Transatlantic History

The Nullifiers

2010-11-17T12:12:00.000-08:00

Revolutionary Williamsburg

2010-10-21T10:29:00.000-07:00

As a quick look inside what Colonial Williamsburg is doing right now to sharpen our understanding of the American Revolution, I humbly submit for your consideration a summary of a core aspect of the project--Revolutionary Williamsburg--and its component parts.

The Revolutionary Williamsburg endeavor is part of CW’s broader American Revolution web project, which is designed to provide the single most reliable and engaging Internet source on America’s founding conflict. Revolutionary Williamsburg is the dimension of the project that intends to personalize the revolutionary experience by focusing on Williamsburg then and now, whether in situating Williamsburg at the center of a revolutionary web in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world or in using the project as the center of a web that ties together the people who visit and work in the city today.

Revolutionary Williamsburg has two major collaborative components: 6 Degrees of Revolutionary Williamsburg and our five revolutionary themes. 6 Degrees of Revolutionary Williamsburg uses the surfeit of expertise that exists here today to recreate the myriad ties that bound Virginia to the revolutionary world through personal relationships, material goods, popular culture, political thought and other aspects of life in the eighteenth century. It is premised on the conceit that any place, person, or object in Williamsburg is within 6 degrees of separation from any of the major trends, figures, and events that transformed lives on both sides of the Atlantic in the revolutionary period. By plumbing the depths of these connections from the standpoint of our curators, tradespersons, interpreters, historians, and others, we hope to shape a fresh narrative of the American Revolution as a reflection of the experience of those who lived through it.

Our five revolutionary themes are collaborative subprojects intended to bring together experts and scholars across the Foundation to delve into particular facets of revolutionary life, each of which will have its own presence on the public site. They are:

Revolutionary City—This subproject will situate each scene in CW’s live, dramatic program in its historical context by connecting the stories and characters to the actual documents, objects, issues, and people who participated in them, just as visitors to the Historic Area can today.

Revolutionary Faiths—This subproject will examine religion as a crucial, and misunderstood, dimension of eighteenth-century life that provided a foundation for British American culture every bit as important to deistic Anglicans as it was to New Light Presbyterians and New England Congregationalists. It crossed racial, ethnic and gender lines, and infused political thought and behavior on all sides of the constitutional crisis that led to the War for Independence.

Revolutionary Fashion—This subproject examines the ways in which imperial politics was reflected in, and in many ways shaped by, material and popular culture in the revolutionary world (using fashion, therefore, as both a verb and a noun). Currently, Revolutionary Fashion intends to bring CW’s collective expertise to bear on four discrete topics: Clothing/textiles (From the Calico Acts to Hunting Shirts), theater, literature, and ceramics.

Revolutionary Trades—This subproject will explore the ways in which mobilization for war impacted and, in many cases, transformed the ways in which tradespersons produced goods for themselves and for the Patriot armies. It also constructed new social networks and, crucially, created new ties between individuals and the burgeoning states. Revolutionary Trades will take advantage of the current recontruction of the Public Armoury to examine the experience of the trades related to it. We are currently intending to also look at the experience of tailors and shoemakers.

Revolutionary Voices—This subproject gives us the chance, in a variety of multimedia formats, to examine the lives of a variety of individuals and their impact on the revolutionary world through their words, actions, and relationships. While including well-known figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Arthur Lee, we are especially interested in highlighting those of different genders, races, ethnicities, generations, and political persuasions whose voices have not appeared as clearly in the pages of current history but whose contribution to the revolutionary experience was nearly as salient.

"Eating seems to be the predominant passion of a Virginian."

2010-08-19T08:37:00.000-07:00

Some time between 1770 and 1774, Rev. Thomas Gwatkin shared with friends in England his unique insight into aspects of colonial life not usually glimpsed in most contemporary correspondence: eating and drinking. Gwatkin, a 30-year-old, English-born Oxonian who was the professor of natural philosophy and mathematics at the College of William & Mary, and a close friend of Jeremy Bentham's, appears to have taken a rather dim view of the especial fondness of Virginians for food and recreational beverages. Perhaps because of Gwatkin's especially critical eye, this selection gives us a rather entertaining peek into one man's transatlantic perception of life in Williamburg on the very eve of the American Revolution.

