What were the key events leading to the American Revolution. How did British taxation policies affect the colonies. Why did colonists protest against British rule. What was the significance of the Boston Tea Party. How did colonial resistance escalate into revolution.
The Origins of Colonial Discontent: British Taxation and Trade Regulations
The seeds of the American Revolution were sown in the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War, which concluded in 1763. The British government, burdened by substantial war debts, sought to increase revenue from its American colonies. This decision set in motion a series of events that would ultimately lead to colonial rebellion and independence.
Prime Minister George Grenville implemented stricter enforcement of existing trade laws and introduced new taxes. These actions, intended to bolster the British treasury, had far-reaching consequences for colonial-imperial relations.
The Sugar Act and Currency Act of 1764
Among the first measures was the Sugar Act of 1764, which reduced duties on sugar and molasses but tightened enforcement. This effectively increased the tax burden on colonists. Simultaneously, the Currency Act prohibited colonies from issuing paper money, exacerbating economic difficulties and making it harder for colonists to pay debts and taxes.
How did these acts impact colonial economies? The combination of stricter trade regulations and currency restrictions created significant financial strain. Colonial governments, particularly in New York and Massachusetts, responded with formal protests to Parliament, marking the beginning of a pattern of resistance to British fiscal policies.
The Stamp Act Crisis: A Turning Point in Colonial Relations
In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a direct tax requiring colonists to purchase government-issued stamps for various paper products and legal documents. This act proved to be a watershed moment in colonial-imperial relations, igniting widespread opposition across the American colonies.
Colonial Response and the Stamp Act Congress
The reaction to the Stamp Act was swift and vehement. In Virginia, the House of Burgesses passed resolutions denying Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies. Boston witnessed riots, with protesters destroying the home of the stamp distributor. These events sparked similar demonstrations throughout the colonies, fostering a sense of shared grievance and unity among the disparate colonial governments.
In October 1765, delegates from nine colonies convened in New York for the Stamp Act Congress. This gathering marked a significant step towards inter-colonial cooperation and resistance. The congress issued petitions to the British government, formally challenging Parliament’s right to impose taxes on the colonies without their consent.
Economic Pressure and Repeal
Colonial resistance wasn’t limited to political action. American merchants organized a boycott of British goods, which, combined with an economic downturn in Britain, put pressure on British merchants. These merchants, in turn, lobbied for the repeal of the Stamp Act to protect their economic interests.
Faced with mounting colonial unrest and economic pressures, the British government ultimately decided to repeal the Stamp Act in 1766. While this temporarily eased tensions, it set a precedent for colonial resistance and highlighted the growing rift between British and colonial interests.
The Townshend Acts and Escalating Tensions
The relative calm following the Stamp Act’s repeal was short-lived. In 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, a series of measures that once again inflamed colonial opposition.
New Taxes and Colonial Reaction
The Townshend Acts imposed new taxes on imports such as glass, lead, paint, and tea. These indirect taxes were designed to be less offensive to the colonists, but they still met with significant resistance. Colonial leaders argued that these acts violated the principle of “no taxation without representation” and were an infringement on their rights as British subjects.
How did colonists respond to the Townshend Acts? The acts reignited colonial protest movements and boycotts. Committees of correspondence formed to coordinate resistance efforts across the colonies, further strengthening inter-colonial ties and laying the groundwork for future unified action.
The Boston Tea Party: A Symbolic Act of Defiance
The tensions that had been building for a decade came to a head in 1773 with the Tea Act. This legislation granted the British East India Company a monopoly on the tax-free transport of tea to the colonies, undercutting colonial tea merchants and smugglers.
The Night of December 16, 1773
On the night of December 16, 1773, a group of colonists, some disguised as Native Americans, boarded East India Company ships docked in Boston Harbor. In a bold act of protest, they dumped 342 chests of tea into the water, an event that would become known as the Boston Tea Party.
What made the Boston Tea Party such a significant event? This act of defiance was more than just a protest against the Tea Act; it was a symbolic rejection of British authority and Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The Boston Tea Party galvanized colonial resistance and pushed the conflict with Britain towards a point of no return.
The Coercive Acts and the First Continental Congress
The British response to the Boston Tea Party was swift and severe. In 1774, Parliament passed a series of punitive measures known as the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists).
Punitive Measures and Colonial Unity
These acts closed Boston Harbor until the destroyed tea was paid for, restricted Massachusetts’ self-governance, and expanded the quartering of British troops in private homes. While intended to isolate Massachusetts and quell resistance, the Coercive Acts instead united the colonies in opposition to what they saw as tyrannical overreach.
How did the other colonies respond to the punishment of Massachusetts? In a show of solidarity, other colonies sent supplies to Boston and called for a continental congress to coordinate a response to British actions.
The First Continental Congress
In September 1774, delegates from 12 colonies met in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress. This gathering marked a crucial step towards colonial unity and organized resistance. The Congress agreed to a boycott of British goods and sent a petition to King George III, asserting colonial rights and grievances.
What were the key outcomes of the First Continental Congress? While still professing loyalty to the Crown, the Congress established mechanisms for coordinating colonial actions and resistance, setting the stage for future confrontations with British authority.
The Outbreak of Armed Conflict: Lexington and Concord
Tensions between the colonies and Britain reached a boiling point in April 1775. British attempts to seize colonial militia supplies led to the first armed clashes of the American Revolution.
The “Shot Heard Round the World”
On April 19, 1775, British troops marched from Boston to Concord to confiscate weapons and arrest patriot leaders. Warned by Paul Revere and others, colonial militias gathered to confront the British forces. The first shots were fired at Lexington Green, where a small group of militiamen faced off against a larger British force.
What happened at Concord Bridge? After the initial clash at Lexington, the British continued to Concord, where they were met by a larger colonial force. The ensuing battle and the British retreat back to Boston marked the beginning of open armed conflict between the colonies and Britain.
The Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence
Following the outbreak of hostilities, the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775. Initially seeking reconciliation with Britain, the Congress gradually moved towards a declaration of independence as fighting intensified and hopes for a peaceful resolution faded.
On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, formally severing ties with Great Britain and asserting the colonies’ right to self-governance. This momentous document, primarily drafted by Thomas Jefferson, laid out the philosophical and political justifications for American independence.
The Impact of the American Revolution on Global History
The American Revolution was not just a colonial rebellion; it was a transformative event that had far-reaching consequences for world history.
A New Model of Government
The successful establishment of the United States as an independent republic based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law provided a new model for governance. This inspired similar movements for independence and democratic reforms in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe and Latin America.
How did the American Revolution influence other independence movements? The success of the American colonies in throwing off British rule and establishing a viable republican government encouraged other colonial peoples to seek independence and inspired democratic movements in countries like France.
Reshaping the Balance of Power
The loss of the American colonies marked the beginning of the end of Britain’s first empire and shifted the global balance of power. It led to increased rivalry between European powers and accelerated the development of new colonial empires in Asia and Africa.
What were the long-term consequences of the American Revolution for Britain? While initially a setback, Britain’s loss of the American colonies ultimately led it to refocus its imperial ambitions, resulting in the expansion of British influence in India, Australia, and other parts of the world.
Legacy and Continuing Relevance of the American Revolution
The ideals and principles that emerged from the American Revolution continue to shape political discourse and aspirations for freedom and democracy around the world.
The Enduring Appeal of Revolutionary Ideals
The concepts of individual rights, limited government, and popular sovereignty articulated during the American Revolution remain powerful influences in global political thought. These ideas have inspired countless movements for political reform, civil rights, and national self-determination.
How do the principles of the American Revolution continue to resonate today? From the civil rights movement in the United States to pro-democracy movements in various parts of the world, the ideals of liberty, equality, and self-governance articulated by the American revolutionaries continue to inspire those seeking political and social change.
Challenges and Contradictions
While celebrating the revolutionary ideals, it’s important to acknowledge the contradictions and limitations of the American Revolution. The continued existence of slavery, the exclusion of women from political participation, and the displacement of Native American peoples all stood in stark contrast to the proclaimed principles of liberty and equality.
How has the United States grappled with these contradictions? The ongoing struggle to fully realize the ideals of the Revolution has been a defining feature of American history, from the abolition movement and women’s suffrage to the modern civil rights and social justice movements.
The American Revolution, with its complex causes, dramatic events, and profound consequences, remains a pivotal moment in world history. Its legacy continues to shape political thought and inspire movements for freedom and democracy around the globe. Understanding this transformative period provides valuable insights into the development of modern democratic ideals and the ongoing challenges of building just and equitable societies.
Milestones: 1750–1775 – Office of the Historian
The American Revolution was precipitated, in part, by a series of laws passed
between 1763 and 1775 that regulating trade and taxes. This legislation caused
tensions between colonists and imperial officials, who made it clear that the
British Parliament would not address American complaints that the new laws were
onerous. British unwillingness to respond to American demands for change allowed
colonists to argue that they were part of an increasingly corrupt and autocratic
empire in which their traditional liberties were threatened. This position
eventually served as the basis for the colonial Declaration of
Independence.
Boston Tea Party
In 1763, the British government emerged from the Seven Years’ War burdened by
heavy debts.
This led British Prime Minister George
Grenville to reduce duties on sugar and molasses but also to
enforce the law more strictly. Since enforcement of these duties had previously
been lax, this ultimately increased revenue for the British Government and
served to increase the taxes paid by the colonists. The colonial governments of
New York and Massachusetts sent formal letters of protest to Parliament.
The end of the war had also brought about a postwar recession, and British
merchants began to request payment for debts that colonists had incurred buying
British imports. Moreover, they wanted payment in British pounds sterling rather
than colonial currency of more questionable value. The result was that the
British Parliament passed the 1764 Currency Act which forbade the colonies from
issuing paper currency.
This made it even more difficult for colonists to pay
their debts and taxes.
Soon after Parliament passed the Currency Act, Prime Minister Grenville proposed
a Stamp Tax. This law would require colonists to purchase a government-issued
stamp for legal documents and other paper goods. Grenville submitted the bill to
Parliament for questioning, and only one member raised objections to
Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.
After news of the successful passage of the Stamp Act reached the colonies, the
Virginia House of Burgesses passed resolutions denying the British Parliament’s
authority to tax the colonies. In Boston, colonists rioted and destroyed the
house of the stamp distributor. News of these protests inspired similar
activities and protests in other colonies, and thus the Stamp Act served as a
common cause to unite the 13 colonies in opposition to the British Parliament.
In October of 1765, delegates from 9 colonies met to issue petitions to the
British Government denying Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies. An
American boycott of British goods, coupled with recession, also led British
merchants to lobby for the act’s repeal on pragmatic economic grounds. Under
pressure from American colonists and British merchants, the British Government
decided it was easier to repeal the Stamp Act than to enforce it.
The repeal of the Stamp Act temporarily quieted colonial protest, but there was
renewed resistance to new taxes instituted in 1767 under the Townshend Acts.
However, in 1773, the colonists staged more vocal widespread protests against
the British Parliament’s decision to grant the East India Company a monopoly on
the tax-free transport of tea.
Although Parliament did lower taxes levied on
other tea importers, the tax-free status of the British East India Company meant
that colonial tea traders could not compete. Enraged colonists responded by
encouraging a general boycott of British goods. On December 16, 1773, American
colonists disguised as Indians boarded East India Company ships in Boston Harbor
and threw crates of tea overboard. This famous protest came to be known as the
Boston Tea Party.
When news of the Tea Party reached England, British officials moved to enforce
discipline and order in the colonies. The British Government ordered the closure
of the port of Boston until the East India Company was compensated for the
destroyed tea. Parliament also passed several pieces of legislation in 1774
which attempted to place Massachusetts under direct British control.
In the
American colonies, these laws were referred to as the Intolerable Acts. British
control was further solidified by the appointment of General Thomas Gage as
military governor of Massachusetts.
By 1774, opinion among the colonists was mixed. Some Bostonians felt that the
time had come to ease tensions and sent to London a written offer to pay for the
destroyed tea. Others put out a colony-wide call for a boycott. However, many
colonial merchants were reluctant to participate in a difficult-to-enforce
boycott. Despite this disagreement, most colonists agreed that a meeting to
discuss an appropriate collective response to British actions was a good idea.
Colonial legislatures sent representatives to Philadelphia, and the First
Continental Congress convened in September of 1774.
The Continental Congress
agreed to the Articles of Association on October 20. These Articles listed
colonial grievances and called for a locally-enforced boycott in all the
colonies to take effect on December 1. The delegates also drafted a petition to
King George III laying out their grievances, although by then they doubted that
the crisis would be resolved peacefully.
Realizing that further coercive steps would only enrage the colonists and might
lead to war, British military governor Gage wrote to London recommending
suspension of the Intolerable Acts. Gage hoped to appease many of the colonists
and thereby split colonial moderates from radicals. If London was not amenable
to his recommendations, Gage stated that he would need significant
reinforcements to crush the growing rebellion.
British ministers responded to Gage’s suggestions by removing him from his post.
They felt that further punitive measures were necessary and pushed Parliament to
pass additional trade restrictions on New England. London declared the colonies
to be in rebellion, but also offered to stop taxing those colonies that
supported the British Government.
By this time, the most astute leaders from both sides viewed armed conflict as
inevitable. Gage’s attempts to secure his position in Boston only brought him
into conflict with local militias and a hostile populace, and it was only a
matter of time until open war began in 1775. The opportunity for peaceful
negotiation came to an end, and the war for American Independence began on April
19, 1775 when British troops and American colonists clashed at Lexington and
Concord.
California During the Revolution
AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG
Colonial Life in Spanish California
During the North American Revolution
By Leon G. Campbell
Leon G. Campbell received his
Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 1970. An authority on
Spanish American and California history, he is the author of
several works, including The Military and Society in Colonial
Peru, 1750-1810, American Philosophical Society Press, Philadelphia,
PA, 1978.
This essay was written while he was a Professor of History at
the University of California, Riverside. He has since moved to
Northern California.
Observation of the North American Revolution
offers historians and others the opportunity to retell the dramatic
story of Anglo-American cultural development. From beachheads
at Jamestown and Plymouth and Boston, pioneers valiantly established
colonies and secured independence. Then began their march westward
across the Appalachian barrier, over the interior valley, and
through the Great Plains.
Ultimately, they planted settlements
in the valleys of California and Oregon, during the nineteenth
century, fulfilling a destiny which had been manifest years earlier.
The entire “frontier hypothesis,”
announced in 1893 by historian Frederick Jackson Turner, pictured
a population stream flowing east to west across the continent,
English in character, dynamic in spirit.1
But while Turner correctly identified this as the main artery
of our national civilization, his research implied a continent
devoid of other civilizations. Neglected were the subsidiary
streams which have contributed fundamentally to the American
character: French Canadians moving south in the seventeenth century
into Michigan, Illinois, and throughout the Great Plains; Spaniards
from the Caribbean Islands of Cuba and Hispaniola traversing
Florida into Carolina and Virginia, in the sixteenth century,
and others radiating north from Mexico throughout an area from
Louisiana to California in the eighteenth century, continuing
unbroken a process of conquest which had been begun in the Caribbean
two centuries earlier.
By the nineteenth century the Spanish empire
in America was of awesome size, stretching unbroken from the
Cape Horn to San Francisco. As Robin A. Humphreys has observed,
“the distance from Stockholm to Cape Town is less extensive.
Within the area ruled by Spain in America,” he noted, “all
western Europe from Madrid to Moscow might lie and be lost.”2
The virtue of Spanish America as a field for historical inquiry
in the United States was recognized and explored, thanks in large
part to the efforts of Herbert Eugene Bolton, who evolved the
concept of the Americas, North and South, as a single geographic
unit, and urged that the United States be recognized not as simply
an outpost of England, but rather a complex region understandable
only in terms of the Anglo-French and Anglo- Spanish intrusions
that had altered its culture and behavioral patterns.3
Despite the efforts of Bolton and his students,
all were not convinced of the importance of studying remote borderlands
regions such as Alta California, the furthest removed and smallest
of Spanish provinces, which, within half a century of Spanish
American independence, was absorbed by the relentless drive of
the westward-moving Anglo-American pioneers.
Zoeth S. Eldridge,
for example, delivering the presidential address to the California
Genealogical Society on July 13, 1901, admitted that the Spanish
period of California history was an interesting chapter in the
state’s development and that the Californios seemed to
have been “a brave and generous, honest and kindly people.”
Yet, because they did not possess “the restless energy and
enterprise of the Americans,” he predicted they would soon
disappear as a race and their cultural traditions would be lost.4
And Bernard De Voto, in The Year of Decision, 1846,
concluded that “if one is to sympathize with the (old)
Californians, it must be only a nostalgic sympathy, a respect
for things past.” Implicit in his remarks was the feeling
that Spanish and Mexican California was a small, culturally backward
area, governed by a group which contributed little that was new
or original to mankind, more destined to become the preserve
of antiquarians than scholars.
5
Because the Spanish archives were destroyed
in the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, much speculation and
considerable mythology has surrounded early California history.
On one hand, Spanish California has been held up as an example
of the fact that Spain failed to develop true settlement colonies
in the United States, while the British succeeded in doing so.
This inattention to Spanish colonial endeavor helps to propagate
a Black Legend of Spanish corruption, bigotry, inhumanity, and
inferiority, according to which the Spanish came to California
as they had come earlier to Peru and Mexico, lusters after wealth
and glory, content to explore and conquer but less willing and
able to sow the seeds of permanency and progress.6
Equally misleading is the school of historiography which has
attempted to rescue Spanish California from its detractors. Nellie
Van Der Grift Sanchez’ Spanish Arcadia is a prime example
of this genre of historical literature.
Comparing Spanish
California to the isolated mountain kingdom of Arcadia in Ancient
Greece, Sanchez paints an idyllic picture of a quiet, simple,
pastoral area, peopled with wealthy rancheros, many of them titled
Spanish Dons, and saintly mission fathers.7
It is understandable why this myth was taken to heart by Californians
of a later day.8
Many found it comforting to remember, during the rapidly modernizing
twentieth century, a simpler agrarian society which lacked the
impediments of imperfect modernization – urban sprawl, squalid
slums, class struggle, and of course smog.
There are, however, at least three sounder
reasons for re-examining Spanish California during the era of
the North American revolution. First, other historical experiences
offer us insights into our own past. Like their Anglo counterparts,
Spanish pioneers moved north from Mexico across rugged, treacherous
lands, and faced Indians who threatened the permanent occupation
of these frontier regions.
Both shared problems of converting
and assimilating Indian nations; both faced conflicts between
civil, military and ecclesiastical authorities over the control
of conquered regions; and the societies which emerged on the
Anglo and Spanish frontiers were both products of isolation and
deprivation. Accordingly, they were as different from their metropolitan
counterparts, perhaps more so, than they were from each other.
Second, Hispanic culture contributed fundamentally
to the development of California society. We cannot be unaware,
for example, of the plaza, grid systems in town planning, and
Spanish architectural styles. At a more individual level, persons
of Spanish heritage preserve an intense localismo,
or respect for one’s own locale or district, a deep belief
in personalismo, which glorifies the individual
over an abstract principle, religious and familial practices,
and an intense preoccupation with the present, not generally
shared by their Anglo counterparts.
Finally, we should be aware, as Leonard Pitt
has noted, that California history is largely a story of immigration
and nativism, of cultural confrontation, and of the submergence
of California’s alien cultures into the American melting pot.9
The very unfamiliarity of westward-moving Anglos in the mid-nineteenth
century with Hispanic culture and society led to conflicts and
open warfare in Texas and elsewhere. Throughout the southwest,
the defeat of relatively static, traditionalist societies by
those more oriented to technology and the ideal of progress,
produced cultural shock waves of seismic intensity. Ironically,
the dominant Yankees arriving in 1848 were for once cast in the
role of immigrants, while the native-born Californios were reduced
to the status of foreigners, veritable strangers in their native
land. The relegation of Spanish and Mexican Americans to minority
status in areas where they once constituted overwhelming majorities
has its origins in the late Hispanic period and continues to
remain the most important problem resulting from the cultural
intersection of 1848.
I should like to
concern myself here with the nature of presidial society in Spanish
California during the revolutionary era, and more specifically
with the common soldiers and their officers, who, for nearly
a century, stood watch over this remote outpost of empire. Considerable
attention has already been paid to the missions and mission fathers,
men of no small amount of talent and influence. Some has also
been given to the intrepid explorers of California, such as Juan
Bautista de Anza and Gaspar de Portola, yet little attention
has been given to the presidial institution, which historian
Charles E. Chapman has called “the backbone of the province
of California.” Nor has any composite picture been drawn
of the soldiery, which the same author refers to as “a sine
qua non, or absolute essential, of the system.”10
Left, A Catalonian Volunteer infantryman
of the regular Spanish Army, Predidio de San Diego, 1769,
– Image courtesy of the author, original in the Los Angeles County
Museum
Lest it smack of the antiquarianism against
which De Voto and others have warned, let me justify this restriction
of field.
