Guesser”—in the December 27, 1775 issue of the Pennsylvania Journal, entitled “The Rattle-Snake as a Symbol if America.” Dr. Franklin (so-called by virtue of his honorary doctoral degrees from Oxford University and the University of St Andrews in Scotland) observed the very original design adorning a drum that accompanied a Continental Marine unit being organized in Philadelphia for the purpose of seizing British arms shipments. The drummer had painted on his instrument a rattlesnake that appeared coiled and ready to strike along with a defiant rallying cry, “Don’t tread on me.”

Inspired by what he had seen, and no doubt seeking to (ahem) rattle those opposing the cause of American independence to which he had become passionately committed, Franklin recommended this image as a suitable emblem of the Patriot enterprise. With his customary flair for both humor and trenchant commentary, he noted several points in the reptile’s favor: First, it had no eyelids and therefore represented a worthy symbol of continuing vigilance. In addition, it never initiated an attack but would not surrender once the fight had begun and thus displayed “magnanimity and true courage.” And finally the thirteen rattles on the snake emblazoning the drum matched “exactly the number of the colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the sake which increased in number.”

The Flag

Christopher Gadsden (1724-1805)—a South Carolina merchant who led the Sons of Liberty in that colony starting in 1765 and became a member of the Continental Congress—took Franklin’s suggestion to heart. He designed a yellow flag bearing a rattlesnake and the “Don’t Tread on Me” slogan that would became a symbol of the Revolution. The flag was carried in 1776 by a young nation’s first Marine units and later by any number of militia regiments. Its designer became a colonel in the Continental army, and to this day his creation is known as the Gadsden flag.

It’s hard to imagine a flag design in Revolutionary America that would have reflected (this gets ugly) a more venomous opposition to Britain’s rule or better symbolized her snakebitten effort to suppress the colonial rebellion. (Cue the biting retort.)

20. The Minuteman Legend

By David PriceApril 16, 2021June 9, 2021 Militia

The illusion that the subset of New England militia who called themselves “minutemen” were merely citizen soldiers with no military training is, well, just that. At least according to John R. Galvin in The Minute Men—The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution (Potomac Books, Inc., 2006).

The Myth

The battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775—Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “shot heard round the world”—triggered eight years’ worth of carnage that included a civil war between rival factions and a world war between rival empires. (At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Emerson’s tag line is not to be confused with Bobby Thompson’s 1951 pennant-winning home run that propelled the NY Giants over the Brooklyn Dodgers—and which goes by the same moniker.) The public mindset is imbued with the notion that the storied salvo was the product of an impromptu uprising by a loosely connected network of farmers. And indeed that is what the British regulars probably expected to encounter when they sortied from Boston in search of rebel arms and ringleaders, specifically John Hancock and Samuel Adams, on that storied spring occasion.

General Thomas Gage, the Governor of Massachusetts and Commander of His Majesty’s Forces in North America, was unaware that the minutemen, and the militia of which they were a part, composed an army of nearly fifty regiments that was then nearing completion. This was no ragtag mob but rather a well-organized, well-armed, and relatively well-trained force of some 14,000 men.

The Reality

Galvin goes to great lengths to explain how the minutemen who opposed the British incursion actually relied on organizational concepts and a system of command and control that had emerged from a century and a half of constant warfare against the external threat posed by French, Canadian, and Indian intruders. He contends that these citizen-soldiers were not significantly disadvantaged in training or equipment relative to the British regulars invading their countryside and had more battle-tested small-unit leaders than the redcoats.

When it came to leadership, the militia included a considerable number of veterans from the French and Indian War whereas many of the King’s regiments, while boasting previous records of distinguished service, had not seen action for an extended period prior to 1775. In terms of training, the militia drilled and practiced their marksmanship on evenings and weekends throughout the winter of 1774-1775 while the British in Boston were heavily engaged in constructing housing and shops for their regiments and fortifying various locations. Perhaps most surprising, a substantial number of minutemen were equipped with bayonets.