"I observed . . . that the natives of Virginia eat greater quantities of animal food than the Inhabitants of Britain. A short account of their manner of living may afford you some entertainment. Their breakfast, like that of the English consists of tea Coffee and Chocolate; and bread or toast and butter, or small Cakes made of flower and butter which are served to Table hot, and are called hoe Cakes from being baked upon a hoe heated for that purpose. They have also harshed meat and homony, Cold beef, and hams upon the table at the same time, and you may as frequently hear a Lady desiring to be helped to a part of one of these dishes as a cup of tea. Their tables at dinner are crowded with a profusion of meat: And the same kind is dressed three or four different ways. The rivers afford them fish in great Abundance: and their Swamps and forests furnish them ducks teale blue-wing, hares, Squirrells, partridges and a great variety of other kinds of fowl. Eating seems to be the predominant passion of a Virginian. To dine upon a single dish is considered as one of the greatest hardships. You can be contented with one joint of meat is a reproach frequently thrown into the teeth of an Englishman. Even one of the fair Sex would be considered as Gluttons in England. Indeed, I am inclined to believe more disorders in this Country arise from too much eating than any other cause whatsoever. In the Afternoon tea and Coffee is generally drank, but with bread or toast and butter. As Supper you rarely see any made dishes. Harshed and Cold meat, roasted fowls, fish of different kinds, tarts and sweetmeats fill up the table. After the cloth is taken away both at dinner and supper; Madeira and punch or toddy is placed upon the table. The first toasts which are given by the Master of the family, are the King; the Queen and the royal family; the Governour and Virginia; a good price for Tobacco. After this, the Company be in a humour to drink, the ladies retire, and the Gentlemen give every man his Lady; then a round of friend[s] succeeds; and afterwards each of the Company gives a Sentiment; then the Gentleman of the house drinks to all the friends of his Company and at last concludes with drinking a good Afternoon or good Evening according to the time of day."
[William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser. IX (1952), pp. 81, 83-84]

Reflections on the D.A.R.lings: Historical memory, American-style

2010-05-17T04:49:00.000-07:00

When it comes to historical memory--American-style--it doesn't get better, or weirder, than those nineteenth-century creatures of social exclusion, the DAR, the Colonial Dames, etc. In the midst of a society being transformed by waves of non-English immigration (waves that began long before many of the founders of these organization ever cared to admit), groups like the DAR and the reconstituted Society of the Cincinnati shot up like wildflowers in an effort to take possession of Early American history, at least of a sort. To me, it's important to keep in mind that just as such ancestral veneration shifted into top gear, many of these same Victorians took ownership of history into their hands and out of ours (quite literally) in another way: By editing beyond recognition or outright destroying reams of historical correspondence and other records that didn't fit their image of the past or, more to the point, the reflection they wanted to see of themselves in it.

But where, really, do most of us fit in such constructs? My grandmother's family on my father's side, the Taylors, for example, arrived in Maryland in 1662. Over the next 308 years they managed to move all of 60 miles, from Calvert County to Baltimore, where I was born (which must set some sort of record for historical inertia). They participated in all the big events--the Revolution, the War of 1812 (my great-great-great-grandfather was at Fort McHenry on that fateful night in 1814), the Civil War--and managed to be on the "right" side in each of them, which would make me a member of any number of groups if I chose to identify myself in such a way. On the other hand, my grandfather's father, Walter Stoermer, a German lad with a young half-French wife, didn't arrive in Baltimore from Darmstadt until around 1900. So am I a mere arriviste mongrel or a true American blue-blood with an exceptional claim to ownership of the most salient aspects of American history and, consequently, American character?

The truth, of course, is both, because that multiplicity--both personal and social--is at the heart of whatever there is that is "American" about our history and character, even if historians haven't yet quite worked out what those things really are (I blame the Victorians).

This post was inspired by one of the most clever persons I know, whose work into her own family history has revealed much the same sort of patchwork of identities, from the Mayflower in 1620 to migration from Italy to America during World War II, and who sent me the poem below, from a 1936 New Yorker, which I think captures the sense of things quite nicely (but she has a happy felicity for that).

