I wonder how much of the British debt was attributable to "defending" America and how much to the rampant corruption in successive British governments.

Can someone please tell me about BMD records for 1700's in Portsmouth or surrounding areas. I am looking pre American Revolution before 1776. I understand my 5 great grandfather and family left this area during 1775 when he joined the British Army. Thank you for any and all help, Joan, British Columbia, Canada

CAPTAIN ABEL WESTFALL'S COMPANY - 8TH VIRGINIA REGIMENT (1776-1778) http://www.swcp.com/~dhickman/journals/V4I1/westfall.html

Note: I am forwarding the response of Christine Swager ref: her relatives' moving their homes from the Castine ME area. Any responses to Chris will have to be to her email directly, because she is not a listmember. -jr ================================================================ My cousin's ancestor was not just "over the line' but well into Maine. When the St. Croix River was suggested as the boundary (It was the site of the first French colony in 1603 but they only stayed one winter on an island in the river) Americans insisted that the river was what is now St. John River which would have given them half of present NB. The British thought the river was the Penobscot which would have given them a chunk of Maine. The Towers family settled on the north side of the Penobscot Bay at Castine which is south of Bangor. When they realized that was American territory they put their three houses on barges and moved them up the coast to St. Andrews which is just north of the place where the St. Croix empties into the Passamaquoddy Bay. You can see St. Andrews from the coastal highway in Maine. Although the houses have been altered they are still designated as the Castine houses.

Thank you Ed I Will correct my records Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed St.Germain" <Patriot1@americanrevolution.org> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [A-REV] Look ups > Ann: > > A slight correction - the lookups they do are not RevWar soldiers per > se, but RevWar soldiers who had one or more female descendants join the > DAR. > > Best regards, > Ed > -- > For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice > should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB > >

----- Original Message ----- From: Ann Keegan To: Ann Keegan Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:16 AM Subject: DAR - Main http://www.dar.org/natsociety/default.html

Dauthers of the American Revolution will do a look up on soldiers of the American Revelotuion http://www.dar.org/notsociety/default.html Ann

Individual's came to the new world for a better life, anything was better than what they were forced to endure. The persecution and oppression was horrific. Although it was Hollywood's version, the movie William Wallace was quite true in what individual's endured. Disemboweling and castration where commonplace for the men and women were impelled onto all types of things. Much of this was done by the churches supposedly in the name of GOD. They toiled for years without being allowed to keep any property, since taxes were imposed at such high rates it was impossible to pay, so property was seized. The monarchs used the money to pay for crusades and wars. I don't think there is anyone who has not seen pictures of the horrible torture chambers in some of the old castles and etc. The cruelty of punishments doled out for minor offenses in some cases severe beatings and death. Patrick Henry (1st generation American) was of Scottish descent and first Governor of Virginia in 1776 is credited for being responsible for our 1789-90 Bill of Rights which we have and its precious freedoms of speech and religion which it contains. He was also known as the father of the Revolutionary War. A pioneer of religious freedom in Virginia and 1763, 13 years before the Declaration of Independence, Henry attacked England's Church of England in a law suit in Virginia and effectively won it in the famous "Parson's Cause" suit. In the 1760's Patrick Henry also defended in court the Virginia Baptist and other Protestant ministers who had been practicing their profession, which England's Governor declared unlawful and had them arrested. England said the Anglican Church was its "Established" church and only Anglicans could practice without its special permission in Virginia. Thirteen year later, in 1776, Patrick Henry introduced the first religious freedom clause in the Virginia Constitution, Section 15, when he became its first Governor in July 1776, according to his biographer. This is why our forefathers wrote the articles into our Constitution, they wanted a separation of church and state. One of the reasons there is not prayer in schools. Patti

Ann: A slight correction - the lookups they do are not RevWar soldiers per se, but RevWar soldiers who had one or more female descendants join the DAR. Best regards, Ed -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG

At 11:28 PM 9/30/2001 -0400, you wrote: >As for dominion status, I don't think it would have worked. I don't >think the USA would have stood for it. Under Geo. I and his policy of "salutary neglect", no one was seriously advocating independence. Geo. III put an end to "salutary neglect" and after several actions/reactions, matters escalated to include consideration of a bid for independence. After that, the cat was out of the bag. If the terms of the *last* peace overtures made by Britain had been made *early* in the conflict, is it not likely they would have been accepted? Did they not offer essentially everything the colonies wanted except independence (which early on they didn't want anyway)? The colonies truly preferred buying British goods. Some of their productive efforts only existed because they were subsidized by Britain (indigo production, for one). I'm not sure that I know for sure what being a dominion entailed, but it would appear to me that it would have been far less restrictive than the "salutary neglect" arrangement (under which the colonies seemed fairly content). John Robertson