Here is how these provincial warriors are portrayed in this chronicle; “The minute man was a member of a unit drawn from the regular militia and comprising a set percentage of that militia, specially trained, specially equipped, and required to assemble very rapidly and to be prepared at all times to march immediately into combat. A system of decentralized tactical control allowed officers at very low levels, usually company commanders, to exercise extraordinary authority, being permitted to assemble and march their men in time of danger without any orders from a higher command. The instant readiness of the units was supplemented by a wide net of inter-town alarm signals and messengers.”

Galvin argues that the story of the minutemen is inextricably intertwined with that of the militia. Some regiments included companies of both, and many were in a state of transition when the fighting erupted. In some cases, militia companies carried their minutemen on the same roll as the others in their ranks even though the minutemen were serving in a different unit, because this was regarded as only a temporary separation.

The Consequences

In this telling, the events of April 19 provided final confirmation of the efficacy of the provincial militia system in Massachusetts and represented the incipient step in the emergence of what became the Continental army. There were seventy-five companies of minutemen and militia based within a five-mile circle around the intruding British column, and almost every one assembled and set off to meet the threat that morning. “Not a soldier of Gage’s army understood how well these regiments were organized—not even Gage himself,” for the vast majority of regulars “simply refused to believe that an army had been created under their noses.”

The minutemen fought their way into the hearts of succeeding generations of Americans and became perhaps the definitive symbol of military preparedness for the country that emerged from the Revolutionary struggle. However, as Galvin reminds us, their combat-readiness entailed far more than merely keeping a firearm close by. It meant having a force with sufficient organization, equipment, and training to meet the perceived threat and being mentally prepared to take the field.

Those British soldiers who tangled with the colonials while retreating from Concord to Boston paid a heavy price to learn just how battle-ready the insurgents were. For General Gage, the expedition produced minimal results and yielded a grim body count: seventy-three regulars dead, 174 wounded, and twenty-six missing in action—a casualty rate of almost twenty percent among the 1,500 redcoats so engaged.

Indeed, from a British perspective, one might say the Massachusetts provincials were acting with (ahem) militias’ intent.

19. Ben There, Done That

By David PriceApril 1, 2021June 9, 2021 Founding Fathers

April 17 marks the 231st anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s passing; and, well, there isn’t much he didn’t do during his eighty-four years. The man who demonstrated that lighting is electricity by flying a kite—one of the most significant (ahem) current events of his time—and invented a rod to control its force was himself an extraordinary force in the social, economic, and political life of eighteenth-century America. He became, according to Walter Isaacson (in Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, Simon & Schuster, 2003), “America’s best scientist, inventor, diplomat, writer, and business strategist, and . . . also one of its most practical, though not most profound, political thinkers.” But I want to focus here on his role in helping win American independence from Great Britain, the mother country he so admired until its colonial policies alienated Franklin and finally drove him to support a permanent separation from the British Empire.

The Aging Revolutionist

The oldest of our Founding Fathers—he was seventy when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress in which he served—was also the most approachable, more man than myth in contrast to the likes of George Washington and other framers. If indeed Franklin “winks at us” in Isaacson’s imaginative turn of phrase, this suggests a charm and congeniality that would lend itself to an easy familiarity with posterity. Yet most people today have little if any understanding of how vital a part Franklin played in America’s struggle for the right to rule itself. He deserves a greater appreciation in our collective historical consciousness for his efforts on behalf of America’s Revolutionary enterprise.

America’s Representative to the World

The world’s most famous American arrived in France in late 1776, having been chosen by a congressional committee, with his objective being to beguile the court of King Louis XVI into proffering the assistance and alliance that young America desperately needed to fend off France’s archenemy, England, Although he was joined by two other congressionally selected commissioners, Silas Deane of Connecticut and Arthur Lee of Virginia, Franklin enjoyed a singular status among the Parisians, who esteemed him above all other Americans. For more than eight years, the celebrated philosopher-statesman, who symbolized to his many Old World admirers both a righteous frontier freedom and an Enlightenment intellect, carried out his mission with aplomb. Isaacson writes that Franklin employed “a clever and deliberate manner, leavened by the wit and joie de vivre the French so adored, [to] cast the American cause, through his own personification of it, as that of the natural state fighting the corrupted one, the enlightened state fighting the irrational old order.”