The D.A.R.lings
Chatter like starlings
Telling their ancestors' names

While grimly aloof
With looks of reproof

Sit the Colonial Dames.
And The Cincinnati
All merry and chatty
Dangle their badges and pendants

But haughty and proud
Disdaining the crowd
Brood the Mayflower Descendants.

~ Arthur Guiterman, The New Yorker, 1936

Top Ten Books on Eighteenth-Century America

2010-04-24T06:24:00.001-07:00

During a recent campus interview I was asked to name the ten secondary works that I'd assign as a launching pad to studying eighteenth-century America. I came up with the following list off the top of my head. Rather selective, of course, it occurred to me this morning that I might not respond in precisely the same way again, but my answer wouldn't differ much. Too many of the books are in some measure about the American Revolution, which misleadingly suggests that's all there is worth knowing about eighteenth-century America; I include Wood mostly for historiographical, rather than substantive, purposes; Thompson doesn't explicitly apply to Colonial America but it describes the social character of the eighteenth-century British world of which America was part better than anything I've come across (Richard Bushman's The Refinement of America does deserve a mention, though). That most of the titles are not of recent vintage similarly reflects my editorial view of the insufficiency of somewhat newer works.

I'd be quite interested to learn what the "Top 10" list of others would look like and, of course, would appreciate any thoughts on these.

My list in no particular order (except perhaps for the top two titles) is:

The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 by John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard

The Colonial Background of the American Revolution by Charles M. Andrews

Pursuits of Happiness by Jack P. Greene

The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood

Customs in Common by E.P. Thompson

Within Her Power by Linda Sturtz

American Leviathan by Patrick Griffin

Slave Counterpoint by Phil Morgan

The Minutemen and Their World by Robert Gross

From Resistance to Revolution by Pauline Maier

Honorable Mentions: In Small Things Forgotten by James Deetz; Jefferson's Empire by Peter S. Onuf; The Refinement of America by Richard Bushman.

Aftermath of the Massacre: "This inhuman piece of barbarity"

2010-03-05T08:47:00.000-08:00

Given that today is the 240th anniversary of the "Boston Massacre" that occupies such an evocative place in American history, I thought a particular letter in my research database might be of interest to the tens of readers of Transatlantic History. It was written by William Palfrey of Boston to his friend, the infamous John Wilkes, during the events of March 5, though sent a week later. I came across it one day while going through the Palfrey Papers at the Houghton Library of Harvard. This extraordinary passage is one of those rare windows into a major event that really brings it alive for readers. It also shows how one's political presumptions--Palfrey was a staunch Patriot Whig--clearly shape one's perceptions about such events. Nevertheless, Palfrey's account returns us to the very scene, the precise moment of one of the most famous events in the history of the American Revolution.

“I was oblig’d the break off the above by the alarm of ringing a Bell which I at first imagin’d to be for Fire...but sent my servant to see where it was. he very soon return’d & told me there was no fire by that some of the inhabitants & Soldiers were fighting near Kingstreet: I immediately ran out towards the Scene of action & had just got to the East End of the Courthouse which makes the front of Kingstreet when I head the discharge of six or seven Musquettes I ran with many others towards the place where I was witness to one of the most shocking scenes that ever was exhibited in a Christian Country. Three unhappy victims lay weltring in their Gore two others mortally wounded & Six other dangerously. This inhuman piece of barbarity was perpretated by a party of eight Men under the command of one Capt Thos Preston of the 29th Regiment, all the Bells in Town were immediately rang the Inhabitants gather’d some in attempting to remove the dead & wounded were threaten’d & wounded by the Soldiers."
William Palfrey to John Wilkes, 13 March 1770, in Palfrey Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University, MSS 1704.4(89).

The death of the divine right of kings

2010-03-04T12:58:00.000-08:00

Working today in the bowels of the JCB, I came across the reflection in the Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, by Lord John Hervey (1696-1743) on the state of politics in England in 1727. This brief selection is his remembrance of the depths to which notions of the divine right of kings had fallen in the British world by that time and should at least give pause to historians of Colonial America who continue to assume that it played any meaningful role in the debate over kings and constitutions in the eighteenth century.