At 07:51 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, you wrote: > During the Revolution, Vermont saw its war as >being on two fronts, with the British as one, and New >York as the other (New Hampshire seeming to be a half- >hearted player). They did dabble with the idea of a >separate truce with the British as a way of pressuring >the Continental Congress to get New York off their >backs. But such politics can't be mistaken for either >neutrality or loyalism to Britain. Vermonters were >simply "loyal" to Vermont New Hampshire had no battle or skirmish sites during 1776-1783 (or I haven't found any), but there were more New Hampshiremen, I understand, at Bunker Hill than those from anywhere else. There are few individuals in the war making a greater contribution to the eventual independence of the colonies than that of New Hampshireman John Stark with the "right play at the right time" with his victory at Bennington (now over the line a few miles in NY), which greatly increased the possibility of a patriot/rebel victory at Saratoga. I have concluded that, for most, a "turning point" is either 1) a battle in which your ancestor fought or 2) the battle occurring nearest one's home <g>. In my viewpoint, Saratoga was *the* turning point in the war and the big contributors there were Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan and John Stark (I wouldn't argue over the order of the last two). John Robertson

I read Marjie's comments re the reasons the British people came to America. One of the basic reasons was they came for a better life. They escaped the poverty of England and Wales to come to America. Whether it was better here or not, they could at least own a piece of land, something they couldn't do there. If the American Revolution hadn't happened when it did, it would have happened eventually. It was like a cork in a bottle, just about ready to pop. As for dominion status, I don't think it would have worked. I don't think the USA would have stood for it. Annie .

Haym Solomon, who raised large amounts of desperately needed cash to bolster the currency by negotiating bills of exchange with France and the Netherlands. http://www.hebrewhistory.org/factpapers/37eustatius.html#ch3 Solomon had already served the revolution in a significant way. He was a Polish Jew who spoke several languages, including German. He served as George Washington's spy among the British forces by becoming a translator for the British in passing orders to their Hessian troops. Zealous as a saboteur (He was caught helping French and American prisoners to escape and persuading Hessians to defect), he was apprehended and imprisoned by the British. He escaped, "leaving behind his wife and a one month old baby and belongings worth about five thousand pounds."13 Solomon returned to finance and rebuilt a fortune while putting his talents and the proceeds of his successful ventures at the disposal of members of the Continental Congress and of the Revolution. The Continental Congress appointed Solomon Broker to the Office of Finance of the United States, and the French consulate appointed him Treasurer of the French Army in the United States.13 Solomon staked his entire fortune in support of the military effort, as did another Jewish financier, Isaac Moses, founder of the Bank of New York. Homepage: St Eustatius Summary: St. Eustatius (Statia) a Dutch Antilles island, was the arsenal and savior of the American Revolution. Over a hundred Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish families formed its core commercial establishment. http://www.hebrewhistory.org/factpapers/37eustatius.html

Hello listers I am interested in stories about Jews in the American Revolution particularly Alexander Hamilton, Haym Solomon, and Aaron Lopez, There are many others and the stories are scant. Alexander Hamilton, whose Jewish mother was a shopkeeper, was schooled in a synagogue on the Island of Nevis. Any sources or stories would be valuable to me. I have found some interesting things in the process of searching my own tree, so perhaps you have stories that are not in Jewish History books dealing with the contributions in the American Revolution. Lynn Keller