Franklin held in his ambassadorial hands, as much as did Washington or any other advocate of American independence, the fate of his country’s contest with Britain. For without French aid, recognition, and naval support, America’s chances of success were marginal. Isaacson asserts that Franklin—already the greatest America scientist and writer of his time—displayed “a dexterity that would make him the greatest American diplomat of all times. He played to the romance as well as the reason that entranced France’s philosophes, to the fascination with America’s freedom that captivated its public, and to the cold calculation of national interest that moved its ministers.”

In February 1778, encouraged by the decisive Patriot victory over General Burgoyne’s army at Saratoga the previous October, France entered into a formal alliance with the United States. A global conflict ensued in which France, Spain, and the Netherlands opposed Britain and thereby drained resources from the latter’s campaign to subdue the American rebellion. French troops, naval prowess, and tactical expertise were absolutely indispensable to ensuring the climactic defeat of Lord Cornwallis’s besieged force at Yorktown, Virginia, in October 1781.

Summing Up

Franklin’s contribution to the cause of American independence, while largely underrated in the public’s imagination, was monumental. His deft diplomacy proved instrumental in securing an alliance with a powerful ally without whose assistance our rebellion would likely have foundered.

This New World original represented a formidable asset to the Revolutionary endeavor, whether it was helping to craft the Declaration of Independence, skillfully advocating for a new nation’s interests as its leading statesman in Paris, or playing a key role in negotiating the treaty by which Britain officially acknowledged the new American nation in 1783. As his friend and Louis XVI’s finance minister, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, famously wrote of this most enterprising Patriot, “He snatched lightning from the sky and the scepter from tyrants.”

Perhaps Franklin’s triumph as a diplomat should have been no surprise given how successful he was in so many other pursuits throughout a long and accomplished life. The man’s extraordinary range of interests and talents translated intro a remarkable record of achievement in business, science, civic affairs, authorship, and statecraft.

And not to be disparaging, but anyone who says otherwise can (you knew this was coming) go fly a kite.

18. Coming Home

By David PriceMarch 20, 2021June 9, 2021 Ten Crucial Days

Meet Tom Maddock

You can’t go home again, at least according to the title of Thomas Wolfe’s literary classic. Maybe not, but then the acclaimed novelist never met Thomas Maddock II, who has come about as close to doing that as you possibly can.

Tom was born in Trenton, NJ, in 1936 and spent the next fifteen years living in what is commonly referred to as the McConkey’s Ferry section of Washington Crossing Historic Park (WCHP)—the site of the Continental army’s legendary 1776 Christmas night crossing—before his family moved to Ewing Township in 1951. A Ewing High graduate, Tom earned a B.A. in history from Haverford College in 1958 and spent six months on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. He then entered into the fine paper business and over time was employed in sales, marketing, business development, recruitment, and management. Tom’s career took him to North Jersey where he raised a family, but in 2002 he returned to Bucks County, married his second wife Bunkie—now a fellow interpreter at WCHP—and would subsequently begin giving guided tours on the grounds of his boyhood home.

When the Friends of Washington Crossing Park (FWCP) organized in 2010, Tom became a FWCP historical interpreter, and he has been devoting himself to that endeavor ever since. As he puts it, “I have been able to complete the circle.” Tom’s many contributions to the FWCP and WCHP have included, but are not limited to: giving tours at the park’s different sites, reading the Declaration of Independence at public gatherings on July 4, giving talks about Washington’s military leadership to various groups, providing media commentary for the annual re-enactment of the 1776 Christmas night crossing, leading youthful visitors in musket and cannon drills, serving customers in the visitor center’s gift shop, and soliciting sponsor ads for the park’s annual program booklet. Along the way, he has mentored a slew of other historical interpreters at the park (yours truly among them).

Q and A

Tom has agreed to share some thoughts on his experience and issues relating to the work of the Friends organization and the historical-education programming at the park:

What was it like living in WCHP as a boy? What is most memorable about that experience? What did this site look like? Did you appreciate its historical significance back then?