First, there exists a considerable body of primary
materials on these men in the archives of Spain and the Bancroft
Library. These data allow us to reconstruct, to use historian
James Lockhart’s words, the history of a society, to deal with
“the informal, the unarticulated, the daily and ordinary
manifestations of human existence, as a vital plasma in which
all more formal and visible expressions are generated.”11
Second, the fact that the presidial soldiery was a small, well-defined
group of about 200 men, makes it possible to examine this body
rigorously and form a collective social profile of the soldiers.
Since immigration to California was almost completely ended by
the Yuma Massacre of 1781, which closed the land route from Sonora,
marriage patterns were endogamous and family groups remained
largely intact. Third, and most important, the particular situation
of California meant that the soldiers functioned not primarily
as fighters, but rather as administrators, artisans, and rancheros,
a complex of activities which may have been typical of the
larger society of which they formed a part.
Hence, the pattern
of activities emerging at the presidial level seems to shed considerable
light on society and economics at the provincial level, and points
up peculiarities of both which manifest themselves to this day.
Alta California was settled for defensive
purposes rather than out of any belief in the profitability of
the area. Following the French and Indian War in 1763, Englishmen
were free to move westward and involve themselves in the lucrative
fur trade of the Pacific Northwest which had for so long been
in French hands. This created a potential challenge to Spanish
claims. And, thanks largely to the efforts of Jose de Galvez,
the dynamic Visitor-General of New Spain (Mexico), a process
of defensive modernization was begun in the northern provinces,
which were consolidated and placed under separate command. Playing
upon his sovereign’s fear of an English, Dutch, or Russian attack
upon the rich silver mining districts of northern Mexico, which
constituted the lifeblood of empire, Galvez obtained permission
from Charles III to occupy the ports of San Diego and Monterey,
projects which had long been considered and periodically given
up as hopeless.
In 1769 Galvez assembled the so-called “sacred
expedition,” a handful of Spanish soldiers and a group of
Franciscan missionaries, who together made an overland and seaborne
journey to the area north of Baja. Logistically, the group faced
tremendous difficulties, but equally as serious a threat to the
success of the venture was the animosity existing between the
military and religious members of the expedition. This was a
long-standing problem. Galvez and the Crown, distrusting the
independence of the Jesuit fathers who had earlier colonized
the Baja Peninsula, had turned the missionary duties in Alta
California over to the grey-robed Order of Friars Minor. Unlike
the Jesuits, the Franciscans were not given full control over
military and civil matters, but were limited to the control of
religious affairs only. Alta California was to be placed under
military governorship. The missionaries and military, then, had
quite different ideas about what they were doing and why, assuring
that the process of colonization would be punctuated with disputes.
12
In 1774, the same
year that Bostonians resisted the Intolerable Acts of the English
government, Spanish authorities in Mexico dispatched Captain
Juan Bautista de Anza (left) from the Tubac presidio south of
Tucson to blaze a trail overland to Alta California. De Anza
reached Monterey in the spring of 1774. The following year, on
his second expedition, he pushed further north to the Bay of
San Francisco; and, shortly after the Americans penned their
Declaration of Independence, the mission and presidio of San
Francisco were founded, on September 17, 1776. With this established,
the Crown decreed the following year that the capital of the
Californias should be transferred from Loreto, in Baja, to Monterey.13
With the founding of the presidio of Santa
Barbara in 1782, the province of California was divided into
four presidio districts. The presidio, or fort, was Spain’s defensive
arm of colonization. Throughout the southwest the sword moved
in tandem with the cross, with missions and presidios being established
next to one another, the latter affording the former the protection
it required to enable it to Christianize and acculturate the
Indians.
The presidial district of San Francisco extended from
the northern frontier about as far north as Santa Rosa, to the
Pajaro River to the south; the Monterey presidial district stretched
between the Pajaro and Santa Maria Rivers, while that of Santa
Barbara covered the region from the Santa Maria River to and
including the Mission San Fernando. That of San Diego comprised
the region between San Fernando and the Tia Juana River to the
south. The 1781 Regulation, which was established for the government
of Alta California, provided for a 202-man presidial force to
be divided among the four districts. The primary responsibilities
of the soldiers were to defend the 600-mile coastline and the
missions within their districts. To this end, small detachments
of soldiers were established in each mission and civil pueblo.14
Although the missions, due to the presence
of Indian neophytes who worked the lands and the agricultural
expertise of the fathers, became generally self-supporting within
a matter of years, the problems of feeding the presidios remained
critical.
Because supply lines from San Blas were difficult to
maintain and the mission fathers protested against requisitions
on their crops and herds to feed the garrisons, it was decided
to establish two civil towns in the northern and southern regions
of the province. These were to be populated by settlers drawn
from northern Mexico who were to develop the agricultural resources
of these areas. In 1777, Governor Felipe de Neve collected men
from the presidios of Monterey and San Francisco and in that
year established the town of San Jose de Guadalupe southeast
of the Mission of Santa Clara de Asis which had been founded
the previous year. In 1781 the pueblo de Nuestra Senora de la
Reina de Los Angeles del Rio Porciuncula was founded to the south.
Thereafter, only one other civil town, that of Branciforte, located
in 1797 near the Mission Santa Cruz, was founded in Alta California.15
Surviving data on these earliest frontier
settlements in Alta California indicate that the region was among
the smallest outposts of Spanish America, populated by poor,
unskilled, largely illiterate members of the lowest strata of
Mexican society.
Major South American cities such as Potosi in
Upper Peru had populations in excess of 100,000 persons as early
as 1575, unequalled by cities such as Philadelphia until 1830.
Yet census figures show that as of 1781, the four presidios,
two pueblos, and eleven missions of the province of Alta California
were populated by no more than 600 persons exclusive of the indigenous
groups. While this number grew to 3,700 just prior to independence
in 1822, the closing of the Anza Trail in 1781 meant that this
increase was due largely to the birth of descendents of the earlier
colonists rather than to the arrival of new ones. By independence,
then, most of the inhabitants were Californios, or natives
of the province.
The presence since 1777 of the capital in
Monterey caused this region to become the hub of social and political
life in the province and by 1830 the city had a population of
950 persons, the largest urban area in the region. San Diego,
with a population of 520 persons at independence, was the next-largest
area, although slightly less favored agriculturally than Monterey
because of the infertility of the soil.
Santa Barbara, which
had a population of 237 persons in 1790, grew rapidly in the
last years of Spanish rule as the ranching economy developed,
having a population of 850 persons in 1810 and rivalling Monterey
in importance. San Francisco remained a small hamlet of 130 persons
in 1787, maintained primarily to defend the northern perimeter
of the province from a Russian or English attack.16
Census data taken in Alta California confirm
the fact that the first Californios were largely non-whites,
or mestizos, of mixed Spanish and Indian parentage, drawn
from the presidial towns of northern Mexico or forcibly conscripted
from the jails of the same regions to relieve overcrowded conditions.
Men of wealth could not be expected to make the journey, not
only because the hardships were many and the chances of material
gain small, but also since the Spanish hidalgo, or
gentleman, refused to idealize agricultural pursuits, preferring
instead to enter the religious, military, or civil bureaucracies
in more metropolitan areas where promotional opportunities were
more assured.
Nor did men of good family seek regular army careers
which took them to the frontiers, but chose rather to receive
militia commissions which allowed them to serve closer to home.
Since persons of moderate and even poor circumstances also clung
to these gentlemanly pretensions only the mixed-blood and the
misbegotten ventured north from Mexico.
While some skilled workers accompanied the
sacred expedition of 1769, as a group the entrepreneurial did
not come to Alta California in large numbers. The original settlers
of San Jose and San Francisco were, by their own admission, totally
lacking in skills and drawn from the poorest elements of Sinaloa.
In Los Angeles the same applied, with not one of the pobladores
being able to sign their names to grants of land made to
them in 1786. Only Jose Tiburcio Vasquez, out of nine heads of
families in San Jose, could read or write. The same general situation
held true in the presidial garrisons. Only fourteen of the fifty
soldiers in Monterey were considered literate by their superiors,
while only seven out of thirty in San Francisco were accorded
this ability.
17
Artist’s conception of De Anza’s expedition
setting out from Tubac.
(From a painting at Tumacacori National Historic Park)
Because the few literate and educated persons
in the colony were the Franciscan friars, men of cultivated birth
and a sense of purpose which the soldiers did not share, it was
common for the soldiers and settlers to be depicted as a lazy
and dissolute lot, good for nothing but drinking, gambling, and
pursuing Indian women. Although the mission fathers grudgingly
recognized the need for presidial protection, they resented having
to share authority with the military governor in Monterey, whose
conception of good government frequently diverged from their
own. They also begrudged the governor’s land grants which permitted
the soldiers to raise livestock on properties which the fathers
purported to hold in trust for the Indians. They considered the
mixed-blooded soldiers and their officers of little Christian
virtue and hence a threat to their spiritual mission.
Not infrequently,
mission fathers refused to allow the soldiers to attend Mass
or conversed among themselves in Latin to prevent their eavesdropping,
adding to the tensions between the two groups.18
For their part, California governors and presidial
commanders found the mission priests to be a haughty lot who
sometimes considered themselves superior to the military. Commandants
disliked being required to use their scarce resources to chase
runaway Indian neophytes and resented the economic dependence
of the presidios on the missions. Although requisitions made
to the presidios by the missions were covered by situados
or subsidies from the government in Mexico, these were frequently
in arrears, causing the mission fathers to assert that they were
forced to feed the soldiers gratuitously. During the early years
of the colony, so deep did the conflict become between Father
Junipero Serra and Governor Pedro Fages that Serra removed the
Mission San Carlos Borromeo in Monterey to a site along the Carmel
River farther removed from Fages’ jurisdiction.
In response,
Fages refused to affirm Serra’s requests to establish additional
missions on the grounds that he lacked a sufficient number of
soldiers to protect them.19
Unfortunately, the picture of the presidial
soldiery which most often emerges is that usually given by the
mission fathers with whom they were constantly at odds. While
wrongdoing and mistreatment of the
Indians were not exceptional among the presidials, other data
give a more accurate picture of the California military during
this period. Most of them were of low birth, born of presidial
families along the northern Mexican frontier. For lack of alternatives
they entered the presidial companies, being too poor to secure
commissions or cadetships. Most had served as soIdados de
cuera (left), or leather jacket soldiers in Northern
Mexico, so-named for the several thicknesses of deerskin which
they wore to protect themselves against Indian arrows. Theirs
was dangerous and unrewarding work, especially in areas like
California where promotions were likely to be slow and commissions
difficult to obtain.
As the grizzled Sergeant Pedro Amador wryly
commented in his service record, the only compensation he had
received for eighteen year’s service in California was fourteen
Indian arrows in his body.20
Nor was California service well-regarded by Mexican authorities
who most often chose to use the province as a dumping ground
for reprobates and criminals. In 1773, for example, two soldiers
were tried in Mexico for assaulting an Indian girl and her soldier
companion in San Diego. After the case dragged on for five years,
the men’s lives were spared on a technicality. As punishment,
however, the court condemned them to spend the balance of their
lives as citizens of California.21
Right, a modern reconstruction of a cuera,
or leather jacket, worn for protection from indian arrows by
presidial soldiers, which gave them the name soldados de cuera,
or leather soldiers. Note also the leather shield and the Spanish
royal standard. (Photo is of an exhibit
at Fort Point, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco.
)
Because the California Indians posed no continuing
military threat as did the tribes of Texas and New Mexico, promotional
considerations within the presidios after 1769 came to be based
more upon a soldier’s literacy and administrative talents than
his military capacity. The fragile nature of the presidial economy
dictated that commandants and paymasters be men of unquestioned
honesty, possessed of managerial and administrative skills. Since
California was almost completely dependent upon supplies and
subsidies from Mexico which arrived on a yearly basis, corrupt
and/or inefficient management might incapacitate the defense
of an entire region by making it impossible to pay and feed the
soldiery or provide them with equipment.
Presidial records indicate that California
governors after 1769 passed over soldiers of unquestioned bravery
in favor of retaining men of administrative capacity on the payroll.
Portola’s intrepid trailblazer, Lieutenant Jose Francisco de
Ortega, for example, who enjoyed the powerful patronage of Father
Serra, was considered unsuitable for command, and found others
of lower rank promoted over him.
Conversely, Hermengildo Sal,
an ordinary soldier who had been forcibly conscripted into the
ranks and sent to California as punishment for some undisclosed
crime, apparently taught himself to read and write, a prerequisite
for promotion above the rank of corporal. Showing a flair for
management when placed in charge of the presidial warehouse in
San Francisco, he was given the rank of sergeant in 1782 and
sent to Santa Barbara. When the commandant there was dismissed
for illegal activities two months after his arrival, he found
himself commissioned as an ensign and placed in command of the
fort. Sal later became commandant in San Francisco and was praised
by Admiral George Vancouver as a man of considerable education
and business acumen. In a similar fashion, presidial commands
were bestowed upon Jose Dario Arguello and Felipe de Goycocoechea,
both former enlisted men, as the result of their success in distributing
public lands to the settlers of Los Angeles and in transferring
the presidial treasuries during the general reorganization of
1781.
22
A further key to the character of the presidial
soldiery can be obtained through the marriage and baptismal certificates
retained in the mission archives. Because enlistments were for
ten-year periods, many soldiers chose to settle down and marry
within the district. Fully two-thirds of the California soldiers
were registered as married, while those remaining single were
often living with Indian women whom they had taken as common-law
wives. Observers have remarked that the soldiers were an optimistic
lot who aspired to marry their commandants’ daughters or other
women of equally elevated station.
Left, A Monterey soldier, and,
right, the wife of a Monterey soldier. Images courtesy of
the author, originals in the Museo Naval, Madrid.
Because there seems to have been an easy air
of familiarity among the officers and men, this was not impossible
by any means.
23
Contemporary accounts indicate a lack of social distance within
presidial society which, after all, was ethnically more homogenous
than in Mexico, where the officer corps was white and well-born.
A surviving case in which a commandant’s wife released a group
of soldiers whom her husband had jailed, implies that a relaxed
atmosphere pervaded the garrisons, one with strong familial overtones.
Governors and commanders assumed that the soldiers would remain
in California following their tours of duty and local marriages
and land grants were strong inducements to this end. As historian
Max Moorhead has found in a lifetime of studying the frontier
soldiery, the presidial was neither a swashbuckler nor a carefree
teenager, but a mature man, usually married and with children
to support.24
We might simply conclude that the California presidial, through
marriage and land holding, rapidly made the transition from soldier
to settler within a short time of his arrival in California.
Because of the need to physically occupy unsettled
regions and the constant requirement to make the colony agriculturally
self-sufficient, presidial soldiers were granted lands and given
a pension following an eighteen-year term of enlistment. This
was an uncommon practice in other areas, where defensive considerations
outweighed economic ones, since it was difficult to assemble
soldiers living off the post and land was already closely held.25
Although a relatively small number of mercedes, or
Royal grants of land, were made during the Hispanic period of
California history, records indicate that former presidial soldiers
were the primary recipients of these awards. For example, Juan
Jose Dominguez, a scout for the Portola expedition, was granted
a rancho of 74,000 acres for his services to the Crown, while
Luis Peralta, a former presidial sergeant, was given control
of lands which today encompass the cities of Berkeley, Alameda,
and Oakland. Similarly, presidial commanders such as Ensign Jose
Maria Verdugo held sixty-four square leagues (166 square miles)
of land on which he ran 5,000 head of cattle, while Ensign Jose
Francisco Ortega, the commandant in Santa Barbara, controlled
the huge Refugio rancho nearby.
An 1831 listing of the larger
California ranchos indicates that most of the rancheros were
ex-soldiers, controlling private grants up to 300,000 acres in
size.26
Foreign affairs were of only minimal concern
in this isolated settlement. Spain had already been at war with
England six times since the beginning of the century and was
to wage war against her three more times prior to 1822. Thus,
the Royal Order of July 8, 1779, by which Governor Felipe de
Neve was notified of the state of war between the two countries,
hardly provoked a reaction in California. No declaration of war
had ever brought troops to California nor was there a sufficient
number of settlers to adequately defend the province from attack;
hence, the Crown’s order to the Californios “to make war
by land and sea” against the British made little sense.
Letters between members of the California priesthood indicate
that this group was aware of the war but make no mention of the
fact that the North American colonies were in revolt against
the mother country or that the Spanish Crown was in support of
their actions.
This was probably because officials in Madrid
and Mexico provided provincial governors with no more information
than was absolutely necessary. Whatever the case, provincial
administrators would have made no mention of the fact, it being
considered improper for local authorities to comment upon policy
matters in their correspondence. Their business was to comply
with Royal orders, not comment on them. Unofficially, however,
one can gain some reaction about the war. Father Pablo Mugartegui
referred to Governor Neve as a “malicious reprobate”
in his letters to Serra, and questioned the ability of the presidials
to defend the province in any event.27
While no direct connection can be established
to link California more closely to the Revolution, other events
tie the two together. In 1778 the English Captain James Cook
had sailed to the Pacific on what was ostensibly a scientific
expedition. While the Crown had ordered Cook not to interfere
with the Spaniards, he was given secret instructions to reconnoiter
areas of future colonial interest as part of a scheme which possibly
sought to secure new colonial territories in the Pacific Northwest.
With the outbreak of the North American Revolution the Mexican
government was forced to suspend its costly explorations up the
Pacific Coast in 1779, thus averting a confrontation with England
in the Pacific which would likely have become entangled with
other aspects of the revolution.
With the publication of Admiral Cook’s journal
following the war, there was unleashed, to use the words of Warren
Cook, a “flood tide of empire” throughout the Pacific
Northwest. American and British merchants and explorers increasingly
moved into the area to engage in the lucrative sea otter trade
and the very profitability of this venture caused a renewal of
European rivalry which had lain dormant since the days of Drake.
In 1789 a Spanish expedition dispatched from Mexico to Nootka
Sound, located on the western shore of Vancouver Island, found
British, American, and Portuguese ships lying at harbor. Although
the Spanish drove them off, when England threatened war Spain
was forced to renounce its claims to the area and pull back its
borders to San Francisco, primarily because it could secure no
aid from the French, then embroiled in their own Revolution.
In 1790, with the signing of the Nootka Treaty, Spain reversed
a foreign policy which had been aggressively expansionist since
the sixteenth century. In so doing, it caused California to become
more exposed to the threat of attack.28
Left, a California Dragoon skirmishes with
Indians, 1791. Image courtesy of the
author, original in the Museo Naval, Madrid.
As the Pacific Northwest opened to foreigners
after 1790, European, and later North American, visitors became
more common in Alta California, and their collective observations
provide us with a closer look at the tiny Spanish province. French,
Russian, English and American visitors alike were astonished
at the frailty of the Spanish hold over the area: they found
Alta California to be a society without schools, without manufactures,
without defenses, administered by a military governor and a quasi-feudal
mission system, and inhabited by a population that barely exceeded
1500.
Travellers complained of difficulties in obtaining supplies,
lack of transportation, and absence of skilled workmen, poor
houses and furniture, sour wine, indifferent food, and persistent
fleas. So backward was the region, they sniffed, that the plows
and oxcarts seemed holdovers from medieval times. So disorganized
were the Californios that dairy products had to be secured
from the Russian colony at Fort Ross and leather shoes were shipped
from Mexico, and later Boston. George Vancouver, the British
commissioner sent to implement the Nootka Treaty, visited California
three times between 1792 and 1794, and appeared scandalized that
the tiny presidios of San Diego and Monterey, Santa Barbara and
San Francisco, should represent the European presence in California.
Few of their cannon were functional, due to exposure to the elements
and neglect, and so scarce was the supply of gunpowder that Commandant
Sal in San Francisco had been forced to borrow enough from the
Russians to fire a salute in Vancouver’s honor.
Earlier, in 1786,
the Comte Jean Francois Galaup La Perouse, a French geographer,
echoed the same sentiments. Perouse felt that California needed
intervention if it were to have a society worthy of its beauty,
but predicted that another century would pass before this occurred
since California was so isolated.29
As first expressions of how California struck
the foreign imagination, these accounts went far to shape the
expectations of those who followed these explorers to California.
Taken together, they allow us to make certain conclusions regarding
the society of late Spanish California. First, California society
was poor, backward, and small. While the Californios remained
confined to a small coastal strip, within that area, however,
they were widely dispersed, thanks in large part to the development
of the rancho economy. Taking Santa Barbara as an example, by
1800 nearly half of the 850 residents were reported to be living
on ranchos outside the city, a situation duplicated throughout
the province.