Regarding loyalists and Vermont, and some rough handling of loyalists, Marjie wondered > Would this be a good reason to (a) move to Vermont - out of the way? and (b) > keep changing sides until the outcome was known? All I know about, and not much there, is Windsor County, Vermont. I was reading an old history this morning, or a few pages anyway. According to the author, the place was a hotbed of rebellion when the Revolution broke out. I suppose they would have lynched any loyalists around. History books in general seem to indicate that, except for Bennington, Vermont was "out of the way." In other words, quiet. But the muster rolls have another thing to say about that altogether. The muster rolls seem to say that Vermont was fairly busy with rebelling. From this, I tend to conclude that most if not all mainstream historians are New Yorkers who are still sore that they lost Vermont. I'm beginning to think that the only way I'm going to find out what it was that my ancestors served in is to go through the old county and town histories, one at a time, the hard way. Anyway, I tend to doubt that loyalists would have fared better in Vermont than elsewhere in the colonies. I've read that politics up there at the time, even in general, Revolution aside, were "radical." My own people seem to have flip-flopped about being revolutionaries or loyalists only long after the war was over and it when was in their interests to do so, come time to investing in land up in Canada. During the Revolution, Vermont saw its war as being on two fronts, with the British as one, and New York as the other (New Hampshire seeming to be a half- hearted player). They did dabble with the idea of a separate truce with the British as a way of pressuring the Continental Congress to get New York off their backs. But such politics can't be mistaken for either neutrality or loyalism to Britain. Vermonters were simply "loyal" to Vermont Another problem is that, well, my impression is sort of that there were really two Vermonts, the eastern half and the western half. My folks were in the east. I think Ethan Allan et al were in the west. And the west sort of ran Vermont's show. If there were any loyalist havens, local divisions like this might have had to do with it. I suppose that's all really vague, but Vermont seems to have been quite vague at the time. Lester ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[Marjorie reminded me that I'd never sent this] Marjorie wrote: >It seems to me that Dr. Cogliano presents only A British viewpoint. Mine's >different in places, so - may I chip in with my "two penn'orth" please? Please do--- And while I'm writing, 'Welcome Aboard' from the other side of the pond. -snip- >In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer >calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". We need to fix that. Try "Reluctant Rebels" by Lynn Montross. It is a 1950 book, but in my opinion it is the best account of the Continental Congress from 1776-1787. Its 450 pages are well footnoted except for the 4-5 pages of what I call 'price they paid jingoism'.[referring to the fairy tales about the Congress was singled out for abuse in the Rev-war.] Ignore those and the book is a gem. Montross uses 'rebels' throughout, and anoints Samuel Adams the 'archrebel'. [And though, this was his first major historical work, he was about as American as they come-- about the same time as he published the book, Col. Montross was appointed to a position as a US Marine Corps historian..] > Similarly, I don't think >that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use >the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. Many of the 'inevitability' historians use the letter from Adams to Jefferson in 1815 as their proof on inevitability; "What do we mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington." But 50 years earlier, Berkely closed "Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America" in 1726 with; "Westward the course of Empire makes its way The first four acts already past A fifth shall close the drama with the day Times noblest offspring is the last." And Montross writes; "Sir William Keith, a capable royal governor of Pennsylvania, had a Machiavellian idea that the mother country should encourage jealousies between colonies. "For while they continue so, " he asserted, "it is mortally impossible that any dangerous union can be formed between them." [unfortunately this is one of his few unattributed quotes-- anybody know the source? I'm guessing it could be 1750's, but Keith was Gov 1716-1727.] I think Franklin's observations on the size, population and resources of America vs England would have to give anyone pause, and make them wonder 'when will it happen?' instead of 'will it happen?'. Much like the America of 2001, we're a broad-based and generally in 'disagreement over everything' peoples--- but once we get our focus, we *can* unite. -snips- >It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as >well. As did the King. Human nature. His cake was having a resource as rich as North America. 'Eating it' was his non-recognition of what a resource it would be when it was finished. >They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were >entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to >be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. I'm curious about the Tax burden of the folks back in England. Did they have taxes imposed by their counties and towns? Were there taxes that would compare to the Colonial & town taxes that the Americans paid? The Colonies were still expanding, and it costs much more to build new towns than to maintain old ones. We maintained a militia in each town, especially those on the frontier. We also paid much higher prices for all the goods that by law we were forbidden from manufacturing here. [English language bibles & cast iron goods for starters-- it seems like there were other things.] We also were forbidden to export Beaver hats. Our tobacco had to be sold to England. We did not enjoy the free trade that England did. The military budget, though the King refunded a pittance of it, was borne by the Colonies. We paid income taxes, inheritance taxes, slave taxes, road and property taxes [both real and personal] to our Colonies and towns. Those taxes far exceeded the taxes & tariffs levied by the King, and I often wonder if folks who claim that Americans paid less taxes than the English take those into account. [I think it would take a genius to try to compare them, as each town in America had a different system of taxing its citizens-- as did each Colony.] -snip- >It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was >"bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the >American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two >factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling >against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! I agree with Samuel Adams on all counts. But I think he would also have said that the war, if not its outcome was inevitable. If not 1776, then 1786. . . or 1812.<g> > >Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll >try to keep further contributions short... I've gotten a bit wordy here, myself. Now for this week's email . . . Jim