By 1727, "...the notion of hereditary right at home had been so long ridiculed and exploded, that there were few people whose loyalty was so strong, or whose understanding was so weak, as to retain and act upon it. The conscientious attachment to the natural right of this or that king, and the religous reverence to God's anointed, was so far eradicated by the propagation of revolutionary principles, that mankind was become much more clear-sighted on that score than formerly, and so far comprehended and gave into the doctrine of a king being made for the people and not the people for the king, that in all their steps it was the interest of the nation or the interest of particular actors that was considered, and never the separate interest of one or the other king. And though one might be surprised (if any absurdity arising from the credulity and ignorance of mankind could surprise one) how the influence of power could ever have found means to establish the doctrine of Divine right of kings, yet no one can wonder that the opinion lost ground so fast when it became the interest even of the princes on the throne for three successive reigns to expel it. The clergy, who had been paid for preaching it up, were now paid for preaching it down; the Legislature had declared it of no force in the form of our government, and contrary to the fundamental laws and nature of our Constitution; and what was more prevailing than all the rest. it was no longer the interest of the majority of the kingdom either to propagate or act on this principle, and consequently those who were before wise enough from policy to teach it, were wise enough now from the same policy to explode it; and those who were weak enough to take it up only because they were told it, were easily brought to lay it down by the same influence."
John, Lord Hervey, Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, from his Accession to the Death of Queen Catherine, vol. 1 (London, 1855), 6-7.

But a Forty Days Tyranny

2009-11-11T06:16:00.000-08:00

This post is a quick observation based on materials I pulled from John Adolphus' The History of England, from the Accession of King George the Third, to the Conclusion of Peace in the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Three (1805), a fascinating multi-volume work that contains parliamentary speeches one cannot easily find elsewhere.

On 11 November parliament met to listen to a speech by George III that dealt mainly with the severe grain shortage that then gripped Britain and the embargo he and the ministry had consequently laid to keep wheat and wheat-flour in the country. Lords Chatham and Camden strenuously defended the embargo, in the face of widespread opposition in the Lords and Commons, as “the right and duty of the crown to suspend the execution of a law, for the safety of the people.” [Adolphus, 269] Camden stated “The crown is the sole executive power, and is therefore intrusted by the constitution to take upon itself whatever the safety of the state may require, during the recess of parliament, which is at most but a forty days tyranny.” [Adolphus, 270] Opposition leaders, such as Mansfield, Temple, and Lyttleton, argued that the effect was to “...establish a dispensing power, and you cannot be sure of either liberty or law for forty minutes.” [Adolphus, 272] They invoked the preamble of the 1689 bill of rights which “expressly mentions the evils resulting to the kingdom from the practice adopted by James II, of assuming a power to dispense with, and suspend, the execution of laws without the consent of parliament.” [Adolphus, 272]

Chatham's support for an exercise of executive authority that ran counter to established Whig tenets seriously weakened his influence in parliament and the strength of his entire ministry. His arguments, along with those of Camden, are also interesting for the light they might shed on the development of patriot constitutional thought in America, providing at least anecdotal evidence for Thomas Jefferson’s presumptions in his Summary View that the Crown possessed more constitutional authority than it could realistically exercise.

Columbia Announces New Graduate Seminar in Modern British History

2009-11-11T05:50:00.000-08:00

Announcement received via H-Net List for British and Irish History.

Graduate Seminar in Modern British History
Columbia University
Prof. Susan Pedersen, and visiting faculty
May 19-June 30, 2010

With the generous support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Prof. Susan Pedersen will be offering a seminar for graduate students in the process of completing dissertations in the field of Modern British, or British imperial, history. As graduate programs downsize, many graduate students find that they rarely have the opportunity for sustained intellectual interaction with other students at the same stage and in the same field. At the same time, successive waves of theoretical innovation and field redefinition have combined with shifting student interests to place new (and sometimes greater) demands on beginning faculty. This seminar thus aims to bring together graduate students who are in the last year or two of their doctoral programs to discuss both their own research and the problems they face defining, mastering and teaching British history today.

The seminar will meet twice weekly for seven weeks. There will be a set of introductory sessions discussing recent work in British political, imperial, cultural and social history. Much of the seminar will then be devoted to presentations by the seminar members, although there will also be several sessions on teaching and publishing. Visiting faculty, participants from the 2007 seminar, and book and journal editors, will come in to discuss their own strategies for teaching, hiring, and publishing. All students will circulate and present one piece of research (usually a dissertation chapter, but possibly an article or a job talk) and will develop one course syllabus.