Thus, California was far more rural than metropolitan
areas such as Mexico which were dominated by a network of towns.30
Because most of the Spanish land grants were located in the central
part of the province, where sufficient water and excellent grazing
conditions were available, this area progressed at the expense
of the northern and southern regions, antedating a regionalism
which is still evident in the state to this day. The failure
of the Spaniards to explore the Central Valley of the foothills
of the Sierra Nevada range meant that gold was not discovered
until after the period of Spanish control and insured the preservation
of this ranching and agricultural economy.
Second, Californio society was far
from aristocratic and only nominally Spanish, being populated
almost exclusively by the poor and low-born of Mexico. While
a large plebian group characterized societies as different as
those of Bourbon Mexico and Tudor England, the ability of this
group to transcend its social limitations made California society
unique.
Unlike most socially stratified areas, the availability
of land and the need for trained administrators allowed certain
members of the lower social groups exceptional opportunities
for upward social mobility, well beyond the prescribed limits
generally granted to plebians. Although rank and skin color counted
in the definition of social status, they were not absolute determinants.
An excellent example of this is the presidial soldier, who rose
largely on the basis of talent and loyalty to the Crown. Arriving
in California with a status which was both ethnically and corporatively-derived,
the presidial achieved considerable mobility through the presidial
command structure, due in large part to the military nature of
early California. Through the grant of land from the King, the
soldiers gained new prestige as a provincial aristocracy. Lacking
competition from a commercial or entrepreneurial group, the soldiers
married and began large families which retained a pre-eminent
position in the province long after Spanish rule had disappeared.
A list of the most influential men in the
late Spanish and early Mexican periods of California history
indicates this upward mobility. Jose Dario Arguello, for example,
arrived as an enlisted man from Queretaro, Mexico where he had
been born of undistinguished parentage. After serving eight years
in the ranks his administrative talents won him a commission
and command in Santa Barbara and later San Francisco. He was
later appointed interim governor. This process was followed by
his son Luis Antonio who was able to secure a cadetship and a
commission within two years of entering service, becoming the
commandant of the four Southern California missions and the owner
of a 50,000 acre ranch in the Mission Valley area of San Diego.
Right, The service record of Josef Dario
Arguello, Commandant of the Presidios of San Francisco, Monterey
and Santa Barbara; Acting Governor of California, 1814-1815;
Governor of Lower California 1815-1822; founder of the Arguello
family in California.
– Image courtesy of the author, original
in the Archivo General de Indias
The Arguello story is typical, it would seem.
The fathers of the Mexican governors Alvarado and Pico and of
the Generals Vallejo and Castro had all begun as presidials,
as were the founders of the important California houses of De
la Guerra, Ortega, Peralta, Valencia, Sanchez, Bernal, Alviso,
Galindo, Carrillo, Moraga, and others.
Finally, and perhaps most important, this
extreme social mobility infused California society with certain
characteristics which have continued to persist long after the
Spanish period. Foreign visitors and Spanish governors alike
recognized that California was a unique area, although they disliked
and disagreed with many of its features. In 1794, the jovial
Basque Governor Diego de Borica filed glowing reports on the
province to his Mexican superiors, calling it “a great country,
the most peaceful and quiet in the world,” where “one
lives better than in the most cultured courts of Europe.
”
Blessed with sufficient water, fertile soil, and a good climate,
Borica noticed that all who remained there “are getting
to look like Englishmen.”31
Although it is likely that Borica’s remarks
were designed to help in finding him a willing replacement, his
conception of the province probably squared more nearly with
that of the first Californios themselves than did the
European travellers’ generally unfavorable accounts of the province.
Because of their poor backgrounds and the almost complete lack
of opportunity afforded these soldiers and settlers in their
native Mexico, they were grateful for the opportunity to receive
land and remain in California. Not only did the Crown offer them
a chance to improve themselves, but the granting of land transformed
these men into rancheros which immeasurably improved their
social position and allowed them an opportunity for profit through
trade with foreign visitors who began to arrive in increasing
numbers after 1800.
Within the space of a single generation the
presidial group at least had begun to transform itself into something
quite resembling a provincial aristocracy, although a relatively
poor and remotely located one to be sure.
Many historians have developed the story of
Mexican and Anglo-California after 1846 as the ultimate frontier,
or, to use the words of Kevin Staff, “the cutting edge of
the American Dream.”32
This short paper has attempted to illustrate that dreams of a
better future and the hope of self- determination, while usually
associated with the Anglo-American culture, are not the exclusive
preserve of that civilization. This is a point well worth remembering,
not in order to diminish our own achievements, which were formidable
indeed, but simply to extend them to include persons of other
climates and cultures who struggled in a sometimes quite similar
fashion to achieve a better life for themselves.
Spaniards in sixteenth century New Spain had
created California as a province of the mind, both a concept
and an imaginative goal, immediately following the conquest of
Mexico.
For two centuries afterwards the dream was sorely tested
as Spain moved forth into other areas in pursuit of mineral wealth
and high Indian civilizations. With the exploration and conquest
of the Pacific Coast in the eighteenth century the dream was
revived by a small group of presidial soldiers who successfully
transformed themselves into a ranchero aristocracy. Far
from the metropolitan capital of Mexico City, California largely
avoided the revolutionary movement which had swept Spanish South
America.33South
American independence had occured in 1826 partially at least
as a result of the conquistadores‘ failure to establish
a seigneurial society, something their creole descendents continued
to demand from the Spanish ruling groups. In California, however,
the inhabitants were able to create a pale image of a landed
society almost free of Spanish control. Located far from Mexico,
on the very rim of Christendom, the province was freed from the
vicissitudes of imperial politics.
For this reason as much as
any, Mexican rule was quietly accepted in California in 1822.
The Californios had successfully created a way of life
that met their expectations. It is one which has symbolically
been preserved to this day and one to which many Californians
still aspire.
FOOTNOTES
1. Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier
in American History (New York, 1962),
2. Robin A. Humphreys, “The Fall of the
Spanish American Empire,” History, 38 (1952), 213.
3. Herbert Eugene Bolton, “The Epic of
Greater America,” American Historical Review, 38 (1933),
448-474.
4. Zoeth S. Eldridge, The Spanish Archives
of California (San Francisco, 1901), p. 8.
5. Bernard De Voto, The Year of Decision,
1846, 2nd ed. (Boston 1961), p. 13; Leonard Pitt, The Decline
of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking
Californians, 1846-1890 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1971),
p. vii.
6. Oakah L. Jones, Jr. ed., The Spanish Borderlands:
A First Reader (Los Angeles, 1974), pp.
9-10.
7. Nellie Van De Grift Sanchez, Spanish Arcadia
in California (Los Angeles, 1929).
8. Carey McWilliams, “Why the Cult of
the Missions?” in Davis Dutton, ed., Missions of California
(New York, 1972), pp. 149-150.
9. Leonard Pitt, The Decline of the Californios,
pp. vii-viii.
10. See the bibliography on “Exploration”
and “The Church” in Jones, The Spanish Borderlands,
pp. 243-244. Charles E. Chapman, A History of California: The
Spanish Period (New York, 1921), pp. 388-389.
11. James Lockhart, “The Social History
of Colonial Latin America: Evolution and Potential,” Latin
American Research Review, 8:1 (Spring, 1972), 6.
12. Herbert I. Priestley, Jose de Galvez:
Visitador-General of New Spain, 1765-1771 (Berkeley, 1916).
13. See John Francis Bannon’s The Spanish
Borderlands Frontier, 1513-1821 (New York, 1970), pp. 143-166.
14. Charles F. Lummis, “Regulations and
Instructions for the Garrisons of California, 1781,” The
Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, 42: 1 (1960),
90-92.
This supplemented the 1772 regulations for the frontier
military units of northern New Spain, translated in Sidney B.
Brinkerhoff and Odie B. Faulk, Lancers for the King (Phoenix,
1965), pp. 9-67.
15. Problems of supply are discussed in Charles
E. Chapman, “The Alta California Supply Ships, 1773-1776,”
Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 19: 2 (1915), 184-194, and
Max L, Moorhead, “The Private Contract System of Presidial
Supply in Northern New Spain,” Hispanic American Historical
Review, 41: 2 (February, 1961), 31-54.
16. Census data for colonial California are
rare and vary considerably. See the padrones (censuses) in The
Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, 42:2 (1960),
210-211; 42:3 (1960), 313; The Historical Society of Southern
California Annual, 16 (1931), 148- 149; Carey McWilliams, North
from Mexico: The Spanish-Speaking People of the United States
(New York, 1968), pp. 89-90.
17. The social backgrounds of the presidials
are described in Leon G.
Campbell, “The First Californios:
Presidial Society in Spanish California, 1769-1822,” Journal
of the West, 11: 4 (October, 1972), 582-595.
18. The published correspondence of the Franciscan
fathers is replete with criticism of the soldiery. See, for example,
Zephyrin Engelhardt, The Missions and Missionaries of California,
4 vols. (San Francisco, 1908-1915). The priests resented that
the governor held control over the soldiers, which restricted
their control over the men.
19. Walton Bean, California: An Interpretive
History (New York, 196 8), pp. 40-41. References to the
friars can be found in the governors’ correspondence, located
in the Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley,
California Archives, Provincial State Papers, vols. 1-3.
20. Social derivations can be established
from the biographies in Hubert Howe Bancroft, Register of Pioneer
Inhabitants of California, 1542-1848 (Los Angeles, 1964). I have
based much of my information about the soldiery on their service
records, located in the Archivo General de las Indias in Seville,
Seccion Audiencia de Lima, Legajo 1503 (hereafter AGI: AL 1503).
21. Bean, California, p. 43.
22. Campbell, “The First Californios,”
591-592.
23. “Duhaut-Cilly’s Account of California
in the Years 1827-1828,” California Historical Quarterly,
13 (1929), 311. The author was a French naval officer.
24. Max L. Moorhead, “The Soldado de
Cuera: Stalwart of the Spanish Borderlands,” Journal of
the West, 8: 1 (January, 1969), 53.
25. See, for example, the case of New Mexico,
in Marc Simmons, “Settlement Patterns and Village Plans
in Colonial New Mexico,” in Jones, The Spanish Borderlands,
pp. 54-69.
26. Landholds to presidials is described in
William W. Robinson, Land in California (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1948), pp. 45-58, and in Campbell, “The First Californios,”
592-593.
27. Janet R. Fireman, “Mentality of an
Innocent Bystander: Reaction in Spanish California to the American
Revolution,” paper presented to the Fourteenth Annual Conference
of the Western History Association, Rapid City, South Dakota,
October 5, 1974.
28. The Cook expedition and the Anglo-Spanish
conflict over the northwest are described in Warren L. Cook,
Flood Tide of Empire: Spain and the Pacific Northwest, 1543-1819
(New Haven and London, 1973).
29. An excellent summation of these visitors’
accounts is provided in Kevin Starr, Americans and the California
Dream, 1850-1915 (New York, 1973), pp. 3-48. For a detailed analysis
of the Nootka conflict between Spain and Great Britain, see W.
R. Manning, “The Nootka Sound Controversy,” American
Historical Association Annual Report, 1904 (Washington, D. C.,
1904), pp. 279-478.
30. See, for example, D. A. Brading, “Government
and Elite in Late Colonial Mexico,” Hispanic American Historical
Review, 53: 3 (August, 1973), 389-414.
31. Cited in Bean, California, pp. 53-54.
32. Besides the work of Pitt, on the decline
of the Californios after 1846, see Starr’s superb analysis of
the development of the American Dream in the province, Americans
and the California Dream, pp.
46-48.
33. See George Tays, “Revolutionary California:
The Political History of California During the Mexican Period,
1820-1848,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, 1934.
Suggested further reading
Edwin A. Beilharz, Felipe de Neve: First
Governor of California (San Francisco, 1971).
John Francis Bannon, The Spanish Borderlands
Frontier, 1513-1821 (New York, 1970).
Herbert L. Bolton, “The Mission as a
Frontier Institution in the Spanish American Colonies,”
American Historical Review, 23:1 (October, 1917), 42-61.
Sidney B. Brinckerhoff and Odic B. Faulk,
eds., Lancers for the King: A Study of the Frontier Military
System of Northern New Spain, with a Translation of the Royal
Regulations of 1772 (Phoenix, 1965).
Leon Campbell, “The First Californios
– Presidial Society in Spanish California, 1769-1822,”
Journal of the West, 11:4 (October, 1972).
Sherburne F.
Cook, The Conflict Between
the California Indian and White Civilization, 2 vols.
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1943).
Warren L. Cook, Flood Tide of Empire: Spain
and the Pacific Northwest, 1543-1819 (New Haven and London,
1973).
Alberta Johnson Denis, Spanish Alta California
(New York, 1927).
George H. Elliot, “The Presidio of San
Francisco,” Overland Monthly Magazine, (1870).
Jack D. Forbes, “Black Pioneers: The
Spanish-Speaking Afro-Americans of the Southwest.” Phylon,
27:3 (Fall, 1966).
Maynard Geiger, The Life and Times of Fray
Junipero Serra, 2 vols., (Washington, D.C.). The Geiger
book is not documented but scholars can easily check the author’s
sources by referring to the nominal indices of the California
Mission Documents and the Serra Collection in the Santa Barbara
Mission Archives. Also see Antonine Tibesar, ed., The Writings
of Junipero Serra, 4 vols., (Washington, D.
C., 1955-1966).
Maynard Geiger, “A Description of California’s
Principal Presidio, Monterey, in 1773,” Southern California
Quarterly, 49: 3 (1967), 327-336.
Charles Gibson, Spain in America (New
York, 1966).
Florian F. Guest’s unpublished doctoral dissertation,
“Municipal Institutions in Spanish California, 1769-1821,”
University of Southern California, 1961, which is
partially surmmarized in the same author’s “Municipal Government
in Spanish California,” California Historical Society
Quarterly, 46: 4 (1967), 301-336.
Kibbey M. Horne, A History of the Presidio
of Monterey (Monterey, 1970).
Max L. Moorhead’s The Presidio: Bastion
of the Spanish Borderlands (Norman, Oklahoma, 1975), is
a model study for the institution in the Spanish Southwest but
excludes study of the California and Florida presidios because
of the differences involved.
Max L. Moorhead, “The Soldado de Cuera:
Stalwart of the Spanish Borderlands,” Journal
of the West, 8:1 (January, 1969), 38-55.
Donald A. Nuttall “The Gobernantes of
Spanish Upper California: A Profile,” California Historical
Society Quarterly, 51: 3 (Fall, 1972).
George Harwood Phillips, Chiefs and Challengers:
Indian Resistance and Cooperation in Southern California (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and London, 1975).
Russel A. Ruiz, “The Santa Barbara Presidio,”
Noticias, 13:1 (1967), 1-13.
Manuel P. Servin, “California’s Hispanic
Heritage: A View into the Spanish Myth,” Journal of the
San Diego Historical Society, 19:1 (Winter, 1973).
Manuel P. Servin, ed., “Costanso’s 1794
Report on Strengthening New California’s Presidios,”
California Historical Society Quarterly, 49:3 (September,
1970), p. 229.
Maria del Carmen Velazquez, Establecimiento
y perdida del septentrion de Neuva Espan (Mexico, 1974).
Excellent record groups for the study of the
Alta California presidios exist in the Archivo General de ]as
Indias in Seville and the Archivo General de la Nacion in Mexico
City.
The transcriptions of the Spanish Archives of California,
made by Hubert Howe Bancroft and his associates, and a variety
of other primary data are available in the Bancroft Library at
the University of California at Berkeley. Mission and chancery
archives are also valuable sources for the study of presidios.
A wealth of information on presidial population and social structure
is to be found in the Zoeth Eldridge Collection and the California
Mission Collection of the Bancroft Library at the University
of California, Berkeley.
The regulation governing the conquest of California
is found in Archivo General de la Nacion (AGN): Seccion Provincias
Internas, Legajo 166, 3. A series of military crimes reaching
trial covering the period 1773–1779 are located in AGN:
Californias, Vol. 2, Part 1, folios 244-293.
Links to Related Webpages
San Francisco History
Spain
in the Revolution
Return
to Scholar’s Showcase
Sons of Liberty SAR – Sons of Liberty, Los Angeles Chapter of the SAR
Stay Safe
Sons of Liberty Chapter normally meets in person.
With the current situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, we meet virtually online only. Stay safe, everyone.
Please visit our Events page to learn more about how you can participate in Sons of Liberty activities.
The SAR is the Sons of the American Revolution. Members have proven a direct line of descent from a Patriot Ancestor, who fought in the American Revolutionary War, or in some way supported the cause of American Independence. Members have documented proof of their lineage, so the SAR is sometimes called a Lineage Society.
The DAR is the Daughters of the American Revolution, which is a society for female descendants of a Patriot Ancestor. The SAR is a society for male descendants of a Patriot Ancestor. Often, an SAR member has relatives such as mother, sisters, daughters and cousins that are in the DAR. We may also have a father, brothers, sons, or cousins that are also members of the SAR.
Members of SAR and DAR have a deep respect for past and current members of the military who have served their country.
Although some SAR members are current active military or previously served, many of us have not served in the military ourselves. Our common link is a Patriot Ancestor who served in the Revolutionary War or supported the cause of American Independence.
The Sons of Liberty is a Los Angeles chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR). We are a historical, educational, and non-partisan patriotic organization that seeks to maintain and extend the institutions of American freedom.
We perpetuate the stories of patriotism, courage, sacrifice, tragedy, and triumph of the men and women who achieved the independence of the American people in the belief that these are universal stories of man’s eternal struggle against tyranny, relevant to all time, and will inspire and strengthen each succeeding generation as it too is called upon to defend our freedoms on the battlefield and in our public institutions.
In 1876 there were many celebrations to commemorate the centennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
As part of this patriotic fervor, a group of men in the San Francisco, California area who were descendants of patriots involved in the American Revolution, formed an organization called the Sons of Revolutionary Sires. Their objective was to have a fraternal and civic society to salute those men and women who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the battle for independence from Great Britain.
Out of the Sires grew the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, which was organized on April 30, 1889 — the 100th anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington as our nation’s first President. We have used the acronym SAR to identify ourselves for over 100 years. The SAR was conceived as a fraternal and civic society composed of lineal descendants of the men who wintered at Valley Forge, signed the Declaration of Independence, fought in the battles of the American Revolution, served in the Continental Congress, or otherwise supported the cause of American Independence.
The National Society was chartered by an Act of the United States Congress on June 9, 1906. The charter was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, who was a member of the SAR.
The Sons of the American Revolution was established in Los Angeles in 1908, and the first chapter president was Brigadier General John G. Chandler, a Union veteran of the Civil War.
The Sons of Liberty Chapter carries on the tradition of patriotism and service illustrated by General Chandler, and is the largest Chapter in the Los Angeles area. We offer you monthly meetings with free genealogical help, interesting speakers, warm fellowship and a great meal. We will get you involved with worthwhile projects that benefit young people, educators and veterans that make a difference and that you can be proud of. Our speakers cover a wide variety of topics of interest to our members such as American history, the preservation of our history, current events, and genealogy.
If you are considering joining the Sons of the American Revolution, and reside in the greater Los Angeles area, consider the Sons of Liberty.
We are active, vibrant, and forward-thinking. We offer you the best opportunity to honor your ancestor’s sacrifice in building this greatest nation.
Best of all, you don’t have to wait to become a member. You can join the Sons of Liberty as an Associate immediately, and without any documentation of a Patriot Ancestor. All for a $25 commitment. Please consider joining us today, and honoring those who gave us our Constitution, Bill of Rights, independent Supreme Court and a nation of free men.
For more information, visit the Contact Us page above, or join as an Associate Member by clicking on About > How to Join > Become an Associate Member.
Mission Statement
The purpose of the Sons of Liberty is to preserve the memory of those men and women whose service and sacrifice during the American Revolution secured independence for the American people; to unite and promote fellowship among their descendants and like-minded individuals and inspire them and their communities in the greater Los Angeles area with a more profound reverence for the principles of the government founded by our forefathers; to encourage historical research about and teaching of the American Revolution; to maintain and extend the institutions of American freedom; to promote the purposes expressed in the preamble of the Constitution; and to foster true patriotism.
Peter Tumbas, Director, American Revolution Lacrosse Club & the Pittsburgh Holiday Camp – SportsRecruits Blog
We were fortunate to catch up with Peter Tumbas, the Director of the American Revolution Lacrosse Club and upcoming Pittsburgh Holiday Camp, which will debut December 21st and 22nd at the Southpointe Fieldhouse in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
The Pittsburgh Holiday Camp is a teaching and instructional camp designed for Pittsburgh’s youth and high school players to enhance their stick skills and lacrosse IQ while exposing them to NCAA coaching prior to the start of the 2014 season.