Of eleven chapters online of the History of Marblehead, MA these concern the Rev. War http://www.bridgemedia.net/genweb/marbext.asp [Index. see Chapters 6 to 11] Contest with the crown-Conditions of the town in 1768-Slarvery in Marblehead-Resistance of Marblehead Seamen to Impressment-Patriotic Action-The Small Pox War-The Non-importation Agrrement- Storehouses offered to Merchants of Boston-Delegates to the Continential Congress- British Soldiers on the Neck- The Marblehead Regiment-Provicial Congress Chapter 6 7 The Minutemen- British Frigate in Marblehead Harbor- British Troops Land on Homan's Beach- Battle of Lexington- Jeremiah Lea- Expedition to River St. Lawerence- The First American Private- Captain John Manly- First Navel Victory- Daring Exploit of James Mugford- Loyalists driven out- Suffering of the People- Deeds of Daring- Return of the Refugees- Demonstrations on the Declaration of Peace Chapter 7 8 Departure of the Marblehead Regiment-Reorganized as the fouteenth Continental Regiment-The retreat from Long Island-The Boats Manned by Glover Brigade-The Battle at East Chester-Gallant behaivor of Glover Brigade- The Battle of White Plains-Washingtons Army Crosses the Delaware-The Marblehead Regiment in Advance-The Victory at Trenton-Testimony of General Knox-Col. William R. Lee-Battle of Bemis Heights-Statement of General Burgoyne-Second Battle of Bemis Hieghts-Gallant Charge of Marbleheab Man-The Attack at Saratoga- Surrender of Burgoyne- Glovers Brigade at Valley Forge-Expidition Against Rhode Island-Volunteers from Marblehead-Thanks to Men of Marblehead and Salem-The Retreat from Rhode Island-Skrimish at Quaker Hill-Rout of The British-Evacuation of Rhode Island-Suffering of the Soldiers-West Point-Execution of Andre-The Army of Peekskill- Surender of Cornwallis Chapter 8 9 Navel History in Marblehead in the Revolution- Exploits of Heroic Marbleheaders- Commodores John Manly and Samuel Tucker- Capt. John Lee in the Privateer "Nancy"- Prize Taken- Murder Of Capt. John Harris- The Letter of Marque "Freemen"-Exploit of Robert Wormstead- Capt. Crowells Victory- The Last Navel Battle of the Revolution Chapter 9 10 Attempts to restore Prosperity- Visit of General de Lafayette- The Federal Constitution- Gift and Address of Marblehead to Vice-President John Adams-The Marblehead Acedemy Established- The Fist Collector of the Port-Visit of Prisend Washington-Poverty of the Town-The Grand Lottery-Methodist Church Organized-The First Postmaster-Death of Colonel Azor Orne- Hon. Samuel Sewall elected a member of Congress-Bequest of John Marchant- Exercise on the Death of Washington- Doctor Elisha Story’s Fatla Mistake- Ravages of Small Pox- Marblehead Bank Incorporated- The English Ship "Jupitor"- Depredation of British Cruiser. Chapter 10 11 Embargo- Seisure of Marblehead Vessels- Skipper Ireson- Embargo Law- Reception of Marblehead Resolution in Congress- Marblehead Light Infantry- Eldridge Gerry Elected Governor- Baptis Church- War Declared Against Great Britain- Patriotic Action - First Privateers - Frigate "Constitution"- Heroisms of William Furness- Battle Between the "Constitution" and "Guerriere"- Eldridge Gerry Elected Vice- President- Town Fortified- Two Men Shoot- Constitution in Marblehead Harbor- Death of Lieut. John G. Cowell- Demonsrtated on the Declaration of Peace- Marblehead Men in British Prisons

