tv British Loyalists in the American Revolution CSPAN May 12, 2018 2:14pm-4:01pm EDT
low-wage agricultural work and they're not competing with american workers? this means wages are going down. immigration is also worried about the program. toy are worried it will lead more undocumented workers. these mexicans will come into the united states, are they really going to go back? are they going to stay? there is skepticism on the point of view of the u.s. government or branches of it about the brazero program. initially, it is supposed to be temporary. it is an emergency, during world war ii, and they need the crops picked and they don't have enough workers. it becomes central to american agricultural labor practices for the midcentury. essentially, the agricultural industry with a strong lobby convinces the government this is good for the economy, country, and the brazero program gets put in place.
>> watch the entire lecture at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern tonight on lectures in history. american history tv, only on c-span3. on american history tv, university of maryland history professor richard bell examines white american revolutionary loyalists chose to stay on the american side and how their lives changed when the patriots won. this is sony and associates hosted the program. it is about one hour and 40 minutes. that idea for the program again as a personal journey. my family was well established by the time of the revolution but the branch of my family were loyalists that went to canada and there has been an apologetic murmur in my family when disclosing this. as we see with many families rep history, war often showcases
families excluding up and moving elsewhere. tonight, dr. bell explores the history of these loyalists and for uprootingsons themselves. he is a tenured associate professor of history at the university of maryland. his primary research focuses on the history and culture of the united states between 1750 and 1877. he has published numerous articles and chapters and two books, and currently working no one called "the lost boys." he has helped two dozen research fellowships, including residencies at the gilder lehrman center for the center of slavery, abolition, and ,esistance at yale university and at the library of congress. he has been supported by the national endowment for the humanities. he has received more than a dozen teaching awards, including
the 2017 university system of maryland board of regents faculty award for excellence in teaching, the highest honor in the maryland estate system. he served at the historical as a memberaryland, of the massachusetts historical society, and earned his bachelor some cambridge in 1999 and phd from harvard in 2006. welcome dr. bell ansi likelier support of the smithsonian associates and enjoy the program. [applause] dr. bell: thank you. good evening, everyone. first of all, housekeeping things. i got information from c-span on
how we will handle questions. at the end of the session, we throw it open for questions. someone will run up and down the trye with a microphone and to put it in your hand before you get your question out. a few questions in the course of the next 90 minutes or so. if you are answering my questions, you do not need to wait for c-span. i will try to repeat what you say back to the audience and c-span viewers to make things go smoother. the second thing to say is i am amazed about how many people want to hear about the loyalists. i do not know the got to chat to the person next to you and asked, why are you so interested? are you having second thoughts about this revolution? [laughter] i do not know. [applause] i for the most part -- i became a u.s. citizen one month ago and i am very proud of that. [applause]
but i also kept my british pound side. british we will pass out paperwork at the end if you want to hedge your bets. i love teaching the loyalists, but it is not my scholarly focus. i rely on a large amount of scholarships produced by real experts and you will see a list of books and articles written by historians who are experts on this topic. if you want to learn more about the topic, i'd courage you to take a camera picture of the last slide and i will be there for a long time. also, i want to point out i could not write these lectures without those folks, folks who teach at harvard university, columbia university, and many
others. i have just trying to bring their work to a larger audience. let's get started. on the first day of summer, 1779, a small merchant vessel bobbed its way into the crowded court of nova scotia. it had been at sea for two weeks, carrying its loyalist passengers from maine to the safety of british canada. on board that tiny ship that day, with a reverent jacob bailey, his wife, and young children, and several other refugees from revolutionary america. the bailey's looked like hell. they had left almost everything they had own behind them. alsoust their home, but their savings and every other worldly possession and they have not changed clothing since they sent out two weeks earlier, but