Students participating in the seminar will receive stipends of $4300 for this 7-week period. Students coming from outside the New York area are expected to find their own accommodation, but supplementary stipends will be given to meet those housing costs, or to pay for extensions on university or other leases for students already in the New York area.

Graduate students interested in taking part in the seminar should send a description of their dissertation (not more than five pages) and a c.v., and arrange for their advisor to send a short nomination letter explaining the student's suitability for the seminar, by January 15, 2010 to Prof. Susan Pedersen (sp2216@columbia.edu). Email is preferred, but hard copies can be sent to: Prof. Susan Pedersen, Dept. of History, Columbia University, 1180 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10025. Please direct any queries to Susan Pedersen at the email address above. Some preference will be given to students at New York area institutions. The seminar is intended primarily for students who have substantially completed their research and are in the process of writing their dissertations.

Politics and Religion ca1754

2009-10-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

The news in today's papers that the Vatican "announced it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with the Church of England’s acceptance of women priests and openly gay bishops to join the Catholic Church" brought to mind the meeting of the Virginia Anglican clergy in Williamsburg on this date in 1754. With George Washington's surrender of Fort Necessity to the French at the top of transatlantic concerns, Commissary Thomas Dawson recommended that the clergy meet in a convention to make a declaration of fidelity to George II and express in it "a sincere detestation of popery." The address subsequently adopted by the convention labeled the French and Indians as "professed enemies of religious and civil liberties" and declared their advance as "the unjustifiable encroachments of popish and arbitrary power." Robert Dinwiddie, Virginia's lieutenant governor, responded to Dawson's call for the clergy to meet by admonishing them to inculcate people with "great dangers we are exposed to, both as to our lives, liberties [and estates]...".

The 1754 meeting of the clergy reminds one that the historical tensions between Anglicanism and Catholicism have always been as much about politics as about theology.

Buildings, Landscapes, and Historical Memory

2009-10-16T09:16:00.000-07:00

A 2008 book by Seth Bruggeman, Here, George Washington Was Born: Memory, Material Culture, and the Public History of a National Monument (University of Georgia Press), focuses on the history of George Washington's birthplace at Wakefield on Virginia's Northern Neck (pictured above). In doing so, he raises some rather interesting questions about the relationship between historic sites, landscape, and the problematic nature of historical memory.

Here are some excerpts from a recent H-Net review by Kirk Savag e of the University of Pittsburgh, who "has written extensively on public monuments within the larger theoretical context of collective memory and identity."

'While a major part of the book concerns the administrative history of the site under the direction of the NPS, Bruggeman frames that history within a set of larger contexts. He is particularly interested in the long history of “object fetishism,” especially in the Christian traditions of saints’ relics and pilgrimages to holy sites. Bruggeman sees the secular birthplace phenomenon as a residue of these medieval spiritual practices. The question of who has access to and control over these potent objects is thus an age-old question of power and representation. At the same time, the survival of these practices of worship into an increasingly professionalized and “scientific” discipline of history raises problems and paradoxes for the bureaucrats who are charged with managing “sacred” sites and relics.

Over the past century, Wakefield has been a collection of various kinds of objects competing with one another for authenticity. The women who furnished the faux “replica” filled it with high-style colonial era furniture bought on the antiques market, while the NPS superintendent of the site fought to exhibit--in the house’s damp basement--a ragtag collection of arrowheads and pottery shards found onsite in archaeological digs, which, in his view, had special significance because Washington might actually have seen or used them. Bruggeman usefully sorts these competing objects into semiotic categories--index, icon, and symbol--according to the system laid out by philosopher Charles Pierce.

But Bruggeman’s narrative makes clear that, off and on, the NPS tried to sidestep the nagging questions about authenticity by shifting attention from the memorial house and its objects to the site itself, the landscape in which Washington was supposedly born and raised (up to the age of three!). From an early date the managers of Wakefield set up a “living farm” along colonial lines, and even hired an elderly black man, apparently born a slave near the Wakefield property, to work eighteenth-century crops like tobacco. Later, the NPS installed a comprehensive program of living history on the farm, one of the first in the park system. Until the 1990s, this program did not openly deal with the issue of slavery. Instead the birthplace tried to create an idyllic plantation environment supposedly “untouched by time” that would somehow conjure the memory of Washington, primarily for the benefit of a white tourist audience that might also take in Robert E. Lee’s birthplace just a few miles down the road.