Greetings (again) This is in response to John's comments to my "essay" of last week (I think) - and subsequent postings. Apologies for leaving the reply for so long... When the American colonies declared their independence they were setting a very dangerous precedent. They opted to declare independence in order to get financial and military support from France, which wouldn't cough up while the colonies were still British - and the French were desperate for revenge after their defeat in the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War). Every European maritime nation had colonies and if the British lost her colonies in north America, then every other colony had a model to follow, whichever nation it belonged to. Letting them go wasn't an option. I'm not sure about your argument over the choice of words, John. "Rebel" is negative; "loyalist" is a bit suspect (watch the TV where the "loyalists" in Ulster are throwing petrol bombs at the police - a predominantly protestant force), Tory is VERY suspect - it was a term of abuse both here and in the colonies (nothing changed there, then!!). I'm of the very firm opinion that had subsequent governments followed the line taken by "my Marquis" (Rockingham), we may well have ended up giving the thirteen colonies something like "Dominion Status" in 1775 and have started the Commonwealth a couple of centuries earlier than it began. Canada - apart from the French bit - seems happy to be part of the Pax Britannica. I had to read Bernard Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" at one stage and came to the conclusion that he was desperately seeking a good reason for the colonial revolt; it does seem to have boiled down to cash in the end. The colonists didn't want to pay and Britain was desperate for the money. That meant conflict. Ironically, it led to the one thing about shopping in the US that floors us Brits. The price we see isn't the price we pay: we get to the till and someone slaps on an extra 10%. Not nice... but Americans can see the tax they're paying! <<The colonials were extremely well-informed on European political currents. The reverse was not true.>> True - and even when the government had got men on the spot (like Gage) telling them that there was a problem, parliament just ignored the warnings. There was a lot going on in England at the time, though. Ann said <<The colonies came into existence because people wanted to leave their homelands and come to America>>. Oohh!!! That's not really true of the Brits. In the early days of colonisation, people went to America to make their fortunes from trading with the natives, intending to return, very rich, to England where they could buy land and become important political/social personages. The Non-Conformists would have preferred to stay in Britain but were told either to worship according to the Church of England or leave: they left. The "Pilgrim Fathers" ended up at Cape Cod in error - they were heading much further south and got lost. Others ended up in the colonies because they were sent there by our legal system: transportation. That was hardly a voluntary act! The Navigation laws were passed in the 17th century, tying colonial trade to Britain: some of them do seem daft - but at least they enabled British manufacturing to develop and provided ready markets for colonial goods: tobacco, sugar, coffee, tea (from India), cotton. That made the plantation owners rich. Again (as I recall, but without checking), Virginia and Massachusetts merchants were heavily indebted to British merchants and therefore had an excellent reason for supporting colonial independence - not paying their debts... I'm almost sure I read that Samuel Adams was appointed as a tax-collector by the British government and owed something like £50,000 in unpaid revenues. Presumably he'd either not collected it, or had pocketed it instead of paying? Do you think that the colonists would have accepted "Dominion status" in 1775, had the events at Lexington and Concord not intervened? Marjie.

Greetings I've been following with interest, the discussion about colonists changing sides during the War of Independence. I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I've mis-remembered this, but weren't the rebels (patriots, I suppose) dab hands at tarring and feathering, beating people up, setting fire to/ demolishing the houses - and otherwise making themselves unpleasant - to people they thought were opposed to them? Would this be a good reason to (a) move to Vermont - out of the way? and (b) keep changing sides until the outcome was known? Just a thought. Marjie.

For persons serving in the Pennsylvania Militia see the printed Pennsylvania Archives, 5th and 6th series. The last two volumes of the sixth series are the index to the 5th series, the 7th series is the index to the 6th series. I understand Ancestry has this on CD Rom but I haven't seen it, maybe someone who has access to the Ancestry site can give us some idea of how complete this CD is. You can also get the printed Pa. Archives on microfilm from the Mormon Family History Library or check at a university library near you, they may have it as part of their history collection. The printed Pa. Archives is a list of those who served in the militia from Pa., but doesn't often tell what battles someone served in, if any, to find that check the county history for the county where your ancestor lived. I do a web page for the Conestoga Area Historical Society and there is information on that page giving background on Revolutionary War Service in Pennsylvania. The url is http://www.rootsweb.com/~pacahs/revback.htm Jim michelev@enter.net wrote: > > Can anyone give me information or where to find it on the Pennsylvania > Militia'a serving in the Revolution? I would appreciate any and all > help. Thanks. > > Michele Vargo > > "Listen to the Whisper in the wind, it migt be a loved one from far away" > > http://www.cozykittengifts.com > Internet and Catalog Sales! The Purrr-fect Choice! > > http://www.metaexchange.com/?partner@SQRFQMDGKHDTCGMDMMQLGLCCQNTLGPLS > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!