Below is our Q & A with Peter, who discusses the Camp, the importance of developing fundamentals, and the state of lacrosse in Pittsburgh.
___________________
What is the goal of the Pittsburgh Holiday Camp?
With the rise of tournaments and showcases, high-level instruction camps staffed by college coaches have all but disappeared. We set out to bring the best NCAA coaches to Pittsburgh so athletes have a chance to learn from people who actually teach for a living.
We want to give athletes an opportunity to supercharge their stick skills and lacrosse IQ. I’m thankful for the college coaches who have decided to join our staff. Bringing in so many NCAA DI and DIII coaches to Pittsburgh for the first time ever will be a career-changing experience for the athletes that are willing to listen and put forth the effort following camp.
The secondary goal is to give athletes an opportunity to showcase their abilities in a smaller setting in advance of the Summer recruiting circuit. The camp takes place on one field. The coaches working will get a chance to spend time with everyone.
The focus of the event seems to be split between recruiting and development. How important is it for players to continue to work on fundamentals?
Denison assistant coach Chris Cooper told me that, at any level, the team which catches, passes, scoops, and communicates the best will win the game. In other words, fundamentals are crucial to winning a game.
The opportunity to have so many great coaches on one field in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would be wasted if we didn’t ask them to be hands-on for the duration of the camp. The athletes will have a chance to work closely with college coaches. The proximity will allow the coaches a chance to discern who can listen to instruction and process that information.
There won’t be any 10 v 10 games during camp, but the high school players will receive a numbered reversible and the coaches receive contact information.
Having coached and been involved in the game for a very long time, what have you noticed is lacking in development, particularly in the Pittsburgh area?
The interesting thing about Pittsburgh lacrosse is the participation rate has increased – especially with the state now sponsoring the sport – but there hasn’t been a significant increase in skillset. Pittsburgh teams are still getting roughed up in the State playoffs by Philadelphia teams and occasionally central PA teams. A Pittsburgh team has never won a state title.
One of the common arguments is that Pittsburgh lacrosse teams don’t get the best athletes, because football coaches won’t share. That’s no excuse for the 40 kids on the roster to struggle to catch, pass, and shoot at an elite level with both hands.
Look at the Canadians racking up points in the NCAA. No one would consider them to be world-class athletes, but their stick skills are elite. Consider the freshmen and sophomores giving verbal’s to ACC schools. They have elite stick skills.
So, why can’t we demand better stick skills from Pittsburgh athletes?
As the stick skills improve, the teams will improve. If the teams improve, you have closer games every week. There’s a reason SEC football players are considered NFL ready. There’s a reason players from Maryland, Long Island, and Philadelphia are NCAA lacrosse ready. They’ve been forged in a pressure cooker. Pittsburgh lacrosse is not like that at all right now, but it can be in the future. This camp, which we are offering to youth players and high school players, is a step in the right direction. Being a Pittsburgh native, it’s exciting for me to be able to give back to the community in this fashion.
What advice do you give players looking to be recruited at the next level?
When I was going through the recruiting process in 2003, I didn’t make my college decision until March of my senior year. Now, we’re seeing kids give verbal commitments during the Fall of their freshmen year. A big challenge for families outside of the traditional areas is that they haven’t gone through the recruiting process before. They need to be willing to ask for help from multiple sources.
You have to understand how the accelerated timeline has affected every NCAA division.
You have to be proactive beyond what you initially thought proactive meant. There are too many kids and not enough coaches. If you’re not making regular contact, you’re going to fall off the radar.
You have to be willing to get on the phone and get a straight answer from a coach so you can both move forward.
You have to be willing to make sacrifices. A player that is going DI is playing wall ball on a Friday night, going to bed early, and getting up on Saturday morning and doing it again. If you’re not demanding that level of commitment from yourself, you’re not going to be an elite level player.
A few weeks back, you discussed the Club lacrosse experience for us. What would you tell players that are in interested in going that route vs. DI, DII, or DIII?
The best advice that I received would be to pick a school as if lacrosse wasn’t an option. In other words, would you be happy to attend the school if you couldn’t play lacrosse? Lacrosse will be four years of your life, whereas your degree will follow you for the next forty years. You have to make the right decision for your future and not worry about impressing your friends or feeling obligated to attend a certain institution. You’re the one that has to live there and go to class.
Where should interested parties go for more information and to sign up for the event?
Athletes can apply online here. We’ll be accepting registration through next Wednesday, December 18.
Coaches on staff will include:
· Johnson & Wales (NCAA DIII)
· Western New England (NCAA DIII)
· Bates (NCAA DIII)
· Denison (NCAA DIII)
· Binghamton (NCAA DI)
· Lafayette (NCAA DI)
· North Carolina (NCAA DI)
· Drexel (NCAA DI)
· Michigan (NCAA DI)
· Colgate (NCAA DI)
· Bryant (NCAA DI)
Currently, we have athletes signed up from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Holiday Camp attendees will have the first opportunity to sign up for our summer Phenom Camps. The Phenom Prep Camp for rising seniors and juniors will be June 10-12. The Phenom Futures Camp for rising sophomores and freshmen will be June 17-19.
Website: http://www.americanrevolutionlax.com/
Twitter: @AmRevolutionLax
___________________
Thanks so much to Pete for his time and excellent responses!
_______________________
Follow us on Twitter:
@SpikeMal
@LacrosseRecruit
Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SportsRecruits
The American Revolution | Free U.S. Government Articles for Students in Grades 7-10
The Revolution brought economic as well as political change, together with much hardship and suffering. All of the colonies were affected by inflation and economic dislocation. Stock, grain, and tobacco, in addition to slaves, were taken from farms, warehouses, and plantations.
The shortage of finished goods, heretofore imported largely from England, led to soaring prices and an inflationary spiral. Hard money was scarce, and to finance the war effort Congress and the states resorted to the expediency of printing paper money. As the war progressed, paper money, especially Continental currency, rapidly depreciated. Efforts to establish a more stable currency supported by state taxation were fruitless.
More strenuous and somewhat more successful efforts were made to control inflation. In 1776, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island adopted legislation to fix prices and wages. In November 1777, Congress recommended a grand program of price and wage regulation, and New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania instituted controls. Powerful opposition to regulation, especially from merchants who indulged in “black market” operations, undermined the program, however, and the machinery needed to enforce the laws was lacking. In June 1778, Congress recommended that attempts to set prices be abandoned. Inflation continued to plague the American economy throughout the war.
Economic dislocation and financial instability affected all Americans, but some suffered more than others, and some even prospered. Familiar channels of trade were closed to merchants, farmers, and the New England fisherman. Tobacco and rice planters in Virginia and South Carolina, heretofore assured a market in England for their produce, were forced to seek new outlets, or obtain new means of livelihood. Hardest hit by inflation were the clergy, town laborers and artisans, and the men and officers of the Continental Army. Desperate workers fought for higher wages, in some cases even went on strike, and organized committees to force merchants to lower prices. On occasion mob violence broke out, as in Philadelphia in October 1779, when angry townspeople besieged the house of James Wilson, a Loyalist counsel and commercial speculator.
Such outbursts give the impression of an internal conflict based on economic class divisions. In Pennsylvania and New York, and in some areas of other states, the struggle between privileged and nonprivileged, between upper and lower economic and social classes, was sharp. However, these clashes were not so numerous, widespread, and enduring as to support the thesis that there was an internal American revolutionary movement on the part of the poor against the rich. Many planters in the South, who rented much of their land, were seriously hurt by being obliged to accept rent payments in depreciated paper money. In such cases, the lower-class tenants, who sold their produce for high prices, were the gainers, and the “aristocratic” planters were the losers.
Among those who profited by the war were the farmers, whose products were in great demand by the Army. Privateering, which combined “business as usual” with patriotism, proved a remarkably profitable venture for thousands of enterprising Americans. Merchants and contractors—particularly men like Robert Morris of Philadelphia, Silas Deane of Connecticut, and Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, who participated in obtaining French commercial aid for America—often realized fortunes. Many Patriots in official positions, such as Morris, who was the financial agent for the Continental Congress, carried on public and private business simultaneously, sometimes to the detriment of the former. Army commissaries and quartermasters, whose services were eagerly sought by merchants and contractors, often did the same.
New York City During the First Year of the Revolution
The Tentative Rebels:
New York City During the American Revolution
By Jim Davis
The province of New York had a strong loyalist reputation during the American Revolution. This opinion extended to its largest municipality, New York City, derisively referred to by one rebel as “Torytown.”[1] This assessment has been subsequently echoed by many historians, most notably Alexander C. Flick at the turn of the 20th Century.[2] The colony’s reputation for loyalism was not entirely groundless; New York possessed strong pockets of loyalist support in western Long Island and upstate in Tryon County.[3] The cautious actions of New York’s political leadership also contributed to this reputation ñ although prudence in such uncertain times does not automatically prove loyalist sentiment. In order to evaluate whether New York City really was a loyalist stronghold, this paper examines the course of events in the city during the rebellion’s first year.
In the years preceding the Revolution, New York City witnessed patriot agitation as was found elsewhere in the American colonies. New Yorkers observed boycotts of British goods, erected liberty poles, harassed loyalists, and established a Committee of Correspondence to facilitate communications with their counterparts in other colonies.[4] Although New Yorkers erected a great equestrian statue of King George in appreciation of the 1766 repeal of the Stamp Act,[5] during the early 1770s anti-British attitudes began to harden. In imitation of the Boston Tea Party, aroused patriots dumped several boxes of tea from the merchant ship London into New York Harbor.[6] After the British Government closed the port of Boston, New Yorkers refused to provide supplies and labor to General Gage’s garrison, and joined fellow Americans in providing relief to the city.[7] William Smith, a royal judge of strongly loyalist sympathies, ruefully recorded the growing public hostility towards the King:
It is astonishing to observe to what a Pass the populace has arrived. Instead of that Respect they formerly had for the King, you now hear the very lowest Orders call him a Knave or a Fool, & reproaching him for the Diversity of his & his Grandfather’s Conduct.[8]
The patriots were divided between radicals and moderates. The former included many artisans, mechanics, and other disenfranchised individuals with fewer stakes in the status quo, and fewer qualms about using violence and intimidation to further their aims.[9] They were directed by determined leaders such as Isaac Sears, a privateer from the French and Indian War, and John Lamb, who nursed a personal grievance against the British since the Sugar and Molasses Acts ruined his lucrative West Indian trade.[10] The moderate patriot faction included many merchants, property holders, and others of the more affluent classes. Their relative prosperity gave them a stronger desire for stability and order than their more radical social inferiors, so they favored boycotts and petitions over violence and lawbreaking.[11] As anti-British resentment spread, moderate leaders such as Isaac Low, John Jay, and the Livingstons took a more active role, challenging the radicals for leadership.[12]
The loyalists seemed to defy any neat categorization in New York City. As would be expected, they included many royal officials with a direct personal stake in the status quo. However, loyalist support could be found among all social and economic classes. Most religions were also represented, although Anglicans predominated. As a general rule, ethnic and religious minorities ñ many of whom looked to the crown for protection ñ had a greater propensity towards loyalism. Suspicion of the more militant New England rebels may have been a contributing factor towards loyalism; New York and New England had long maintained a mutual antipathy that predated the Revolutionary era.[13] Most loyalists concurred with the patriots’ jealous defense of their colony’s rights against Parliamentary usurpation, but would demur at armed rebellion.[14]
The popular Royal Governor, William Tryon, and his octogenarian Lieutenant Governor, Cadwallader Colden, could still rely on the loyalist-leaning New York Provincial Assembly, elected to office in 1769. Early in 1775, it had voted down successive resolutions approving the proceedings of the First Continental Congress, thanking New York’s delegation for their work, and appointing delegates to the Second Continental Congress. Meanwhile, New York patriots created the Committee of Sixty, an extra-legal body to enforce the Continental Congress’ anti-British boycott. Many in New York began to look to the Committee as the colony’s real government. On March 4, the Committee proposed the creation of a Provincial Convention to elect delegates to the Continental Congress. This Convention assembled on March 20 and selected twelve men to represent the colony, including Jay, George Clinton, and Robert R. Livingston.[15]
New York City learned of the fighting at Lexington and Concord with the arrival of a dispatch rider on the morning of April 23.[16] The news immediately threw the city into a great commotion, as noted by Smith:
It is impossible fully to describe the agitated State of the Town since last Sunday, when the News first arrived of the Skirmish between Concord & Boston. ñ At all corners People inquisitive for News ñ Tales of all Kinds invented, believed, denied, discredited.[17]
The radicals took matters into their own hands as throngs of aroused citizens paraded the city’s main streets. That evening many of them assembled before the City Hall demanding access to the armory. When they were denied the keys they broke in anyway, carrying off hundreds of muskets, bayonets, and cartridge boxes. Some went so far as to propose attacking the vulnerable royal garrison of just over 100 soldiers commanded by Major Isaac Hamilton, but nothing came of it.[18] Instead, angry patriots vented their resentment by assaulting prominent loyalists such as James Rivington, publisher of an outspokenly loyalist newspaper. The President of King’s College, Myles Cooper, barely escaped upon the warning from a student who ran ahead of the mob coming for him.[19] Less than a week later on April 28, 360 armed men led by Sears closed the Customs House in order to prevent trade with the British. The merchants of the town dared not complain for fear of drawing the mob’s wrath.[20]
Many remarked at the strength of rebel sympathy in New York City. A letter from New York printed in London stated “in this city it is astonishing to find the most violent proposals meeting with universal approbation.[21] The next day, an assemblage of six or seven thousand gathered to hear an address by Low beseeching them to sign an Association declaring their resolve:
We…do in the most solemn manner, resolve never to become slaves; and do associate, under all the ties of religion, honour, and love to our country to adopt…whatever measures may be recommended by the Continental Congress, or resolved upon by our Provincial Convention, for the purpose of preserving our Constitution and opposing the execution of the several arbitrary and oppressive Acts of the British Parliament, until a reconciliation between Great Britain and America, on Constitutional principles, (which we most ardently desire) can be obtained
Low and other leading citizens of the city proceeded to sign the document as the crowd roared their approval. Over the next hour another thousand affixed their signatures. Copies were later posted throughout the city so that others could sign.[22] Although many thousands throughout the colony ultimately refused to sign the Association, residents of the city itself appeared to support it for the most part.[23]
As the initial fervor passed, however, the conduct of New York’s moderate leadership took on a decidedly ambivalent appearance. Although they retained their resentments against the Crown, and provided assistance to the war effort, the prospect of actual fighting seems to have given many pause. This ambivalence was manifest in an open letter from Henry Remsen to Lieutenant Governor Colden printed in the May 22 edition of a New York newspaper. After reciting the familiar litany of grievances against the Royal Government ñ Parliamentary taxation, the blockade of Boston, the Quebec Act ñ Remsen implored Colden to exercise his influence to divert the war away from New York City:
It is our ardent Wish, Sir, that the same Tranquility and good Order may be permanent. We look forward therefore with deep Concern at the expected Arrival of Troops from Great-Britain, an Event that will probably be attended with innumerable Mischiefs. Their presence will doubtless revive the Resentment of our Inhabitants, at the repeatedly avowed Designs of subjugating the Colonies by Military Force. Mutual Jealousies may break out into reciprocal Violence. Thousands will in that case, be poured in upon us from other Counties and the neighboring Colonies, who, we are well assured, have resolved to prevent this City from being reduced to the present Situation of Boston. Thus, instead of being a secure Garrison Town and Place of Arms, as is vainly expected by some, the Streets of New York may be deluged with Blood.[24]
These fears could only have been intensified by the arrival of the British warship Asia in New York Harbor on May 27, soon to be joined by the Kingfisher. Lieutenant Governor Colden had sent for the Royal Navy to protect loyalists from further harassment. Henceforth, moderate rebel leaders trod carefully for fear of provoking a devastating bombardment. For his part, Captain Vandeput of the Asia was reluctant to fire on the town. Loyalists owned many of the buildings likely to be damaged, and the British were already looking forward to making New York a base of operations at some future time, and wanted to preserve the town intact.[25] Nonetheless, New Yorkers couldn’t have known this with certainty at the time.
Meanwhile, the rebels moved to replace the loyalist-leaning Provincial Assembly ñ which was never to meet again. The Committee of Sixty called for the election of a Provincial Congress, which met for the first time on May 22. Despite the outbreak of hostilities in Massachusetts, moderates were still reluctant to make a complete break with Britain and her institutions. They grappled with the radicals for control of the Provincial Congress as it charted an erratic course over the coming months. The Provincial Congress acted to recruit and supply the militia, and directed military operations in upstate New York. But, moderates blocked a vote approving the proceedings of the First Continental Congress ñ just as the discredited Provincial Assembly had done earlier ñ and won approval of a letter to the Second Continental Congress urging a peaceful resolution of the rebellion.[26] The Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety to manage executive matters during its periodic recesses. Over the coming months, the Committee played an important role raising and equipping troops for the defense of New York, and watching loyalists suspected of assisting the British. [27] Yet, while the Committee prepared for war, it also allowed the British courts and magistrates to operate unmolested, and even permitted the provisioning of the British warships in the harbor.[28]
His force dwindling as desertions mounted, Major Hamilton decided to withdraw his beleaguered garrison to the British warships. Although he received assurances from the Provincial Congress that he could retire unmolested, an angry crowd soon gathered around the small column and forcibly divested them of several cartloads of arms and ammunition. Several soldiers deserted on the spot. The Provincial Congress insisted that the perpetrators return the plundered supplies, but their command apparently fell on deaf ears.[29]
The Provincial Congress’s ambivalence was further exemplified by their dispatch of separate delegations to welcome both General George Washington and Royal Governor William Tryon upon their separate arrivals in New York City on June 25. Washington was passing through town on his way to take command of the rebel force besieging Boston. An enthusiastic crowd greeted him with loud huzzas as he landed in the city. Later that evening the well-liked Tryon returned from England to a friendly reception, although most accounts recall it as less enthusiastic than the one accorded to Washington. William Smith noted that the amiable welcome for Tryon was more a reflection of New Yorkers’ personal regard for him, rather than for his office. Tryon soon discovered his irrelevance to the colony’s governance; the people of New York now followed the dictates of the Provincial Congress.[30] Early in July, the Provincial Congress declined to participate in a formal welcome address to the Governor:
Though this Congress entertains the highest respect for his Excellency, yet it will be altogether improper for the said Corporation, or any other body corporate, or individuals, in this Colony, to address his Excellency at this most critical juncture.[31]
As the moderates vacillated, the radicals acted. After several boxes of saltpeter were removed from the Royal Magazine at Turtle Bay in early June, the Provincial Congress sent some members to try and get the supplies returned, and directed the army to keep an eye on what was left. At the urging of Sears and Lamb, a sloop manned by New England rebels divested the magazine of its remaining arms and ammunition, and carried them back to Connecticut. Many New Yorkers were angered by this raid by New Englanders, which struck them as analogous to the British raid on Concord.[32] After a mob destroyed a small boat from the Asia, the Civil Magistrates of the city arranged to have a replacement boat built ñ which was destroyed in turn before carpenters could complete it.[33]
A small skirmish occurred during the night of August 23 as a detachment of men, acting on orders from the Provincial Congress, commandeered twenty-one royal cannon from the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan. One British soldier was killed in a brief exchange of gunfire between the rebels and some British troops in a barge hovering just offshore. The Asia loosed a few broadsides into the town to support their men. Although it did minor damage to nearby buildings, the evening’s encounter threw the whole city into a panic; many packed-up their belongings and fled to the countryside. A day later, talks between local officials and Captain Vandeput, mediated by Tryon, seemed to cool the passions of some rebels who advocated “rash measures.”[34] Nonetheless, the exodus from the city continued, as recorded by a loyalist-leaning Moravian pastor, Reverend Shewkirk: “the City looks in some streets as if the Plague had been in it, so many houses being shut up.”[35] On July 29, after condemning the Asia for unwarrantedly firing on the city, the Provincial Congress reiterated the ongoing policy of allowing New Yorkers to provide supplies to the royal squadron in order to “preserve the peace, quiet the minds of the inhabitants, and prevent the Officers and Men belonging to any of his Majesty’s Ships…from coming to this City, under pretence of procuring supplies.”[36] On September 1, the Congress prohibited New York residents from providing supplies to the British army and navy, but apparently maintained an exception for the British warships hovering menacingly in the harbor.[37]
Tryon’s position within the city grew increasingly untenable. On August 22, the Continental Congress voted to secure all crown officials. Fearing bombardment from the British navy in reprisal, the Provincial Congress declined to arrest the Governor. In October, Tryon learned of a plot by Sears and others to arrest him and send him to confinement in Connecticut. Tryon offered to remove himself to the Asia in order to save the town from shelling should his person be violated. Although local officials asked him to remain, they offered him little physical protection. So, Tryon withdrew to the safety of the royal squadron in the harbor on October 19. The Governor was still allowed to receive visitors from the city, and made a pretense of running the colony from aboard ship.[38]
By this time, Isaac Sears, fed up with the caution of New York’s moderate leadership, had removed himself to Connecticut where he publicly denigrated his hometown’s patriotism.[39] He wouldn’t stay away long. On November 20, he led a small band of mounted rebels from New Haven into Westchester County just north of New York City and arrested some prominent loyalists, sending them back to Connecticut under guard. Joined by some local patriots, the band proceeded to New York City. Entering the town at noon on November 23, they destroyed the press of loyalist printer James Rivington, and carried off his types. Their business done, they rode out of town to the cheers of onlookers. While many of the more radical New Yorkers applauded the action, the moderates objected to the interference of Connecticut men in their internal affairs. The Provincial Congress fired off an indignant petition to Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull protesting the affair: “While we consider this conduct as an insult offered to this Colony, we are disposed to attribute it to an imprudent, though well intended, zeal for the publick cause…we cannot but consider such intrusions as an invasion of our essential rights as a distinct Colony.” The petition went on to request the release of the Westchester loyalists, and the return of Rivington’s types: “We are fully sensible of his demerits; but we earnestly wish that the glory of the present contest for liberty may not be sullied by an attempt to restrain the freedom of the Press.” Governor Trumbull shortly released the Westchester men, but would not return Rivington’s property.[40]
The strategic importance of New York City to the rebel cause was widely agreed upon by its leaders. The Hudson Valley provided a navigable highway far into the interior of the colony, so the possession of the city by the British threatened to divide New England from the rest of the colonies. In early January 1776, General Charles Lee, scarcely able “to sleep from apprehensions on the subject,” proposed to General Washington that he be sent to secure New York with volunteer troops recruited from Connecticut.[41] Washington was concerned about the possible presence of loyalists in New York, as well as by reports that the British at Boston were outfitting an amphibious expedition that might be intended for the city, but he was unsure of the extent of his powers as the young nation’s first Commander in Chief. However, after John Adams assured him that such action was within his authority, Washington agreed to send Lee to New York.[42]
General Charles Lee was arguably one of the most fascinating characters to participate in the Revolution; he was certainly one of the most controversial. Physically, he was tall, skinny, slovenly in dress, and fairly ugly. He was frequently stricken by gout, which may have contributed to his rather cantankerous and fickle demeanor. He was loquacious, vulgar, and prone to sarcasm. His constant companions were a large train of yapping dogs, which at times seemed his only true friends. Later in the war, Lee was court-martialed after a falling out with Washington during the Battle of Monmouth, and died in ignominy in 1782. But, in early 1776 he was widely considered a rising star of the young Continental Army due to his extensive military experience.[43] As he took command in New York City he had no ambiguity as to the situation; he understood clearly that America was at war, and that half measures would not suffice.