The park in which I grew up was very different than today. There was no visitor center, and no other public buildings or walking trails. Life was very simple in those days. My siblings and I had to create our own games and entertainment. We played “Cowboys and Indians,” rode our bikes, and frolicked in the backyard until it was time to come inside, where we would listen to the radio before dinner. We had no TV. Bedtime was at 7:30 every night.

Family outings were few and far between. Each Sunday after church, we would take a family walk, which turned out to be wonderful. It was something to look forward to every week. We did not do much with sports because there were so few kids. I never played a team sport until I was a high school sophomore. Our early schooling was in a two-room, eight-grade schoolhouse with just two teachers. I spent my sixth and seventh-grade school years in a one-room schoolhouse with one teacher and outdoor toilets. Given this background, my parents were very proud that four of us graduated from college.

As an adult, visiting the park has always brought back very special memories. We grew up knowing about the history of the Crossing, but our parents did not spend any time discussing its historical significance with us. My memories of growing up here are very positive. Given the circumstances, I had a very happy childhood and developed a special bond with my siblings, which I treasure to this day.

How did you get involved with the Friends of Washington Crossing Park? What was it that led you to return to your roots, so to speak?

Around 2008, the State of Pennsylvania basically shut down the park because of a funding crunch, and the annual re-enactment of the Crossing was in jeopardy for the following year. The Friends group sent out a call for volunteers to help save the Crossing. My wife Bunkie and I were part of the crew that worked to make it happen; and, based on that success, the Friends decided to organize a group to keep the park open. After seeing a blurb in the newspaper, Bunkie and I attended a meeting and signed up to be tour guides at WCHP. After a year, we were hired as part of the FWCP staff and have been there ever since. As a history major who worked in sales in the corporate world, becoming a tour guide was an easy transition for me to make. I can think of nothing I would rather be doing than giving tours at the park.

I know you’re very interested in the concept of leadership and have given talks on Washington’s leadership style and particularly his decision-making in the context of the “Ten Crucial Days” campaign of 1776-1777? To what extent does your interest in this stem from your military and/or business experience and how so? Do you think Washington’s leadership offers us any lessons for today?

From my time in the military and my earliest days in the corporate world, I’ve been fascinated by the concept of leadership and curious about what it takes to be a successful leader. I wanted very much to be a platoon leader while in the Marines and was pleased to achieve that honor. Since then, I’ve been interested in learning how others became great leaders, and this led me to focus on George Washington.

Considering where GW came from and how he ended up, his is a truly remarkable story. That he and the ragtag group of citizen-soldiers he inherited hung together, grew by experience, and developed into an effective fighting force is nothing short of miraculous. What the hard corps of Washington’s men endured during their years of struggle is in large measure a tribute to the faith they placed in their leader. These soldiers were ill-clad, ill-fed, racked by disease, often unpaid, and faced with some of the most horrendous weather conditions imaginable.

I have come to admire Washington’s courage, commitment, and perseverance. Plus he was the ultimate team player; his collaborative style of decision-making allowed him to get a variety of input, which led to better decisions. I think his troops realized Washington would never give up. He believed deeply in the cause and simply refused to quit, no matter how difficult the circumstances his army faced. That passion trickled down to his men, and they believed in him.

As you can tell, I’m a huge GW fan. He was dedicated to doing what was best for the national interest, both in war and peace—something I don’t always see in our leadership today.

Other than a return to some semblance of normality in our current circumstances, is there anything in particular that you would like to see happen at WCHP as we go forward, either generally or specifically in connection with the upcoming observance of the 250th anniversary of American independence?

I feel strongly about using all of 2026 to focus on the 250th anniversary. Each month, WCHP should host a special event, like movies, speeches, book signings, and band concerts, among others, utilizing the auditorium in the visitor center. I would also like to see us make our July 4 celebration especially noteworthy that year—perhaps renting out the War Memorial Building in Trenton for a very special event that would include speeches by prominent guests. Let’s invite the President and the governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania! I would love to see us plan this or another event jointly with the Old Barracks Museum and the Princeton Battlefield Society. We should prepare special children’s activities in observance of the 4th to go along with our usual park events, and finally I would suggest we update and expand our usual Crossing ceremony that December.