While Bruggeman throws light on the issues of race, class, and gender at stake in these regimes of preservation and interpretation, his analysis would have benefited from a somewhat stronger emphasis on the core issue of landscape. Although “object fetishism” certainly plays a crucial role at Wakefield, the significance of the birthplace--from the moment Custis installed the first memorial stone there--has depended even more on the authenticity of the landscape itself. Yet that landscape arguably is no more authentic than the faux “memorial house,” since subsequent generations of owners, most notably the NPS itself, have so dramatically altered it. The idea of a landscape “untouched by time” is transparently antihistorical. It would be interesting to hear more of Bruggeman’s thoughts on the persistence of this rhetoric in NPS interpretation, which has been a constant from 1940 to the present, despite all the changes in administration and bureaucratic philosophy.'

For the full review, go to http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24798

Botetourt: The Wrong Man at the Wrong Time?

2009-10-15T07:53:00.000-07:00

Because Norborne Berkeley, Baron de Botetourt, died in Williamsburg on this date in 1770 and, more to the point, because his conduct and the perceptions of him by others fits into Chapter 5 of my dissertation, it seemed like a good opportunity for me to throw out there my thoughts on this oft-mischaracterized Virginia governor. The general view of Botetourt is pretty well known: He was the genial champion of colonial rights whose death was so much lamented by Virginians that they erected a statue of him and placed it right in the center of the Capitol building (afterwards moved to the other end of Duke of Gloucester street, to the front of the Wren building; now resting in W&M's Swem Library). As William Nelson reported to Botetourt's relative, the duke of Beaufort, "We think we may venture to say that never was a loss more universally lamented; so large a share had his Lordship, by his many endearing Qualities, gain'd of the affections of all Ranks of people," a statement that more or less sums up the view accepted by historians ever since, from Jefferson in his autobiography to Emory Evans' history of Virginia's political elite, published just a few months ago.

As a result of my research, a new Botetourt emerges, one with a character that speaks volumes about the myriad ways in which Virginia's relationships with Britain were changing in the 1760s and 1770s. Botetourt turns out to be much more interesting, and much more sinister, than historians have made him out to be. He could get away with appearing to be different things to different people on both sides of the Atlantic, telling Virginia patriots, for example, that he was working hard to defend their rights in London at precisely the same time he was calling on Lord Hillsborough to crush them.

In England, Botetourt's slipperiness was well known by the time he was appointed Virginia's governor in 1768, displacing the well-respected Jeffrey Amherst and causing something of a social and political kerfuffle in metropolitan circles. Junius, in one of his famous letters, criticized the move, castigating Botetourt as "a cringing, bowing, fawning, sword-bearing courtier, who had ruined himself by an enterprise which would have ruined thousands had it succeeded." The author recalled Botetourt's shift from a supporter of Grenville and Temple, when he was merely Norborne Berkeley, to attacking them on behalf of the government, after the government's approval in 1764 of his claim to a peerage--the Barony de Botetourt--that had been in abeyance since 1406. Seeing Botetourt shortly after his appointment to the Virginia post, Horace Walpole described him as "a Court favourite, yet ruined in fortune" who appeared "like patience on a monument, smiling in grief." Walpole understood that "the disquiets in America" required leaders of sense to calm them, especially in Virginia, which "though not the most mutinous, contains the best heads and the principal boutefeux." He highly doubted that Botetourt, whose genial countenance he thought little more than a screen, was the right man for the job. Walpole observed, with characteristic perspicacity, that "To Virginia he cannot be indifferent: he must turn their heads somehow or other. If his graces do not captivate them, he will enrage them to fury; for I take all his douceur to be enamelled on iron." Princess Charlotte agreed, telling a friend a days after the appointment that she "does not approve of sending Lord Botetourt to Virginia; She fears he is not equal to the undertaking." Botetourt had enough support in the metropolis, however, for him to be on a ship headed to the Chesapeake within three weeks of his nomination for the office.