Lee proceeded to Connecticut where he easily raised a small force of volunteers for his expedition, and set off for New York in late January. However, Lee’s progress alarmed the citizens of New York, prompting an exodus of noncombatants from the city in the dead of winter. While professing themselves “as unanimously jealous in the cause of America as any representative body on the continent,” the Committee of Safety nonetheless implored Lee to proceed no further than the colonial boundary with Connecticut until March. They informed him that the situation in New York was precarious. No defensive positions had been prepared. Furthermore, ammunition supplies were low, and the presence of Lee’s force might provoke the small British squadron in the harbor to interrupt clandestine ammunition shipments into the port. The ever-present prospect of bombardment by the Royal Navy, against which the city had no effective deterrent, was also on their minds. Delaying hostilities until warmer weather in March would have at least eased the plight of the fearful refugees.[44]
Lee assured the Committee that he had no plans to harass the Royal Navy squadron as long as they behaved, and that in any event “the destruction of the seaport towns would if possible be a severer stroke to the Ministry and their Instruments than to the Inhabitants themselves.” He proposed to bring only part of his force into the city, while leaving the main body in western Connecticut for the time being. He felt compelled to conclude by diplomatically assuring the Committee that:
I am not one of those who have entertained a bad opinion of the virtue of N. York, or made it my business to asperse them; on the contrary, I have condemn’d loudly the illiberal, impolitic and unjust reflections I have heard frequently thrown out.[45]
However, his report to Washington on the affair struck a different tone:
The whigs, I mean the stout ones, are it is said very desirous that a body of troops should march and be stationed in their City: timid ones are averse, merely from the spirit of procrastination, which is the characteristic of timidity. The letter of the Provincial Congress, you will observe breathes the very essence of this spirit; it is wofully hysterical.[46]
continue >
Bibliography
Primary Sources
American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2-5.
The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene, vol. 1 (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1976).
Lee Papers (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871).
Historical Memoirs of William Smith, edited by William H. W. Sabine (New York: Colburn & Tegg, 1956).
The New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury
The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary War Series, Vol. 3-6 (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1988).
Secondary Sources
Carl L. Becker, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776 (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1909).
Alexander C. Flick, Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1901).
Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland: Press of Winn & Judson, 1904).
Henry P. Johnson, The Campaign of 1776 Around New York and Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY: Long Island Historical Society, 1878).
Bernard Mason, The Road to Independence: The Revolutionary Movement in New York, 1773-1777 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1966)
William H. Nelson, The American Tory (New York: 1961).
M. Christopher New, “James Chalmers and ëPlain Truth:’ A Loyalist Answers Thomas Paine, The Early American Review (http://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/review/fall96/loyalists.html) (Fall, 1996)
New York Division of Archives and History, The American Revolution in New York: Its Political, Social, and Economic Significance (Albany, NY: 1926).
New York Historical Society, Narratives of the Revolution in New York (Kingsport, TN: Kingsport Press, Inc.; 1975).
Phillip Ranlet, The New York Loyalists, (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1986).
John Shy, A People Numerous and Armed (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1990)
Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, Father Knickerbocker Rebels: New York City During the Revolution, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948).
[1] Letter of March 21, 1776 from the John Eustace to Charles Lee; Lee Papers (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871) p. 362. Ranlet, pp. 66-7.
[2] Alexander Flick, Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1901). Phillip Ranlet, The New York Loyalists, (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1986) pp. 5-7.
[3] William H. Nelson, The American Tory (New York: 1961) pp. 102-3.
[4] Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, Father Knickerbocker Rebels: New York City During the Revolution, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948) , pp. 11-2, 20-1, 24.
[7] Wertenbaker, p. 43-4.
[8] Journal entry of September 7, 1774; Historical Memoirs of William Smith, edited by William H. W. Sabine (New York: Colburn & Tegg, 1956) pp. 192.
[9] Carl L. Becker, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776 (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1909) p. 51.
[10] Wertenbaker, pp. 10-1.
[11] Becker, pp. 51, 82-3.
[12] Wertenbaker, p. 35-8.
[13] Flick, pp. 31-36. Ranlet, pp. 3-4, 182-6. Nelson, pp. 89-90.
[14] Flick, p. 52. Ranlet, p. 182.
[15] Wertenbaker, p. 44-6. Becker, p. 176.
[17] Journal entry of April 29, 1775; Historical Memoirs of William Smith, p. 222.
[18] Wertenbaker, p. 53. Journal entries of April 24 & 27, 1775; Historical Memoirs of William Smith, pp. 221-2.
[21]Bernard Mason, The Road to Independence: The Revolutionary Movement in New York, 1773-1777 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1966) pp. 76-7.
[22] Becker, pp. 196-7, Wertenbaker, p. 56.
[24] The New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, May 22, 1775.
[25] Wertenbaker, p. 62. Ranlet, p. 52.
[26] Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland: Press of Winn & Judson, 1904) p. 63. American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2, pp. 1785-6, 1792.
[28] Hunt, p. 67. Wertenbaker, p. 62. Becker, p. 219.
[29] Wertenbaker, p. 58. Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for June 3, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2, p. 1274.
[30] Journal entry of June 25, 1773, Historical Memoirs of William Smith, pp. 228c-d. Ranlet, p. 61. Becker, p. 218. Wertenbaker, pp. 60-1.
[31] Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for July 5, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2, p. 1341.
[32] Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for June 29, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2, p. 1331. Ranlet, p. 61. Wertenbaker, p. 58.
[33] Proceedings of the New York Committee of Safety for July 13 and 18, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 2, pp. 1791, 1812. Wertenbaker, p. 62.
[34] Diary entries of August 24 & 25, 1775 by Reverend Shewkirk; in The Campaign of 1776 Around New York and Brooklyn by Henry P. Johnson (Brooklyn, NY: Long Island Historical Society, 1878) Part II, pp. 103. Letter of August 24, 1775, from Captain Vandeput to the Mayor and other Magistrates of the City of New York; American Archives, Series 4 Vol. 3 p. 550. Wertenbaker, pp. 62-3.
[35] Diary entry of August 28, 1775 by Reverend Shewkirk; Johnson, Part II, pp. 103.
[36] Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for July 29, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 3, p. 565.
[37] Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for September 1, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 3, p. 573.
[38] Becker, p. 225. Ranlet. p. 61.
[40] Nelson, p. 100. Wertenbaker, pp. 64-5. Ranlet, p. 4. Becker, p. 245-6. Proceedings of the New York Provincial Congress for December 12, 1775; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 4, p. 402.
[41] Letter of January 5, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary War Series, Vol. 3 (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1988) pp. 30-1.
[42] Letter of January 6, 1776 from John Adams to George Washington and letter of January 8, 1776 from George Washington to Charles Lee; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 3; pp. 36-8, 53-4.
[43] John Shy, A People Numerous and Armed (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1990) pp. 135-62.
[44] Letter of January 21, 1776 from the New York Committee of Safety to Charles Lee; Lee Papers, pp. 242-4. Johnson, pp. 51-3.
[45] Letter of January 23, 1776 from Charles Lee to the Chairman of the New York Committee of Safety; Lee Papers, Vol. 1 (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871) pp. 256-8.
[46] Letter of January 24, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; Lee Papers; Vol. 1, p. 259.
[47] Hunt, pp. 69-70. American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 4, p. 1096.
[48] Diary entry of January 5, 1776 by Reverend Shewkirk; Johnson, Part II, pp. 105-6.
[49] Letter of February 5, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; Lee Papers; p. 271-2. Extract of a Letter from New York, to a Gentleman in Philadelphia, Dated February 5, 1776, American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 4, p. 942.
[50] Letter of February 19, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; Lee Papers; p. 309.
[51] Report on the Defense of New York, March, 1776; Lee Papers; pp. 354-6.
[52] Wertenbaker, pp. 70-1.
[53] Letter of February 14, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; Letter of February 26, 1776 from George Washington to Charles Lee; Lee Papers, pp. 295, 326-7.
[54] Letters of February 16 & 20, 1776 from Charles Lee to the President of Provincial Congress of New York; Lee Papers, pp. 301, 315.
[55] Letter of February 20, 1776 from the Provincial Congress of New York to Charles Lee; Lee Papers, p. 315-6.
[57] Letter of February 29, 1776 from Charles Lee to George Washington; Lee Papers, pp. 335, 338.
[61] Letter of April 17 from George Washington to the New York Committee of Safety, the Committee’s reply of April 18, and Washington’s proclamation of April 29; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 4, pp. 77-9, 81, 164-5. Proceedings of the New York Committee of Safety for April 18, 1776; American Archives, Series 4, Vol. 5, pp. 1453-4.
[62] General Orders issued on April 27, 1776 by General Washington; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 4, p. 140-1.
[63] General Orders issued on May 14, 1776 by General Washington; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 4, p. 296.
[64] General Greene’s Orders of May 5, 1776, The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene, Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1976) p. 212.
[66] Diary entry of June 13, 1776 by Reverend Shewkirk; Johnson, Part II, pp. 108.
[67] New York Division of Archives and History, The American Revolution in New York: Its Political, Social, and Economic Significance (Albany, NY: 1926) pp. 65-6.
[68] M. Christopher New, “James Chalmers and ëPlain Truth:’ A Loyalist Answers Thomas Paine, The Early American Review (http://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/review/fall96/loyalists.html) (Fall, 1996)
[69] Becker, pp. 265-70. Mason, pp. 172-5.
[70] New York Historical Society, Narratives of the Revolution in New York (Kingsport, TN: Kingsport Press, Inc.; 1975) pp. 25-31. New York Division of Archives and History, pp. 67-9. Becker, pp. 271-4.
[72] Letter of September 8, 1776 from George Washington to John Hancock; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 6, pp. 248-52.
[73] Letter of September 11, 1776 from “Certain General Officers” to George Washington; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 6, p. 279.
[74] Council of War Minutes for September 12, 1776, and a letter of the same date from George Clinton to George Washington; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 6, p. 289-92.
[75] Letter of September 3, 1776 from John Hancock to George Washington; The Papers of George Washington, Vol. 6, p. 207.
[77] Letter of October 23, 1775 from Nathaniel Greene to Samuel Ward, Jr.; The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene, p. 139. Ranlet, p. 7.
[78] Diary entry of September 16, 1776 by Reverend Shewkirk; Johnson, Part II, pp. 117.
Unit 5 Plan: New Hampshire and the American Revolution
How was this tension between Britain and America evident in New Hampshire?
Americans were increasingly alarmed by what they saw as signs of British aggression across the continent. Compounding their fears were local tensions with the Crown that were specific to each colony. In New Hampshire, these tensions were focused in three areas:
1) New Hampshire’s proximity to Boston pulled the colony into Boston’s ongoing disagreements with the Crown. The merchants who lived in New Hampshire’s seacoast communities had numerous ties to their counterparts in Newburyport, Salem, and Boston. In the western part of the state, the settlers who had been pouring into the Merrimack River Valley since the 1740s originally came from Massachusetts, and many maintained extensive ties with the communities they had left behind. Just like today, New Hampshire was in essence part of the greater Boston area, and thus its people felt an inevitable sympathy for Boston’s ongoing disputes with the Crown.
2) The extended Wentworth family, which had been the dominant political force in New Hampshire since the 1730s, was undisputedly associated with the Crown. Those who did not ally themselves to the Wentworths found themselves shut out of the colony’s political hierarchy. The growing political tension between Britain and America offered opportunities to men outside of the Wentworths’ circle that had previously been denied them. Governor John Wentworth found himself increasingly stuck between his superiors in London and a growing patriot movement in New Hampshire that had had enough of the Wentworth family and its allies.
3) New Hampshire’s major export during the colonial era was the massive white pine trees, which the British navy used as ships’ masts. The trees were harvested throughout the colony, which is why so many communities today have a Mast Road or Mast Street. New Hampshire supplied more than 4,500 white pine trees during the colonial era, and the Crown claimed ownership of white pines even if they were on private land, which sparked much resentment among the colonists. It was a grievance that many colonists found intolerable, as these valuable and useful commodities were taken from their land without their consent. With most of New Hampshire unsettled before the 1760s, there were only minor conflicts between colonists and Crown officials over mast trees in this early period, especially as Crown officials tended to quietly ignore the law and let colonists use their trees without interference. But by the mid-1760s, much of New Hampshire was in the process of being settled, meaning more of the white pine trees were on private land, prompting more conflicts between colonists and Crown officials.
How did New Hampshire come to claim its independence from Great Britain?
Throughout the tumultuous events in Boston during the 1760s (the Stamp Act riots, the landing of British troops, and the Boston Massacre), the Wentworth faction managed to keep New Hampshire out of most of the disagreements with the Crown. For example, New Hampshire did not send delegates to the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 (a colonial representative body formed to protest the Stamp Act), nor did New Hampshire merchants join in the nonimportation agreements formed in other major American cities to protest the Townshend Act in the late 1760s.
But with each new conflict between the British Crown and the Americans, more and more people from New Hampshire became sympathetic to the patriot cause, and the Wentworth faction began to lose its hold on the government. By the early 1770s, New Hampshire’s colonial legislature had become overtly hostile to the Wentworth faction. The growth of communities in the Merrimack Valley, where the Wentworths held little sway, further decreased the faction’s power, and the colony began to see an increase in public disaffection with Crown authority. During the Stamp Act crisis, patriot supporters throughout America began organizing themselves into groups called the Sons of Liberty. Many towns throughout New Hampshire had their own chapters, which corresponded with one another and kept a vigilant eye on Crown officials in the colony.
Inevitably, there were more conflicts between the people and the Crown. One such was in 1772, when a number of farmers were caught with white pine trees at a sawmill in Goffstown and fined accordingly. Some of the farmers refused to pay and forced the royal officials to flee in the middle of the night from the inn they were staying at in nearby Weare. The episode became known as the Pine Tree Riot.
Shortly thereafter, the New Hampshire legislature formed a committee of correspondence, against the wishes of Governor John Wentworth, to maintain regular communication with the other colonies, a clear sign of increased coordination between the colonies. After the Crown closed the port of Boston in early 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party, patriot supporters in New Hampshire sent food and supplies to their counterparts in Massachusetts.
Then in December 1774 British authority and American resistance came close to violence in New Hampshire. Patriot leaders in Boston dispatched Paul Revere to Portsmouth with a message that two British ships were bound for Castle William and Mary, the fort that defended Portsmouth Harbor. The British aim was to re-enforce the small garrison of just five men and secure a large stash of gunpowder. This was Revere’s first midnight ride to warn patriot leaders, taken four months before Lexington and Concord.
In response to Revere’s warning, a crowd of 400 New Hampshire patriots stormed the fort, captured the garrison, and moved the gunpowder to a safe location before the British ships arrived. Wentworth was unable to stop the patriot uprising: local political leaders and the Portsmouth militia ignored his pleas and refused to intervene with the patriots’ assault on the fort. In fact, the crew of Wentworth’s personal boat even refused to row him out to the fort. When the British ships arrived, they seized the fort, but all the military stores had already been safely removed by the patriots. (The gunpowder was later used at the Battle of Bunker Hill.) In the end, no shots were fired at the capture of Fort William and Mary, and no one was injured, but the episode marked the beginning of the end of royal government in New Hampshire.
Wentworth and his allies had very little political power left by 1775. When he refused to convene the New Hampshire legislature, the patriots simply convened their own legislature, called the Provincial Congress, without the governor’s consent. The congress met in Exeter, as Portsmouth was considered too sympathetic to the Wentworths even at this late date. Exeter remained New Hampshire’s center of government throughout the revolution, and the Provincial Congress took over the governing of the colony, even before Wentworth and his family fled in June 1775 for the relative safety of Nova Scotia.
The Provincial Congress needed some sort of legal authority to govern, though, now that royal authority in the colony was at an end and the people were no longer subject to the Crown. After a series of sessions, the congress produced a written constitution for New Hampshire in January 1776 that laid out in just two pages a structure for New Hampshire’s government. Fearful of the power once wielded by the Wentworth faction, the delegates did not include an executive branch. All government at the state level came from the legislature. Although the state constitution did not specifically assert New Hampshire’s independence from Great Britain, its sovereignty was implicit. It was the first colony to make such a claim, even indirectly, and the first to adopt a written constitution.
Within weeks of the state constitution’s passage, New Hampshire’s delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia were urging their colleagues to do the same for all the colonies. When the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, three New Hampshirites signed the document: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, and Matthew Thornton. With the political revolution complete, New Hampshire—and the rest of the colonies—just had to win the war against Great Britain to secure their independence.
90,000 American threat. How Russia will respond to the growth of shale oil production in the United States
The debate about whether the oil market has overcome the crisis of recent years comes across one deadly argument – the rise in prices, which, having broken through $ 70 per barrel, by the beginning of February were fixed at a slightly lower level. This, of course, is not a nostalgic $ 140 sample of 2014, but nevertheless – “the glass is half full.”
OPEC Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo calls the rebalancing of the world market fast, and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak expects a balance of supply and demand in the market in the second half of next year.The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global oil demand will grow in 2018, and the OPEC + pact continues to operate, limiting the production of raw materials.
Who will benefit from these achievements? It won’t take long to find a suitable candidate: the rapid growth in shale oil production in the United States may soon push the total volume of crude oil production in the country above 10 million barrels per day – a level that few could have dreamed of literally ten years ago. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that US oil production will reach 11 million barrels per day by the end of 2019, which will allow it to compete with the largest producer of raw materials in the world – Russia.