What has been your most memorable experience at WCHP?

During the Crossing ceremonies in 2010, I was given the FWCP Volunteer of the Year Award, which came as a complete surprise to me. Needless to say, I was very touched and most appreciative. What made it extra special was the fact that we were standing very close to the spot where I had lived for my first fifteen years. Truly a very memorable moment!

What gives you the most satisfaction of all the activities in which you’ve been involved at WCHP and why?

What I enjoy most is interacting with interested people who come to the park to learn more about the “Ten Crucial Days” of the Revolution. Many of our visitors do not have a good understanding of our early history, and I enjoy helping them learn more about this momentous period.

Thank you, Tom.

Final Thought

Although he turns 85 years young this year, Tom hasn’t gotten the memo about slowing down. During what has been an unsettling period for us all, it’s comforting to savor the timeless quality of certain things that so richly deserve our recognition and esteem. Washington Crossing Historic Park is one of those. Tom Maddock’s connection to it is another.

17. Forward March

By David PriceMarch 5, 2021June 9, 2021 The Road to War

Semiquincentennial + 1

Today marks the 251st anniversary of the so-called “Boston Massacre.” (Actually, to a diehard New York Yankees fan, this was the first Boston Massacre and is not to be confused with the second such event that occurred at the hands of the Boston Red Sox during games four through seven of the 2004 American League Championship Series—but I digress.)

“Massacre” is the label that was applied by Patriot propagandists to the action committed by occupying British soldiers when they fired on an unruly crowd of about two hundred demonstrators on the night of March 5, 1770, killing five civilians and wounding six others—and that label obviously stuck. The youngest to die was a seventeen-year-old apprentice to a joiner, Samuel Maverick, and the oldest a forty-seven-year-old sailor, Crispus Attucks, who was part Indian and part African American.

The mob that gathered in a snow-filled King Street before the Boston Customs House verbally abused a detachment of nine redcoats, including one officer, and some tossed snowballs and pieces of ice at the Crown’s men. The latter were part of a garrison that had been deployed to Boston in the fall of 1768 with the intent of discouraging popular opposition to British colonial policy in what London authorities deemed to be the epicenter of American unrest. Whether the initial shots that night were fired deliberately or by accident is still unknown, but this proved to be a milestone event on the road to war. The imperial troops were withdrawn from the city but would return four years later. Meanwhile, the colonists’ version of the tragedy was disseminated throughout the colonies and published in Britain.

Also on this Date

March 5, 1770 was also the day on which Frederick, Lord North, delivered his first speech in Britain’s Parliament as prime minister. Ironically enough, it was notable for requesting that the House of Commons repeal all duties imposed on its American subjects under the Revenue Act of 1767 except that on tea. Despite this initial conciliatory approach to the colonies, His Lordship—who had previously endorsed Parliament’s right to tax America—bore ultimate responsibility for the policies that precipitated the American insurrection, in particular the East India Tea Act of 1773, That is, according to Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy in The Men Who Lost America, his noteworthy study of British civil and military leadership during the Revolution (Yale University Press, 2013, p. 51).

North’s advocacy of a tea tax on the colonies to support Britain’s East India Company led to the Boston Tea Party of December 1773 in protest—featuring the colonists’ unceremonious dumping of company tea into the town’s harbor—and Parliament’s retaliatory Coercive Acts in 1774. Known as the Intolerable Acts on this side of the Atlantic, those decrees abrogated self-government in Massachusetts, fined the colony, closed Boston Harbor until restitution was made for the lost tea, and required colonists to house the King’s soldiers on demand and even in their private residences. Furthermore, British troops reoccupied the city.

Parliament’s punitive measures ultimately precipitated an armed rebellion, and Britain responded by embarking on an extended military misadventure that would severely deplete its blood and treasure. The eight-year-long effort to quell the insurgency cost the mother country some forty thousand casualties and over fifty million pounds. In the process, the prime minister was subjected to a blistering litany of abuse by the British press as he became the scapegoat for the Crown’s military failures. In short, things went south for North.