Although favorable reports of Botetourt's character reached Virginia ahead of him, the critical impressions did, too. The Lees, for example, whose situation in both London and the Tidewater helped them turn transatlantic political miscommunication into something of an art form, were ready to despise the new governor before he set foot in Virginia. The less than glowing view of Botetourt shared by Junius, Walpole, and the Princess Royal clearly made it to the Potomac. And the Lees were not disappointed. Francis Lightfoot Lee reported to his brother William in London that "Ld. Bottetourt is the very man you described, & has practised all his his arts but without gaining a single man."

The Lees miscalculated the effectiveness of Botetourt's "arts," though. His popularity soared in Williamsburg. Finally, many Virginians thought with some relief, here was the right man at the right time, a governor who had the wisdom and influence to act as a transatlantic protector of their interests against a British parliament that was at that time doing to John Wilkes, stripping him of his constitutional rights, what it was increasingly inclined to do to them. Even dissolving the Virginia assembly in the wake of strident resolves could not harm his reputation, as John Page reported to a friend in London in May 1769: "This has not lessen’d him in their Esteem, for they suppose he was obliged to do so; he is universally esteemed here, for his great Assiduity in his Office, Condescension, good Nature & true Politeness."

What John Page and his compatriots did not know was that Botetourt was playing a dangerous game with their constitutional rights and, consequently, with the imperial relationship. Just as Page was writing his letter in praise of Botetourt, the governor took the opposite tack in a letter to Lord Hillsborough that would have shocked the Virginians. The governor they depended on to deliver them from the evils of a corrupt parliament was doing nothing of the sort. In fact, his efforts were all to the contrary. He advised Hillsborough "that Opinions of the Independancy of the Legislature of the Colonies are grown to such a Height in this Country, that it becomes Great Britain, if ever she intends it, immediately to assert her Supremacy in a manner which may be felt." Botetourt observed that parliamentary acts were useless in the face of colonial obstinacy and told Lord Hillsborough "to loose no more time in Declarations which irritate but do not decide."

Botetourt's subsequent announcement that the Townshend Acts would be repealed further aggravated transatlantic misunderstandings with his characterization of the manner in which the troublesome duties would be taken off. He pledged to the Virginians "that I will be content to be declared infamous, if I do not...exert every power...to obtain and maintain for the continent of America that satisfaction which I have been authorized to promise this day by the confidential servants of our gracious Sovereign" that the taxes would be removed. The Virginians seized on the statement, responding that "We esteem your lordship's information not only as warranted, but even sanctified by the royal word." The only problem with Botetourt's declaration, aside from the fact that it confirmed rising paranoia that "confidential servants" were calling the shots in Westminster, is that by failing to mention Parliament he perpetuated the constitutional myth that the Crown had any meaningful role in deciding colonial policy, especially in financial matters.

Botetourt's problematic statements did not go unnoticed on either side of the Atlantic. In Williamsburg, a visiting naval officer, Sir Thomas Adams, wrote to Lord Palmerston that "Tis a pity [the governor's] Ardent zeal to serve his Royal Master here, should be so ridiculously handled, as we find his last speech to the House of Burgesses has occasion'd much sarcastical Mirths" among those with whom Adams associated. Of the patriots, he warned "The repeal of the late Acts by no means has abated their Enthusiastic fury; hitherto the Virginians have been moderate, how long they will continue so I know not."

The most intense reaction to the governor's speech was heard on the floor of the House of Commons in May 1770 and came from that master of the sublime, Edmund Burke. "I really cannot read this without emotion," Burke proclaimed as he pointed to a copy of Botetourt's remarks. "Have we been sent here to see the business of parliament settled by the King's confidential servants?" he asked. He argued that it was ludicrous to praise the Crown for steps that could be taken only by Parliament and pointed out that fostering such misunderstandings of parliamentary authority would only make the situation more unstable. He punctuated his lengthy speech by putting a droll question to the ministers in attendance: "Was it fitting that we should not be let into the secret if your intention?"

Botetourt died on October 15, 1770, in Williamsburg, still largely beloved by the colonials who presumed he was their friend. The examples briefly shown here point to the distinct possibility that Botetourt did more harm than good for the imperial relationship by fostering constitutional myths and political misunderstandings. That he was in a position to do so reveals the problematic state of transatlantic political communication in the 1760s. Historians have pointed out the many ways in which the British Atlantic was becoming more culturally and economically integrated by the middle of the eighteenth century, but Lord Botetourt's experience suggests that we re-examine the nature of that integration in light of the differential development of the transatlantic networks that made it possible.