Advertising on Forbes
Energy on the rise
The economic and political consequences of the growth in oil production in the United States are colossal: a reduction in oil imports to the country by one-fifth in ten years, the creation of new jobs, a 37% decrease in retail prices for gasoline in the domestic market … President of the country Donald Trump has pledged to provide the country with energy dominance.
Oil exports from the United States to Asia are growing rapidly, where American suppliers are already pushing competitors: both Middle Eastern producers and Russia.
Shale oil miners have already proven that they can adapt to the current reality. They emerged victorious from the price war with OPEC + countries thanks to massive cost cuts and improved drilling technology.
The level of current quotations of world benchmarks allows US shale producers to pay dividends and invest in drilling expansion.
The shale revolution has changed the established hierarchy in the industry, turning small players into billionaires.If ten years ago the American energy giants – Exxon Mobil and Chevron – were looking for foreign assets, today they are returning home, buying up shale companies and plots and increasing investments in them. For example, last year Exxon announced its intention to pay up to $ 6.6 billion for a site in America’s largest shale field – Permian. Chevron plans to invest $ 4.3 billion this year in the development of shale resources.
The future of the Russian oil industry can hardly be associated with the shale boom.Western sanctions have closed companies’ access to technology and cheap loans, and instead of the rapid development expected by the authorities, this segment of oil production is only showing sluggish growth.
The battle of technology
Russian companies do not give up the oil shale topic, but, by their own admission, are considering it strategically, in the long term, with the expectation of tax breaks and advances in technology development. Market conditions are obviously changing much faster than long-term strategies.
But the American shale infrastructure has long lived in conditions of negative or near-zero profitability – and now, having developed technologies, it takes full advantage of the rise in prices on the oil market and the self-restraints of the OPEC + pact participants. The road is a spoon for dinner, but is it worth it to envy if lunch has already been eaten and dinner time is approaching? Oil above $ 70 is not a bronze-cast award for American shale, but only its current success. Already, many analysts are talking about the risk of price declines in the second half of 2018, especially if the OPEC + countries’ exit from the pact is not as “smooth” as was discussed at the last summit.
The battle of technology is not a race for shale as such, but ultimately only ensuring the best profitability of the production and supply of oil obtained by any means. This task includes both production itself and an efficient transport infrastructure, market strategies – and you can lose or win in each of these areas.
For example, the growth of US shale exports has increased the attractiveness of the US WTI benchmark for global traders and exporters. On the other hand, in 2018, Russia reoriented large flows of sweet oil from west to east in order to consolidate its leadership in the Chinese market, because of this, the quality of the main Russian export grade in the West, Urals, fell sharply, causing discontent among European refiners.
“Sluggish economic growth, huge debts, chronic unemployment”: The forecast of the American ideologist
Even Trump’s departure will not stop America’s departure from the illiberal vector of development. How this will turn out for the rest of the world – in an article by a famous American researcher.
Material about the true meaning of what is happening outside our country was provided by the Katekhon analytical group.
A well-known apologist for the preservation of a unipolar world and American hegemony on the planet, author of the book “Unmatched: Why America Will Remain the Only Superpower in the World” Michael Beckley, in his new work, tried to prove that even after Donald Trump left the White House whether it will be changed. And that the liberal vector of US development will have no future. It makes sense to take a closer look at his work.
Trump may leave, but his policies will remain
What does the author see as the main prerequisites for the preservation of Trump’s policy?
President Donald Trump took office promising to review U.S. foreign policy.Since then, he has despised allies, withdraws the United States from international agreements, and imposes duties on friends and enemies alike. Many experts mourn the damage Trump’s “America First” policy has done to the so-called liberal international order – the set of institutions and norms that have governed world politics since the end of World War II. They hope that once Trump leaves the Oval Office, the United States will resume its role as leader of a liberalizing world.
Don’t count on it. The era of US liberal hegemony is an artifact of the immediate glimpse of the Cold War. By contrast, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy has been the norm throughout most of U.S. history. As a result, Trump’s spirit may persist long after Trump himself leaves. ”
Why then? The answer to this question lies in two terms – “demography” and “automation”.
Bowed Liberal Order
Aging and automation are likely to make the United States stronger, but they are unlikely to support the bowed liberal order led by the United States.In liberal democracies around the world, public support for this order has long been based on rising incomes for the working class, which in turn have been largely the result of population growth and job creation technologies. The post-war baby boom has spawned many young workers and consumers, and the assembly line has provided them with stable jobs. But today, populations throughout the democratic world are aging and shrinking, and machines are destroying jobs. Basic Approach – to work hard, maintain the liberal system and trust that the rising economic tide will lift all boats crashed.Nationalism and xenophobia fill the void.
The outlook is darker than most people think. Over the next 30 years, the working-age population of the United States’ democratic allies will shrink by an average of 12%, making sustainable economic growth nearly impossible. At the same time, the older populations of these countries will increase by an average of 57 percent, and their average spending on pensions and health care will double, as will their share of GDP. These countries will not be able to borrow their funds to get out of the current financial mess because they already had debt equal to an average of 270% of GDP before the COVID-19 pandemic plunged their balance sheets even deeper into the red zone.Instead, they will have to cut benefits for the elderly, cut social spending for young people, raise taxes, or increase immigration –, all of which are likely to spark a political backlash.
Rapid automation will exacerbate economic shocks. History shows that technological revolutions create prosperity in the long term, but force some workers to work in low-paying jobs or unemployment in the short term – and this can last several generations … Today, across the developed world, machines are destroying jobs faster than workers can retrain to new types of activities, wages of workers with low and medium qualifications are stagnating, and millions of people, especially men without higher education, are leaving the workforce.Many economists expect these trends to continue for several decades as workforce replacement technologies are widely used, such as robotic cars, stores, warehouses and kitchens.
Sluggish economic growth, massive debts, stagnant wages, chronic unemployment and extreme inequality inevitably breed nationalism and extremism … international institutions.
Rogue superpower
Faced with wavering allies and a divided and apathetic public, the United States may not act as the head of a grand coalition, but rather as a rogue superpower – an economic and military colossus, devoid of moral obligations, not isolationist, not internationalist, but aggressive, well-armed and completely self-oriented. In fact, under Trump, the US already seems to be moving in that direction.During Trump’s tenure, some of the US security guarantees began to look like racketeering, and the president speculated that allies should pay 50% more for the cost of deploying US troops. The Trump administration is committed to enforcing trade agreements with unilateral tariffs rather than working through the World Trade Organization. Trump has largely abandoned and downgraded the goal of promoting democracy by gutting the State Department and handing over more responsibility to the Pentagon.The US military is changing too. Increasingly, it is a force aimed at punishment rather than protection. The Trump administration has cut the permanent U.S. staff stationed on allied territory, replacing them with roving expeditionary units that can hover overseas, destroy targets, and then slip back beyond the horizon.
Many experts mourn the damage Trump’s “America First” policy has done to the so-called liberal international order. Photo: Alex Edelman – Pool Via Cnp / Globallookpress
If these conditions persist, the best scenario for the American leadership may be Washington’s acceptance of a more nationalist version of liberal internationalism.The United States could keep allies, but make them pay more for defense. The US can sign trade agreements, but only with countries that accept US regulatory standards; participate in international institutions, but threaten to leave them when they act against US interests; and to promote democracy and human rights, but mainly to destabilize geopolitical rivals.
Alternatively, the United States may withdraw from maintaining global order altogether.Rather than trying to appease weaker nations by upholding international rules and institutions, the United States will use all the tools of its coercive arsenal – tariffs, financial sanctions, visa restrictions, cyber espionage, and drone strikes – to squeeze the most out of allies and adversaries. There will be no lasting partnership based on shared values, only deals. Leaders will judge other countries not by their willingness to help solve global problems or by whether they are democracies or autocracies, but only by their ability to create American jobs.Most countries according to these criteria would be irrelevant.
The United States may not begin to act as the head of a grand coalition, but rather as a rogue superpower. American trade may gradually shift to the Western Hemisphere, and especially to North America, which already accounts for a third of American trade and a third of world GDP. While other regions face the challenges of aging populations and increasing automation, North America is the only region that has all the necessary ingredients for sustainable economic growth: a huge and growing market for wealthy consumers, abundant raw materials, a combination of highly skilled and cheap labor, advanced technology and peaceful international relations.
The United States will continue to arm its partners, but will no longer plan to defend them. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense / Globallookpress
US strategic alliances, meanwhile, may still exist on paper, but most of them will be dead letters. Washington can retain only two sets of permanent partners. The first group will include Australia, Canada, Japan and the UK. These countries are strategically located around the world, and their military and intelligence services are already integrated with the US.All but Japan boast a growing working-age population unlike most other US allies, and thus have a potential tax base for US missions. The second group would consist of countries such as the Baltic states, the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf and Taiwan, which share borders with the opponents of the United States or are in close proximity to them. The United States will continue to arm these partners, but will no longer plan to defend them …
Outside of these partnerships, all of Washington’s alliances and relationships, including NATO and its ties to longtime allies such as South Korea, will be negotiable.The United States will no longer persuade countries to participate in multilateral alliances. Instead, other countries would have to negotiate bilaterally on US protection and market access. Countries that have little to offer will have to look for new partners or take care of themselves.
What will happen to the world if the United States fully embraces this “America First” vision? Some analysts paint disastrous pictures. Robert Kagan envisions a return to the despotism, protectionism, and struggles of the 1930s, with China and Russia reprising the roles of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.Peter Zeyhan predicts a fierce struggle for security and resources in which Russia will invade its neighbors and East Asia will plunge into naval war …
Is it every man for himself?
Such a world would witness the return of great power mercantilism and new forms of imperialism. Powerful countries will once again try to ease their economic insecurity by creating exclusive economic zones where their firms can enjoy cheap and safe access to raw materials and large consumer markets.China is already beginning to do this through its Belt and Road Initiative, a network of infrastructure projects around the world; its Made in China 2025 policy to stimulate domestic production and consumption; and their attempts to create a closed, parallel Internet. If the United States follows this example, other countries will have to join the American or Chinese bloc, or create their own blocs. France may try to reassert its authority over its former African colonies.Russia can accelerate its efforts to unite the former Soviet republics into a regional union. Germany will increasingly have to look beyond Europe’s shrinking population to find buyers for its exports, and will also need to develop military capabilities to secure these vast new markets and supply lines.
China is already beginning to do this with its Belt and Road Initiative, a network of infrastructure projects around the world. Photo Ding Ting / Globallookpress
As great powers compete for economic areas, global governance will collapse.A geopolitical conflict would paralyze the UN, as it did during the Cold War. NATO could disintegrate as the United States moves to an electoral partnership. And the unfolding of the American security blanket over Europe could spell the end of the European Union, which is already plagued by deep divisions. The few arms control treaties that remain in force today may fade into the background as countries militarize to protect themselves.Efforts to tackle transnational issues like climate change, financial crises or pandemics will mimic the world’s confused response to COVID-19: as countries pile up, the World Health Organization echoes Chinese misinformation and the United States retreats into itself.
The resulting disorder would endanger the very existence of some states. Since 1945, the number of countries in the world has increased from 46 to nearly 200. Most of these new states, however, are weak and lack energy, resources, food, domestic markets, advanced technology, military power, or secured borders.According to research by political scientist Arjun Chowdhury, two-thirds of all countries today cannot provide basic services to their citizens without international assistance. In short, most countries are critically dependent on the post-war order, which has provided historically unprecedented access to international aid, markets, shipping and protection. Without such support, some countries would collapse or be conquered.
Further, the author states that such a path is not uncontested or inevitable.
But in order to maintain the current liberal order, the United States would have to show an unusually generous attitude towards its interests. They will have to subordinate the pursuit of national wealth and power to the general desire for international order. They will also need to redistribute wealth domestically to secure political support for liberal leadership abroad.
And Beckley himself does not seem to believe in this either.
Material about the true meaning of what is happening outside our country was provided by the Katekhon analytical group.
90,000 ANALYSIS-Sanctions strangled the shale revolution in the Russian Federation, despite benefits
By Olesya Astakhova, Reuters
MOSCOW, May 30 (Reuters) – Tax incentives failed to spur the production of hard-to-recover oil (TRIZ) in Russia, where the shale revolution is still seen as a myth : Western sanctions blocked companies from accessing technology and cheap loans, and instead of the rapid development of this segment of oil production expected by the authorities, there is only sluggish growth, industry analysts and experts say.
Drilling head in the drilling area of the Prirazlomnoye oil field. Tax breaks have failed to spur production of hard-to-recover oil (TRIZ) in Russia, where the shale revolution is still seen as a myth: Western sanctions have closed companies’ access to technology and cheap loans, and instead of the rapid development expected by the authorities, this segment of oil production is only showing sluggish growth, industry analysts say. and experts. REUTERS / Sergei Karpukhin / File Photo
Shale development, primarily in the United States, has reshaped the international oil market in recent years.Following the shale revolution in the early 2010s, US producers have become one of the world’s key suppliers of raw materials, increasing production by 10 percent from mid-2016 to 9.3 million barrels per day, close to levels in Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Meanwhile, according to experts, Russia will not be able to repeat the US experience in the coming years, despite the fact that “difficult” oil, according to the authorities, should in the future replace the decline in production at depleted fields in the main oil-producing region – Western Siberia.
According to Valery Nesterov from Sberbank CIB, Russia is far from such a significant depletion of traditional oil fields as in the United States, therefore Russian oil companies are in no hurry to invest in the development of TRIZ, and Western technological sanctions, which were introduced in 2014, are the main stumbling block for the development of this industry in the Russian Federation.
The Ministry of Energy predicted that the benefits provided by TRIZ would allow the Russian Federation to more than double the production of this type of oil by 2035, bringing it to 80 million tons per year, but so far the figures do not confirm the ministry’s optimism: the production of hard-to-recover oil in Russia increased by 4 , 4 million tons to 37 million tons compared to 2014, and in this figure the volume of unconventional oil, shale, is still negligible.
According to the State Commission for Mineral Reserves (GKZ), the current oil reserves in the Russian Federation are estimated at about 24 billion tons, while no more than 19 billion tons are profitable to extract. According to analysts, TRIZ accounts for about 5 billion tons of reserves.
Hard-to-recover oil reserves in the Russian Federation are subdivided into high-viscosity, ultra-low-permeable, such as the Tyumenskaya and Achimovskaya formations, gas cap zones and oil rims, depleted (depleted deposits), unconventional, having shale reservoirs – these include Bazhenovskaya, Domanikovskaya, Abalikovskaya, Khakadovskaya as well as fields remote from infrastructure and the shelf.
According to analysts, now the bulk of hard-to-recover oil in the Russian Federation falls on fields with low-permeability reservoirs, including the Tyumen suite, as well as areas with high-viscosity oil.
The total volume of oil production in the Russian Federation is growing steadily, having increased last year by 2 percent to 547.5 million tons or 11.2 million barrels per day.
ADJUSTMENT
Analysts believe that modernization of the tax system could spur the development of TRIZ.
“There is only one way out – to introduce tax on added income, this will allow taking into account costs directly, and already on its basis build additional adjustments to the system for TRIZ,” says Denis Borisov, director of the Moscow Oil and Gas Center EY.
According to him, in 2016, production with tax incentives yielded more than 180 million tons of oil – mainly from fields with high depletion, subsoil areas in remote regions, as well as deposits of the Tyumenskaya suite. In 2010, the volume of preferential production was slightly less than 100 million tons per year.
The Russian authorities expect that pilot projects with a new personal income tax will start working in 2018.
Head of the State Reserves Committee Igor Shuprov said at the specialized conference “Hard-to-Recover and Unconventional Reserves” that in order to effectively apply the benefits for TRIZ, it is necessary to link the term of their granting with the period when the field with hard-to-recover oil is prepared for commercial development.
IN SEARCH OF TECHNOLOGIES
According to a source in Surgutneftegaz, a company that is actively developing TRIZ, Western sanctions have thrown off the development of necessary technologies for Russian “difficult oil” by at least five to seven years.
Nesterov believes that Russia needs to create engineering consortia that would allow exchanging experience and pooling financial resources of companies in breakthrough technological areas.
“The banking system in the Russian Federation is set to support big business, while the shale revolution in the United States has occurred mainly thanks to small venture capital companies,” he notes.
In the hope of finding effective technologies for developing hard-to-recover oil, the Russian authorities in May appointed Gazpromneft as the operator of the national project, the development of which will help to significantly increase the production of this type of raw material by 2025.
Gazpromneft will test technologies at the Bazhenov deposit, the potential recoverable resources of which are about 760 million tons. Oilmen call its development “the second life” for West Siberian fields. Production at Bazhen now barely reaches 1 million tons per year, but thanks to the technologies developed, it will grow to 10 million tons by 2025, Gazpromneft hopes.
editor Alexander Ershov
New monetary revolution: Forex is dead – Newspaper.Ru
A year ago, I wrote an article about the 40th anniversary of the unnoticed monetary revolution – canceling the exchange of money for gold. Now we have to admit that we have not noticed another monetary revolution – already modern. It is critical to understanding contemporary economic dynamics. However, it always escapes the analysis and thereby distorts it, leading to false conclusions or misunderstandings.
Here’s the gist of the new monetary revolution: Forex is dead. There is no longer a free currency market.Today it is regulated by the world’s leading central banks.
Exchange rates ceased to be market ones, central banks began to manipulate them at any time period they needed – even short-term, even long-term. It is not noticeable from the outside – nothing has formally changed in the functioning of the Forex markets. But the inner essence of the relationship has changed completely. The foreign exchange market has become only an imitation of the market, a dummy, a toy.
New money revolution
Money is the greatest hoaxer in history.They turn everything upside down. If you or I have a lot of money, that’s good for us. If the state has a lot of money, it is bad for it, it leads to high inflation. The state differs from us in that it prints money – and this changes everything.
All monetary revolutions are initially invisible. This is how inflation began imperceptibly when the state was printing too much money. So, imperceptibly for a common man in the street, there was a refusal to exchange money for gold – first within states, and then in relations between states.So now, imperceptibly, there has been a transition to a new, today’s monetary system based on the voluntarism of central banks.
In fact, this is a tectonic shift in the world monetary system, in fact, a transition to a new one:
1. From 1946 to 1971, the Bretton Woods monetary system operated: all currencies are tied to the dollar, and the dollar to gold. It fell apart when US President Nixon refused to give gold in exchange for dollars. This was partly due to objective economic laws, and partly due to the selfishness of American monetary policy.The world did not immediately grasp the new situation and for a long time desperately grabbed hold of fixed rates before plunging into a new reality – floating exchange rates determined by the market.
2.From 1971 to 2008, the system of free floating of courses operated. Currency rates are not tied to anything, they are regulated by the market, supply and demand. The number of foreign exchange strategies of countries immediately increased sharply – from unilateral pegging of their currencies to the dollar to the formation of currency unions with agreements on the limits of fluctuations in exchange rates.My favorite currency construct is the European currency snake in the corridor. The most complex and meaningless construction, which collapsed under its weight. However, it is not useless, it is from this kind of currency arrangements that today’s euro arose. Many developing countries have developed a taste for undervaluation of their currencies to accelerate economic growth. Others found themselves in a situation of uncontrolled strengthening of their currencies under the influence of the “Dutch disease”, or, as they say, the “resource curse”.
3.Since 2008 – manipulative currency system . With the onset of the crisis, market regulation of the exchange rates of the leading currencies became more and more under the control of central banks and today it is completely under it.
Externally, exchange rates remained market rates, but in essence they became deliberately regulated (manipulated). In fact, this is a return to the Bretton Woods system of fixed courses in a new, modern edition. Exchange rates are again under the control of states.
Rates are not formally fixed by states, but central banks have their own target levels for these rates. Naturally, for the United States and other countries, these levels are different for the same currency pairs and are the subject of public or private “bargaining” by central banks, the result of a “tug-of-war”.
From the point of view of economic theory, it looks like this. There is an “impossible trinity”: open capital markets, exchange rate management, and monetary policy freedom / autonomy.It is possible to control any two of these elements at the same time, the third turns out to be dependent, predetermined by the control of the selected elements.
1. The Bretton Woods system is based on open markets and fixed rates. The domestic monetary policy of the participating countries found itself in a rather rigid framework, in fact, it did not have an independent content.
2. The system of floating exchange rates meant a paradig shift: open markets and independence of monetary policy. And the exchange rates – well, such as they were.This did not fit into the heads of the leaders of the countries of the world (and indeed the situation was not desired, but forced), and they all the time tried to impose restrictions on the dynamics of exchange rates in order to avoid strong fluctuations. Which, naturally, led to restrictions in monetary policy.
3. Today’s new stage – again a paradigm change. Open capital markets remained. It is sacred and unchanging. But now an attempt is being made to jointly regulate and control exchange rates and monetary policy as a whole, perceiving them “in one bottle”.This is a kind of synthesis of the two previous currency systems. And a significant modification, complication of the principles of the “impossible trinity”.
How does it work?
Central banks of the world behind the market
Regulation of foreign exchange markets is carried out through bilateral agreements on mutual exchange of currencies and access to liquid funds (swap lines) of the FRS with central banks of other key countries for Forex – Europe, England, Japan, Switzerland and Canada. This is a mechanism for manipulating market rates of currencies hidden from the eyes and public control.Roughly speaking, central banks do whatever they want with exchange rates without asking anyone about it.
One could even say that a single central bank of the world emerged, if not for the affairs of the central banks were not torn apart by contradictions – both each in its internal economic policy, and among themselves.
Earlier, if any commercial bank decided to convert euros into dollars, it went to the market and bought dollars. Accordingly, when the majority did it – the demand for dollars increased, the dollar grew, the euro fell.This connection has now been severed. Now, if Eurobanks need dollars, they do not go to the market, but go to the ECB. He “prints” euros, sends them to the Fed, receiving the required amount of dollars in return, and gives loans to Eurobanks directly in dollars. Such transactions do not have any influence on the market, the dollar no longer grows, the euro does not fall. Central bank swap lines are market sterile. And they sterilize the market. The ECB (as well as the Bank of Japan and others according to the list) actually becomes the issuer of not only euros, but also dollars.He himself sets limits on the emission of the dollar and thereby determines the situation in Forex and the dynamics of the euro / dollar rate.
In 2008, the Fed had to do something to contain the sharp strengthening of the dollar. Then, in three or four months, he jumped to the euro by 30 cents at once: from 1.6 to less than 1.3 dollars per euro. This was unexpected and extremely unpleasant for the United States. After all, this path of devaluation (from 1.3 to 1.6), the dollar went 4.5 years before, and lost literally in three months. Then swap lines were introduced by the Fed as a limited phenomenon – in time (from April to October 30, 2009) and volumes (only $ 290 billion with four central banks).The growth of the dollar was stopped and even sent back – by November 2009 it bounced to 1.5. The Fed quietly (so no one could hear) celebrated the victory.
But we didn’t have to celebrate for a long time – the effect of the swap lines ended, and the dollar began to grow again. In the first half of 2010, it rose again to 1.2 against the euro. In May 2010, the Fed and the central banks of four countries resumed the swap line mechanism. And the dollar began to fall again. In the spring of 2011, the dollar again reached almost 1.5. In December, they extended the swap line mechanism for another six months, and in the summer of 2011 for another year.Since then, they have been in effect constantly, and all restrictions have been lifted – in terms of volumes, timing, the Central Bank of Canada has joined, all mutual swap lines between any central banks are allowed, etc.
But the third time, the swap mechanic for the dollar did not work. In the last year and a half, currency dynamics have generally slowed down significantly. It took a year to return to 1.2, then a sluggish rebound by 1.3, and since mid-autumn 2012 there has been a new strengthening of the dollar, again very slow.
Monetary policy
Of course, the question is not only about maintaining the mechanism for the transfer of dollars to Europe.In the end, this is only a channel, it is important whether it is full. And its content depends not only on the Fed, but also on the recipient of dollars – the ECB. The content and power of cash flows through swap lines is in the monetary policy of the respective countries. The dollar fell twice when the swap mechanism was enabled. And both times it coincided with American QE – money pumping. And for the third time, the swap mechanism was not turned off, but its work is taking place against the background of a stable balance sheet of the FRS with the active monetary pumping of the European banking system with the euro by the ECB.Naturally, the euro falls, the dollar rises.
The Fed has now announced its third round of QE. But the money on it will begin to flow to banks only now, at the end of November – December. Undoubtedly, there is every chance that this will weaken the dollar a little and lift the euro. If the ECB does not give an adequate answer.
This is how the internal monetary policy determines the exchange rate. But central banks are well aware of the exchange rate implications of their monetary policy. And it cannot be said that they do not show any interest in the level of the exchange rate of their currency.They cannot but take into account the impact of exchange rate dynamics on the economy. What is it, this is the opposite effect of the course?
EUR / USD: tug of war
If the foreign exchange market today is a hidden manipulation of central banks, then what do central banks want from exchange rates?
There is a fundamental contradiction in the monetary policy of any country. Changes in the national currency exchange rate lead to opposite changes in the current balance (primarily foreign trade) and the balance of capital.
The depreciation of the national currency is beneficial for the current balance and GDP growth (exports are growing, imports are falling), but not beneficial for the balance of capital (capitals run away because the exchange rate falls and speculators incur currency losses). And vice versa. Actions in the market for goods and capital are almost always opposite.
In the last year and a half, the euro has been slowly falling. This stimulates the outflow of capital in the dollar. The debt problems of European countries are also operating in the same direction. Capital flight itself exacerbates debt problems.This is a positive feedback – the more, the more. Europe tore it apart with great difficulty; it managed to “freeze” the situation by keeping it long enough. Just enduring it. As a result, the euro falls, but inconsistently and slowly, and capitals have ceased to “run away”. Europe got what it wanted and is now very afraid of sudden movements that could resume capital flight and exacerbate debt problems.
In my opinion, this is an understandable, but perhaps the most disadvantageous strategy for Europe.That’s why:
– even if the capital flight has stopped, the threat of a renewed leak persists constantly, and this does not allow Europe’s debt problems to calm down, “dissolve”. They are always on their toes anyway;
– fighting the debt crisis leads to cuts in budget spending, which leads to a decline in GDP. All this year in Europe there is a crisis, the production of GDP is falling, the level of unemployment is growing. This reduces budget revenues and leads to an aggravation of debt problems.
In my opinion, it would be more effective to sharply drop the euro to the 1: 1 level with the dollar for a short time (say, two to three months), and then slowly strengthen it.
The fall of the euro would give Europe benefits in trade with the United States and China (and Russia, by the way), a significant impetus to the real sector of the economy, and a way out of the crisis. After these two or three nervous months, the capital flight would definitely have stopped, because in the future, not a decline, but an increase in the euro, would be predicted. The debt problem would have been removed from the agenda for a fairly long time.
Europe, perhaps, would like to devalue the euro and get out of the crisis – but it cannot. Europe is not like that.In principle, it is not ready for radical decisions – already only because of the existing bureaucratic decision-making procedure (approval by dozens of countries). Therefore, Europe very slowly and inconsistently cuts the tail of the dog in small pieces, shedding tears of pity – it devalues the euro and cuts its own budgets, forcing the southern countries to cut budgets. By sacrificing GDP and employment. And endures, endures …
The interest of Europe in the fall of the euro is contradictory in itself: it wants to and pricks.But there is still the US interest in the same course. But the US interest is also contradictory. After all, this is a country not just with two deficits, but with two colossal deficits – foreign trade and budget.
On the one hand, the US needs a devaluation of the dollar to reduce its foreign trade deficit. True, the main trading partner of the United States is China, which keeps the yuan pegged to the dollar, and the devaluation of the dollar will help little here (after all, the yuan is automatically devalued along with the dollar, and nothing will change).The United States has to publicly press hard on China in order to push it to at least a slight strengthening of the yuan against the dollar. Still, a devaluation of the dollar would give the United States an advantage in trade with Europe and other countries (including oil imports), which means it would stimulate production in the United States.
On the other hand, the US has a huge second deficit – the budget. Capital is needed to finance it. Otherwise, you will have to borrow at a large percentage. A simple way out of the problem “how to keep a small interest on the public debt and a large amount of its financing” is the strengthening of the dollar, which will give an inflow of foreign capital, receiving a double benefit (from the interest on government securities and from the exchange rate difference, the strengthening of the dollar, thus, compensates for the interest on government securities).
Two deficits – two opposite monetary policies. How to be?
However, today everything is simpler, there is no such dilemma. The United States does not have any problems with financing the budget deficit, and the inflow of external capital is not yet needed for this. The redistribution of domestic capital is quite enough. A slowdown in stock market growth and a halt in the growth of commodity futures mean that these areas are no longer as profitable for business. The constant talk about the crisis is forcing businesses to invest more and more capital in risk-free instruments – and there is nothing better than US government securities.Today, the United States manages to finance its colossal trillion dollar deficits from domestic, American sources and at record low interest rates. And this policy is far from being exhausted.
Therefore, the current US interest is in the devaluation of the dollar. And it comes into direct conflict with the interests of Europe. The tug of war begins. The US has powerful tools in its arsenal – QE-3, American banks can always aggravate the problems of financing the sovereign debts of the most vulnerable countries of Europe, and the American media are always ready to launch a new round of discussion of the collapse of the euro zone, who will be the first to leave it, why Germany urgently needs to flee from it etc.p. It is necessary – we will launch QE-3 to weaken the dollar; it is necessary – we will exacerbate the debt problems of Europe to strengthen the dollar (as soon as the United States needs external capital to finance its budget deficit).
Egg or chicken? Eat both
In the currency systems of the last half century, one thing has remained unchanged – these are open economies, avoidance of trade wars and protectionism, free movement of capital. And the center of gravity in the other two elements of the “impossible trinity” changes.At first, these were fixed rates and no freedom of monetary policy. Then – the other way around. Now we have clearly come to a synthesis, a joint accounting of the impact of monetary and exchange rate policy on the economy.
Now there is no need to argue that it used to be an egg or a chicken, now everyone understands that an egg is from a chicken, but also a chicken is from an egg. This is a serious complication of economic management, its new level. It is the ability to think one step further. And that’s okay.
The practice of economic management here clearly bypassed theory.And that’s okay for the social sciences, too. After all, science studies facts, not assumptions. Facts and new patterns must first arise in order for them to be studied. The social sciences will always lag behind social practice.
It is unrealistic to predict future patterns – social systems are too complex. There may be many such predictions, but only one will come true – and then in some unexpected form. Exact sciences deal with the same repeating patterns and can test them in repeated experiments.The social sciences deal with a changing and ever more complex system in which new relationships regularly arise and it is impossible to put “pure experience” for any proof.
Therefore, the general public (and even science) has not yet realized that the foreign exchange market today is a manipulation of central banks and an imitation of the real market. Exchange rates are now, in contrast to the past 40 years, included in the arsenal of economic policy instruments of the leading countries of the world. Now they are the “secret weapon” in the struggle of the world’s central banks for the well-being of their economies.They are the object of manipulation by the central banks of the leading countries of the world with hidden motives that are not always clear to outsiders. And outsiders are all here – except for the central bankers themselves. A sort of fight of bulldogs under the carpet.
Over the past 40 years, only a few Asian countries (they are also called “tigers” or “dragons”) have clearly manipulated exchange rates, which have undervalued their currencies to accelerate economic growth. And the rich countries turned a blind eye to this, because they were satisfied with this situation – they received goods from these countries (for imports) at a price that was lowered due to exchange rates and increased the welfare of their citizens.
With the advent of the 2008 crisis, the situation has changed. Rich countries needed everything at once – cheap imported goods and expensive jobs for their citizens. And this, it turns out, is poorly compatible. Currency contradictions between rich and fast-growing countries have exacerbated. But now everyone is involved in the currency games. The rich countries even wage among themselves invisible to the world, but very intense currency wars, arrange “psychic attacks” on exchange rates, secret subversive actions through commercial banks, call on others to solidarity, leading a very selfish policy of their own, etc.d.
This is a genie released from a bottle. You can’t drive him back. If I have learned to finely manage a complex system – why would I go back to simple but crude recipes? Especially if the enemy is not going to give up the advantages that the new level of control gives.
Currency wars return. While secretly and unnoticed. But more and more confident and public. How else can you understand the US attacks on the Chinese yuan or the Swiss franc peg to the euro? American media attacks on the eurozone? So far, these are unilateral, less often bilateral actions.But it is quite possible that soon we will see new agreements on mutual “corridors” of currency fluctuations – both bilateral and multilateral. Already, it would seem, forgotten, gone into the past practice can return. But not simply in the form of coordinating exchange rate policy. And with the use of exchange rate policy for the actual coordination by countries of their monetary and partly budgetary policies. The world is constantly becoming more complex and shows us the bright colors of a new round of the spiral, a kind of currency regulation in a retro style, but with new content.
90,000 Eni CEO: World oil prices will decline for several more years
World oil prices will decline over the next few years, Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Italian oil and gas company Eni, told the Financial Times. Until another boom occurs in the global economy, sluggish demand and, at the same time, new oil supplies to the market over the next 2-5 years “will cause oil prices to decline rather than rise,” Scaroni said.
Scaroni’s expectations are based on the changing balance of power in the global energy market.The shale revolution in the United States has caused a decline in oil and gas production: Henry Hub prices for shale gas are $ 4 per million British thermal units (BTU), for LNG imported into Asia – $ 15 per 1 million BTU, and for American oil (in energy equivalent) – $ 16.
The low price of US gas has spurred transportation companies to use compressed gas for trucks, trains and public transport. Even if the price of shale gas rises, it will still be more profitable for producers than oil-based fuels, Scaroni said.”If the price of shale gas rises to $ 5 or $ 6 per 1 million BTU with an oil price of about $ 90, then producers will inevitably switch most of the transport to gas fuel. And this, of course, will affect the price of oil,” he says.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is also expecting a decline in oil prices, including due to the rapid growth of production in North America. According to the agency’s May report, US oil production in 2012 increased by 12% to 9.11 million barrels per day (for comparison, in Russia and Saudi Arabia the growth rates were 1.2% and 5.9%, respectively).At this rate, the United States will become the largest oil producer by 2020 (IEA forecast).
There is a danger of overproduction of oil, which will eventually cause prices to fall, Anita Sen from Energy Aspects told Vedomosti earlier. According to the IEA forecast, the average price of a barrel of Brent oil in 2013 will amount to $ 109, by 2015 it will fall to $ 100 and to $ 95 in 2018. The oil price will gradually decline, agrees Valery Nesterov, an analyst at Sberbank CIB. He expects the average Brent price to be $ 105 in 2013., and by 2018 it will decrease to $ 93.
“Falling oil prices and a weak world economy will also affect gas prices,” Nesterov said. “In European markets, the gas price will be more or less stable, until 2016 its growth will not exceed a few percent.” In the United States, if large-scale LNG exports are organized, domestic prices will rise significantly due to an increase in external and domestic demand, he said. Then by 2020 the price of shale gas will rise to $ 6-7 per 1 million BTU.
There is no need to wait for a boom in the global economy: if the US GDP in the first quarter of 2013 isgrew by 0.6% in quarterly terms, the last time the eurozone’s GDP grew in the III quarter of 2011 (in the first quarter of 2013 the indicator decreased by 0.2% compared to the previous quarter). According to the forecast of the European Commission, the Eurozone GDP will return to growth in 2014 (the indicator will increase by 1.4%).
Oil companies will have to find a way out. For example, Eni is going to invest in Asia, Africa, mainly in Egypt, Libya, Algeria, despite the fact that these countries are extremely unstable due to the consequences of the “Arab spring”, said Scaroni.But the main regions for Eni’s development will be Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar and Pakistan. “These are the most favorable countries for our development,” says Scaroni. “Yes, it is not easy to work there, these are investments that require a lot of management skill. However, they are usually more profitable.”
DeathToBurger Investor Profile | Tinkoff Investments Pulse
Today we are going to talk about a typical Chinese hater who is sitting in the Pulse newspaper, putting dislikes on the Party record and writing a lot of nasty lies and provocations.The modern generation of burger children show a lot of disrespect to Comrade Xi and the China Party. They think that they can go unpunished and be able to pour their brown liquid from the anus anywhere. Make a lot of mistakes.
– Start with age. A typical hater, not older than 10 years old, he is sitting in the Tinkov Piggy Bank and wasting the Yuan that mom gives for breakfast. After school, he quickly ran into the computer and wrote a bunch of burps in a comment. Laugh at your own humor until 23:00, and then cry into your pillow from the injustice of fate and helplessness.And so every day. On weekends, shoot a lot of tik-tok with popular music, dance, drink Coca-Cola and masturbate.
– How to dress and look like a hater in Newspaper Pulse? Wear the most popular gear, which you can get in “Second Hand” (Second Hand), and not in $ VIPS, wear socks with an image of a flaccid pod and a T-shirt “Sperme” (Supreme for a better understanding of Ivan) and make a 666 tattoo on an eyebrow, repeat the style for his idol is the Square Head Morgen Shket (not to be confused with Jack Ma from $ BABA). To sum up, look like a typical Can (rooster).If you meet such a child on the street, you immediately want to stretch out a little Yuan, because you feel sorry for the teenager.
– Hayter be smart? In school, do not study the precepts of Mao and thick hair Xi, because Ai Qi fluctuate around 10 points. Know letters, but not understand how to turn them into words. I don’t know how to speak yet, but saliva is giving my respect.
– How is hater China on the stock exchange? He entered the stock market and on the very first day received a margin call on $ SPCE and $ TAL, for which he received an anus from a simple father Ivan from the city of Tver.- Have a jade rod? Lots of laughter, the flaccid pod has not even begun its opening yet. Look at Comrade Xi with pity and try to compensate for your physiological problem with anger and aggression.
How does the Party fight the juvenile crow? Introduce a quick response system into the commentary, which will split the hater into a molecule and teleport it to the sanatorium.
Each dislike is punished according to the severity of the law of the great power of China. Ma’s square head still can’t recover from swearing with the regulator.Criticism should be positive, not negative. Everything else = no bowl of rice, social rating, cat wife. So we will win! HIT! 90,000 WHY CLOSED OPEN SKY? | Foreign and Defense Policy Council
Alexey Arbatov, Alexander Golts and Yuri Kobaladze
Radio station “Echo of Moscow”
The contract is valid. There are 34 states in the treaty. Only USA left
Yu. Kobaladze – Hello. This is indeed the program “In the Circle of Light”.Unfortunately, I didn’t take it with me, I lost the habit of broadcasting. But I remember from memory. I would like to introduce my guests. Alexey Arbatov, Director of the Center for International Security, IMEMO RAN; and Alexander Golts, Military Observer, Deputy. editor-in-chief of “Daily Journal”. I invited you to the program, because this week, in my opinion, a significant event took place. One of the last bastions of American-Russian friendship has collapsed. The Americans withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty. How many of you will briefly tell what kind of contract it is, whether we need it.Why did the Americans come out, who is to blame. And what will happen next.
A. Arbatov – For a short story, this is a long list of questions. Maybe Alexander will start.
A. Golts – Very short. The contract was signed in 1992. To my mind. He entered into action in 1993. But for the first time, Eisenhower came up with the initiative of this treaty at a meeting with Khrushchev in 1955. This agreement is an important element of mutual trust. To demonstrate to the other party that you are not planning anything.Do not concentrate troops, do not engage in dangerous military activities. You allow this side to periodically fly around those areas that it considers important and necessary for itself. For the purpose of conducting reconnaissance. Khrushchev, of course, rejected this idea.
Yu. Kobaladze – Why?
A. Golts – This is a separate wonderful story. How painfully the Soviet leaders perceived any attempt to conduct some kind of inspection on their territory. In 1963, literally two meters away, they stopped to sign a treaty on the universal test ban of nuclear weapons.The Americans asked for 8 inspections. And Khrushchev insisted on 2. And when the Americans tried to bargain, he took it as an insult. He said that you can’t stop spying. And in the end, only a three-medium nonproliferation treaty came out. Khrushchev rejected Eisenhower’s idea. And they returned to it only in the early 90s at the suggestion of Bush the elder. And already in a completely different atmosphere, this agreement was approved. This treaty is, of course, not the cornerstone of the entire system of mutual trust, in my opinion, at least.This is one of the important elements of the wide network of treaties that has been created over 50 years and has so successfully begun to be destroyed by both parties. First of all, the American side. In recent years 20.
Yu. Kobaladze – But, as far as I understand, there was a good contract. Stabilized the situation. The more we knew about each other, the better. Who is to blame for this happening?
A. Golts – Of course, in my opinion …
Yu. Kobaladze – But mutual claims are clear that the Americans …
A.Goltz -… on the American administration, because the concept of the Trump administration does not bind itself to any agreements that impose any obligations on the American side. Frankly speaking, in my opinion, we helped a little in this sense. Because in recent years, for reasons I do not understand, our planes began to fly over Washington, over the White House, which, of course, every time was the basis for statements to Congress, requests, and so on. And even over the golf course where Mr Trump played.There was no military sense in this.
Yu. Kobaladze – What was the point? We just responded to the actions of the Americans?
A. Golts – We are so cool. We can fly over Trump. Well, what a military sense is that from time to time our combat aircraft simulate an attack on an American aircraft carrier. None.
Yu. Kobaladze – Alexey, what would you add.