Exclusionary Empire: English Liberty Overseas, 1600-1900

2009-10-11T08:07:00.000-07:00

_Exclusionary Empire: English Liberty Overseas, 1600-1900_, edited by JPG, was just published by Cambridge and should, I think, turn out to be a staple for courses on eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century political thought or British history. With chapters by JPG, our Dude, Eliga Gould, Elizabeth Mancke, etc., it covers the political development of the British world--from Ireland to India to Australia--in ways that no other volume does (James Kelly's chapter on eighteenth-century Ireland is especially instructive). At the very least, it's virtual one-stop shopping for anyone who wants a quick grounding of political thought in the Anglophone world. So it has utility for undergrads, grad students, and scholars alike. The only thing missing is a chapter on Scotland, but that territory can be covered if one pairs it with _Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660-1850_, edited by Julian Hoppit (with chapters by Hoppit, David Hayton, David Armitage, etc.), for a nifty one-two punch of British political history.

Rating history sites, as a general matter.

2009-07-16T06:59:00.001-07:00

Having spent my spare time in the last few weeks finally hitting a number of the history museums and other historic sites in this neck of New England, it occurs to me that there is a real need for a forum to discuss the relationship of these sites to what it is that we, as historians, are at least trying to do. It has often occurred to me that the kind of information that one encounters at such sites as, say, the Gilbert Stuart museum outside of Wickford, might actually cause problems that we must fix when we get into the classroom, even as such as sites (especially when they have a working snuff mill from the 1730s!) are invaluable resources as teaching aids. And, frankly, I happen to almost always find them helpful in informing my own research. One can encounter things (like snuff manufacturing in Rhode Island) that just wouldn't cross one's mind sitting in the bowels of a library writing the latest chapter. But the counterintuitive lack of attention to history at such places (the introductory video at the Stuart house is laughable) is troubling when one considers that much of what we face in the classroom is a process of helping our students unlearn what they think they know about the past.

Taking the hit

2009-02-27T06:52:00.000-08:00

For various and sundry reasons Transatlantic History (as well as the lower case version) has taken a rather unfortunate hit of late, if within the compass "of late" one can include the balance of the past six months. And to what can we attribute this set of circumstances? Perhaps it is owed to nothing more or less than the sling and arrows of outrageous fortune which should consign us to the nearest lounge, a copy of Gray's Elegy firmly in our grasp, Whiggish notions decidedly fixed, and a bottle of dry sack comfortably within reach? Or do we take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them? 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Of course, it would help if we could get this $#@% website going, but Divine Providence has not shined kindly on that project, or infused potential presenters with a spirit that induces them to produce what they've committed to present and, as importantly, do so in a timely fashion. In any event, rants are not a suitable substitute for action, so we must drive on, rallying, once more, all loyal souls to the cause, provided the rest of us can get our fellowship proposals out of the way.

duplicate introductions

2008-09-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

I have managed to sign up twice as a "blogger" - terrific - and I have yet to formally introduce myself. So hi, twice, I'm Emily. All here in New Hampshire are looking forward to participating. Is the first date set for September 23rd? I will work on deleting the duplication.

Regards,
Emily

Include other contributors in blog?

2008-07-31T11:34:00.000-07:00

I'd like to include in this blog the other folks who are charged with helping out with the program at the other institutions. Do you think that would be useful? I want them to have as much ownership over their content as possible.

Interested in a workshop?

2008-07-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

Are you interested in a workshop on Trans Atlantic History? Drop me an email at test@test.com, or leave a comment here.

Upcoming seminar: Sept 23rd

2008-07-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

This is a sample post for an upcoming seminar.

TransAtlanticHistory now has a website!

2008-07-23T12:52:00.000-07:00

This is a sample news post.

This is a post about a paper

2008-07-23T12:46:00.000-07:00

I would recommend that all papers are uploaded to Scribd.com

Scribd.com makes it possible for you to read the paper online, or download it to your desktop.

For example:
- A Historic Review of CPA Accomplishments (View online | Download MS Word Document)