A. Arbatov – This agreement is really very important. Was important. But I hope that maybe it will still be possible to preserve it.34 countries participated in this agreement. It involves flights on request, every year a flight schedule is fixed. Each country can apply for flights over another country that is a member of this treaty. It came into force in 2002. Since then, one and a half thousand mutual overflights have been carried out. The route is fixed, the altitude is determined, all the equipment that was allowed to be on the plane is very carefully calibrated. And infrared, and photographic equipment and even radar. Moreover, the planes always fly accompanied by representatives of the country they are flying around.So that these representatives can confirm that all activities fit strictly within the framework allowed by this agreement. This is a huge contract, there is a very large technical part, where the smallest technical organizational details are stipulated.
Yu. Kobaladze – That is, a US representative was sitting in the plane flying around the golf course.
A. Arbatov – Of course, just as they fly over us – our representatives are always sitting. And when they fly over Europe. Canada is an absolutely strict rule.Another thing is that a representative cannot take the helm and turn the plane in the other direction. He only makes sure that the activities carried out by the plane fit into the provisions of the agreement. There is such a rule: how much you book flights to those countries, you accept as much. This kind of parity is observed here. The question is asked: why fly over each other, when there are satellites that freely, continuously fly over the territory of almost all countries of the world. Satellites revolve in orbits around the earth, fly over the entire water and land space.The fact is that when a satellite is in orbit, it can fly strictly in accordance with the laws of cosmic mechanics, which were determined by Kepler and Newton for another 300 years. He cannot deviate arbitrarily from the course. He can slightly adjust the trajectory. But he is limited in this regard. Cloud cover often interferes with the photography that the satellite seeks to take. The aircraft is free to change its route in accordance with the application. He can fly under the clouds, he takes more detailed photography.He can return to the place next time ordered by the ordering party. Therefore, the aircraft has an advantage over the satellite in this sense. Why do you need a contract at all. Not abstract for trust. There is no abstract trust in these matters. Specific measures of transparency, transparency that ensure security. Alexander said because a concentration of troops nearby … could be detected and an inquiry could be made. In 1941, in June, Hitler’s Germany attacked the Soviet Union.Concentrated 200 divisions.
Yu. Kobaladze – Then we did not have a flyby.
A. Arbatov – Stalin received continuous reports. He did not believe in any reports. The result was a disaster. Here the Open Skies treaty suggests that this cannot be now, since the treaty is in effect.
Yu. Kobaladze – Now it is no longer active.
A. Arbatov – USA left. The contract is valid. There are 34 states in the treaty. Only the USA came out.
Yu.Kobaladze – You think these 34 European states will put pressure on the United States.
A. Arbatov – Well, first of all, Biden promised that he would return to this agreement. Another question is what to ratify again, if he re-signs it again and returns, there may be problems in the Senate. Because all mutual claims will emerge here. Sasha said about flying over the golf course. I think this is such a military courage, which is very much in the style of our modern diplomacy and military activity. They think this is reasonable.But this is happening. On the other side, there are also such elements of courage. Just today, an American destroyer came in. This agreement, it did not hang in the air. As Sasha said correctly. It was concluded in 1992, following the conclusion of a huge fundamental treaty on the reduction of armaments and armed forces in Europe. Which implied a radical agreement between heavy offensive military equipment and ground forces and aviation. Withdrawal of troops far from the line of contact. That is, in fact, he eliminated the possibility of hostilities between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.This Open Skies treaty was signed two years later and, among other things, assumed not only the prevention of a surprise attack, but also control over the observance of this huge treaty. According to which tens of thousands of units of military equipment were either withdrawn or redeployed. Or eliminated. This was its very important function. And the third treaty, which is linked to this in a kind of package, is the Vienna Document. About the measures of transparency and trust, which has been in place for several decades and its last version, the most ambitious, refers to 2011, which involves inviting representatives of other countries to military exercises.Which implies restrictions on the size of both personnel and military equipment for those exercises that can be carried out …
Yu. Kobaladze – Now this whole complex will collapse or only one part is confiscated.
A. Arbatov – Almost all of them collapsed. Because Russia suspended its participation in the treaty on the reduction of conventional armed forces and armaments in 2007. In 2015, it was finally suspended. There is no such agreement. He died. Killed. It is not being respected. Open Skies Treaty – Now the Americans are out.The treaty is not dead yet, there are 33 countries left that remain, including Canada. And then there is an agreement – the Vienna Document, on the transparency of military activities. It is not very well executed. He actually leaves too. A package of three treaties, which recorded the absence of hostile intentions, transparency, predictability, in fact, if the Open Skies treaty cannot be saved, this entire package will perish. In Europe, above all, there will be no more military intelligence measures. There will be no measures left. Although the Open Skies treaty is unlimited in Europe.It covers the entire territory of the United States, Canada, Russia, in fact, from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It is global, one might say, for the northern hemisphere.
Yu. Kobaladze – That is one hope for Biden.
A. Arbatov – Hope for Biden and More. Because Russia has a position, Alexander said that there were mutual claims. I do not think that Russia is right in everything. But there are also objective reasons. For example, in 2008 there was a five-day war in South Ossetia. After her, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.As with these two formations. They were part of Georgia. Russia could fly over them. Now these are two independent state entities that are not members of this treaty. Georgia immediately denied Russia the right to fly over its territory. And Russia has closed a 10-kilometer zone along the border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Because she didn’t want NATO states to fly over these territories, which became independent, where there are Russian military bases. Here’s one example. Another example is Crimea.year 2014. Crimea seceded, joined Russia. How to fly over it. And of course, the West would like to fly there. Often. Because Russia’s military presence is growing there. Both rockets and ground forces. Aviation. Fleet. But they can only fly over the area when accompanied by Russian observers. Because this is an Open Skies contract procedure. This means that they recognized that Crimea is part of Russian territory. This is an insurmountable obstacle for them. Here’s another example for you – Kaliningrad.Russia limited flights at one time, and Russia’s military presence is also increasing. The West was extremely unhappy with this. The Americans closed some areas of Alaska and Hawaii to flights. Here mutual claims begin. First of all, they took place with the Americans. But in order to save the treaty, these problems will have to be solved. Biden won’t be able to bring it back into action with a stroke of the pen. It will be necessary to solve all the problems. And Russia in this sense has now taken a quite reasonable position. Russia has declared that we are ready to remain in this treaty, despite the withdrawal of the United States from it.Under two conditions. The first is that NATO countries that will fly over Russian territory will not transmit this information to the Americans.
Yu. Kobaladze – How can we control this?
A. Arbatov – This can be controlled, appropriate procedures must be developed so that these materials will not be transferred to the Americans. This is our condition. And second, that Russia, which will fly over the territory of NATO countries, will have the right, including to fly over American objects and installations.
Yu. Kobaladze – Located on the territory of …
A. Arbatov – In Europe. Some say why we need this treaty, since we will not be able to fly over the United States. This is a completely unfounded argument. Because even before that, almost 90% of our flights were carried out over Europe for obvious reasons. It’s close to us. And only 10% over America, the golf course, or the Pentagon. It would be important for us to preserve this treaty, since the military situation in Europe is important to us. Including the deployment of new weapons and military facilities there.
Yu. Kobaladze – Alexey, Sasha is bored with us. Are you also pessimistic?
A. Golts – He said that he would say briefly. I didn’t say that.
Yu. Kobaladze – Now only Sasha will speak the second part of the program.
A. Golts – This is how Alexei fully disclosed the situation. I can say that, in my opinion, Russia’s demand is hardly feasible in this sense. Especially the requirement not to transfer …
Yu. Kobaladze – It’s just how to control.
A. Golts – There is a NATO intelligence committee and we know it well, and within the framework of interaction in this committee, of course, there is an exchange of information. Let it not be written: the data obtained as a result of the flight, but by regularly exchanging certain data, of course, this data will be available to the Americans. Sad. I would also add that, of course, this treaty was an important element of a large system that has ceased to exist. As Alexey rightly noted. Until the last moment, the fate that awaits the main treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms is unclear.But, God forbid, if the fate of the Open Skies Treaty befalls it, we will find ourselves in a situation or almost the same situation as it was on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The presence of nuclear and other weapons in the two states and the complete absence of an arms control system and measures of mutual confidence. Here we find ourselves in this situation, and it looks rather sad in my opinion.
Yu. Kobaladze – Good. The first part of the program is coming to an end. We are discussing a US withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty.Although not only this, but the whole complex associated with this. We’ll be back in the studio in a couple of minutes.
NEWS
Yu. Kobaladze – We returned to the studio. The program “In the Circle of Light”. Today without Svetlana Sorokina, I am her host – Yuri Kobaladze. The first part was very sad and disturbing. Maybe we will start the second part with something positive. Something remained that gives hope for moving forward, the search for some kind of compromise. Or everything is so sad and other agreements and agreements will fall behind the Open Sky.
A. Golts – I must say that there are not very many others left.
Yu. Kobaladze – What is left?
A. Golts – There is a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which, due to the specific attitude of the leading nuclear powers to their obligation to renounce nuclear weapons in the future, is also experiencing great difficulties. There are a few other remaining treaties. All this is pouring in without a clear understanding by Washington and Moscow of the prospects and the desire of both capitals to engage in measures of mutual trust and arms control.The Trump administration has not expressed any enthusiasm for this. She very consistently led the case to the complete elimination of agreements that demanded at least something from the Americans in this area. Russia also helped Trump, which periodically reported that it now possesses new types of weapons that no one else has. It would be nice if someone explained to me this logical somersault, when in the same speech the head of our state says that for the first time in history we have a weapon, in this case a hypersonic one, which no one else has.And in the same speech, he says that we will not allow ourselves to be drawn into the arms race. This is how it is. To declare that we are leading the arms race and at the same time declare that we will not allow ourselves to be drawn into it. Perhaps there is a logic in this, which, alas, is incomprehensible to me. Therefore, many disagree with me on this, but I believe that Russia has entered the period of the Cold War, you can call it whatever you like, you can call it a new period of confrontation. Not in terms of business. And the fact is that we really put ourselves in a situation of military confrontation with the West in general and with the United States in particular.And it is extremely important during this period to have at least some agreements, firstly, and, secondly, the day before yesterday it was necessary to begin broad negotiations. In recent months, some sporadic, lasting 2-3 days and monthly contacts, consultations between the US and Russia on this issue have begun. Thank God they started. But this is extremely insufficient. And yet, if we talk about the positive, then the positive is that there is hope that, after all, the Biden administration, which is quite critical of Russia, will at the same time show a rational approach, a traditional approach even after its arrival in Bely house, normal contacts typical for the period of 70-80s, consultations, negotiations between Moscow and Washington on control over nuclear weapons will begin.
Yu. Kobaladze – But Aleksey and I, as veterans of the Cold War, remember that there were periods when the spring was practically compressed to the limit, and then detente began. They looked for some kind of compromise and reached agreements.
A. Golts – Yuri, first of all, why did you cross me out …
Yu. Kobaladze – You are a certain number of years younger than us.
A. Golts – How much?
Yu. Kobaladze – 15.
years
A. Golts – I observed the same thing in the editorial office of the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.
Yu. Kobaladze – You were also on the cutting edge. Instead of thanking me for removing you from the veteran ranks, you criticized me. In fact, there really were periods when everything was bad, and then the arrival of Gorbachev and the arrival of Reagan somehow recovered. They have already ceased to be an empire of evil and entered into some kind of new breakthrough agreements. Maybe this will happen now?
A. Goltz – Even in the worst periods, consultations, contacts, negotiations that took place in Geneva continued.And it so happened in our country that after the signing of the last treaty on strategic offensive arms, START in 2010, the Prague Treaty. There have been no negotiations for 10 years.
Yu. Kobaladze – And they say that the culture of negotiation has been lost. There are no specialists. The ten-year break has led to the fact that there is no one to talk to. Is it true or not?
A. Arbatov – From our side there are specialists in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we must pay tribute, there and at the level of deputy. The minister has very strong people and the whole administration has been preserved.Another thing is that they were not in a very cheerful mood all these years. Because they weren’t involved. But in America, yes, especially with the arrival of Trump, there is generally a desert in this administration, in the State Department and in the Pentagon. Someone else remained at the Pentagon. But in principle, all the specialists left. Now you have to re-dial. But, thank God, they have an academic community and public organizations. People will be found if there is a political will to continue this process. In the past, I agree with Alexander, for 50 years practically, starting from the 69th year, negotiations were ongoing.Another thing is that sometimes they were interrupted. Due to political crises. The introduction of troops into Afghanistan. At that time, the already signed very large and serious treaty on strategic offensive arms was not even ratified. Then the deployment of missiles in Europe was also interrupted. But not for long. Because the leaders of that time, both in Russia and in the United States, understood that this was something much more important than the current, even serious and dramatic disagreements. Because it is a question of preventing nuclear war.It is a matter of saving our civilization. That is, the logic of these people is often elderly, not even as literate as now, not so intelligent, not knowing foreign languages, but that generation understood that the prevention of nuclear war is above all other problems. Because all other problems, one way or another, will be solved, and then new ones will appear. A nuclear war will end everything.
Yu. Kobaladze – I see. You probably followed the election campaign in the States. Biden somehow showed his position on these issues.
A. Arbatov – He showed in his characteristic manner. Not very combative. Because his style is not the same as Trump’s. Trump has a very fighting style, but overwhelmingly negative. Biden is positive. Although rather sluggish, I would say. But he made a number of important statements. He repeated them over and over. First, he will renew the START III treaty as soon as the inauguration takes place. Second, he will return to a deal with Iran to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The Americans left it in the 18th year.By the way, Sash, this is the main problem now with the nonproliferation treaty. Not that the five nuclear powers, members of this treaty, are not fully fulfilling their obligations on nuclear disarmament under Article 6. And the fact that it was undermined by this act of the United States, because the deal with Iran was an essential element in strengthening the nonproliferation treaty. Biden promised to return to this deal. He promised to return to the Open Skies Treaty. Let’s see how much we can do. The current administration is quite positive.This can add some optimism to us. But, as always, there is a fly in the ointment in the ointment. Because on all other problems in our relationship, the Biden administration will take a tougher stance against Russia.
Yu. Kobaladze – If only this complex remained …
A. Arbatov – Both on human rights and on Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia. And, probably, in the future in Moldova. And across Syria. Will take a tougher stance than the Trump administration, which often took no position at all.And many of the problems just didn’t give a damn. Now, if it is possible, as in the old days, of the Cold War, to separate, isolate an important topic and not allow all other contradictions to constantly lead the negotiations off course, then we can hope to move forward. And I believe that with the advent of new technologies, with a change in the world order, when we no longer have two nuclear powers, but nine. Or maybe there will be more. The continuation of the arms control process is much more important to us now than during the Cold War.Otherwise, the world will turn into chaos, and when many players and many have nuclear weapons and no regulatory mechanisms, this is a direct path to disaster.
Yu. Kobaladze – Sash, what do you think?
A. Golts – I absolutely agree with Alexey. But I would also like to add that during that Cold War, these negotiations performed several additional very important functions. Since it was a practically permanent institution, it was an institution for the exchange of opinions. In critical situations on complex issues.Which sometimes went far beyond nuclear disarmament or strategic arms limitation. It is also very important, in my opinion, these negotiations, one way or another, I would venture to say: they civilized the Soviet side. Comrade General, you probably don’t know …
Yu. Kobaladze – You just turned to Arbatov.
A. Golts – No. This is for you. That the Soviet diplomats who were negotiating, they practically did not know for the entire period of the negotiations what they were agreeing on. Because the Soviet military believed that diplomats should not know anything about Soviet nuclear forces and weapons systems.There were absolutely paradoxical anecdotal situations. To move the talks forward, American diplomats gathered to brief their Soviet counterparts on the state of the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons. And then the senior general in the negotiations, and this was the future Chief of the General Staff N.V. Ogarkov, approached his American colleague and said …
Yu. Kobaladze – This is insulting.
A. Golts – No, why? You give them information that they shouldn’t have.
Yu. Kobaladze – That is, you have the right to know, but our colleagues from the Foreign Ministry do not.
A. Golts – No, and gradually, within the framework of these negotiations, we came to some more civilized view. It is as a result of this. As far as I understand, at some point in the US and Canada Institute a powerful group of experts was formed who could express a different point of view. Not only for nuclear negotiations, but also for the construction of the armed forces. What caused the furious rage of the Soviet military in the era of perestroika.This is what these negotiations ultimately led to. And I still understand that Alexei is absolutely right when he says that the gap in values is very large. But the fact that a common approach can be formed, a common understanding that this is what we need to preserve – these talks of this kind will become a bridge between Moscow and Washington.
Yu. Kobaladze – Finally, something positive.
A. Arbatov – I would like to add. This episode with Agarkov. It really took place. But this is at the first negotiations.When START-1, early 70s. Then the situation changed. I myself was a participant in these negotiations. According to START-1. And there were no such secrets, and the representatives of the Foreign Ministry and everyone else had all the information on the American intelligence forces, and on ours. Already such ridiculous situations did not arise. And about the interaction. Of course, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the course of the negotiations, when we were forced to the other side to disclose information about our most important forces and receive from them relevant information about American forces, it led to greater openness within the country.Because naturally … the veil was removed. And now even many people say that now there is a rollback, everything is closing again. Yes, there are, in my opinion, very wrong negative tendencies. But if you look at our press, press, professional press – there is a lot of information, for which in those days you would immediately go to jail. There is a lot of information in the open press. The only question is to choose from there, because there is too much of it. It must be evaluated and classified. So there is much more openness in our country now than in the days of Gorbachev.I’m not even talking about those earlier times. The situation has changed dramatically. Largely due to the interaction. And it must continue in order for this openness to be present. In a democratic society, people need to know a lot about their armed forces, because these armed forces are built out of their own pockets and for their safety. People, parliament have the right to know this. The press too.
Yu. Kobaladze – But the Europeans somehow reacted to the Americans leaving the Open Sky.Any statements?
A. Golts – Yes, there was a statement from the EU leaders, I remember the Swedish Foreign Ministry …
Yu. Kobaladze – That is, it was assessed negatively.
A. Golts – Yes, they did not evaluate it negatively, they expressed regret for everything. And they said they hope that sooner or later the Americans will return. It was six months ago when Pompeo first announced his intention to withdraw from the treaty.
Yu. Kobaladze – Just for Biden to cling to this …
A.Arbatov – Not only six months ago, recently, on the eve of the release, there were collective appeals from Europe to the United States. Don’t do this. Because it looks really ugly. It’s like Trump is not recognizing his victory right now and is playing for time. Here’s also one last thing to do something bad after all that he has done. It looks just terrifying. I wonder why many people here loved and still love Trump so much.
Yu. Kobaladze – This is also a mystery to me.
A.Arbatov – Although we don’t see anything good from him. And there are a lot of bad things.
Yu. Kobaladze – It’s true. But then there is hope, after all, by joint efforts we will unite with Europe and put pressure on the United States. Moreover, this is a good lead for Biden to start from scratch …
A. Goltz – It is possible that with the arrival of Biden, all these disputes will move to the Senate. Alexey is absolutely right, so he once again signs the Open Skies agreement. So with this we have to go and ratify the new one in the Senate.Where there are claims, Americans will be involved in very lengthy proceedings. I, frankly, have no idea how quickly they will have time to extend the START treaty. Because I came across an article by our experts, lawyers. They claim that it takes about a month and a half to renew the contract. And they will have a couple of weeks to extend START, so as not to go back to the Senate with him. For ratification.
A. Arbatov – There is no need to exaggerate these difficulties. For Americans, it’s just a stroke of the president’s pen.No need to ratify. This is just a presidential, what is called an executive order can be made. There is no need to exaggerate these difficulties of ours. If we adopted the amendments to the Constitution in two days, then if there is an instruction from above, this process can be accelerated and in any case if the Americans ratify, that is, if they make such a decision, we will also join it. Maybe even with a delay of a couple of weeks, but this will not play any role.
Yu. Kobaladze – That is, in principle, we are interested in preserving …
A.Arbatov – We are now talking about START-3. And indeed it is a load-bearing foundation. Because this is the main contract. Everything else wraps around him. Including the Open Skies Treaty. And this deal with Iran. And it may be possible to return to compliance with the treaty on medium-range missiles. Our last proposals in this sense are something completely new. When we named a specific system, we proposed on-site inspections in the Kaliningrad region. If we offer an on-site inspection there, of course, there will be no mention of any closure of the sky.By the way, we have already opened the sky over Kaliningrad. After some time ago they were restricted from flying. All this can then be revealed one by one. In a certain sequence. The main thing is to prolong START-3. And the main thing is not to delay saving what is left of the INF Treaty.