they had much they were thankful for. and when the bailey's saw the british flag over the town of halifax, their ship sailed into its ports, the babies rejoiced -- the bailey's rejoiced. thank god for guiding me and my family to this retreat of freedom and security from the rage of tyranny and the cruelty of oppression, wrote reverend bailey. think of the british empire as a refuge of freedom and security, and to think of patriots america in contrast as a place of tyranny, cruelty, and depression. how thee start of loyalist perspectives aqua america, where the loyalists are the true patriots. if you think about what patriots
mean, where the loyalists are the true patriots, and their anti-crown enemies are the traitorous rebels. terms isings on those hard to do, especially now. in the united states tend to think -- we, in the united states, 10 to demonize the loyalists, so we can better celebrate the patriots who founded the nation. we tend to use loyalists as convenient foils to the glorious , honorable, and righteous founding fathers, who many of us assumed were noble, courageous, and fundamentally correct in deciding to revolt against the british and declare their independence. when we think of loyalists, if we think of them at all, we tend to stereotype them as sycophantic, cowardly, and
selfish persons of means. affluent people, usually merchants, aristocrats, or government officials like tax collectors. it is not lost their mind to consider that remaining loyal to the british empire may have been a sensible and attractive choice, not just for the wealthy but for ordinary people, too. for the first half of my talk tonight, the next 45 minutes or tell theing to try to grand story of the american revolution from the perspective of the loyalists, especially some on the lower rungs of the social ladder. of the talk, half another 40 minutes or so, i will focus on the experience of black loyalists, many of whom began the war as enslaved people. first, i went to talk about ordinary white folks.
ordinary white folks like the reverent jacob bailey and his family and why they chose to remain loyal to britain, what the experience of the revolution was like for them as a result of that decision to remain loyal to britain, and how their lives changed once they lost the war. i have questions. here is my first, figuring out who was loyalist in the american revolution is actually i think a lot harder than it sounds, select start with a definition. loyalist?you define a i will try to repeat back to the audience what i hear from people who raised her hand. how would you -- you do not have to be right -- how would you define a loyalist? in the balcony. >> i would just say a loyalist is someone who was in favor of
the british crown and did not want to get out. d a very simple definition from the balconyr .bell: -- dr. bell: a very simple definition from the balcony, loyal to the crown, and we might want to underline the word crown, meaning the monarchy perhaps. other thoughts? >> [indiscernible] opposed the class that was rebelling in virginia. dr. bell: someone who opposed the ruling class, the manifestation of into class conflict, perhaps. other thoughts? investede with interest in favoring the british side. dr. bell: someone with something to gain by maintaining ties with the british side, it could be many things. ,> i have read that in delaware loyalists were
planters who use their markets in england. dr. bell: in terms of vested interest, he suggested economic interest for planters on the eastern shore exporting their commodity, which might have been tobacco or wheat. yes, sir? >> [indiscernible] bell: [laughter] someone who went to the british to win -- i misspoke. someone who thought the british were going to win. someone who did not want to lose or be on the losing side. yes? >> [indiscernible] bell: native americans, website -- most native americans or groups tended to side with the british, so you could look at native groups as indication of who they thought was going to win and who their vested interest lay with.
can you say that one more time? people who supported the british military, you might have loved ones in the british military or see this on homeland security benefits, the remaining part of protection of the british military. anyone else? last one. >> [indiscernible] had no interest in politics one way or the other, just wanted to be left alone. dr. bell: people who just wanted to be left alone, find that the status quo and do not want the book to be rocked around them. quieter,t easier, quicker to stick with what we have got. different answers. thank you. how would you define a loyalist? i will return to that definition question in a minute but i have one more for you, three here. them he ask another, how might historians -- let me ask another, how might historians of the 21st century go about
counting the number of loyalists in the american revolution? take me to a source you would look at in an archive to figure out the number of bouygues in the american revolution. i will start -- the number of loyalists in the american revolution. the first census is 1790. >> [indiscernible] dr. bell: there were tax rolls, sure. what would you be looking for in the tax rolls and demographic data? >> if you have 100 people and 90 are loyalists, and the colonials when, those 90 are gone, that means you have 10 so it is a matter of -- dr. bell: if we work on the assumption that loyalists left, then can we count the number of people who disappear after the revolution? thank you. other ideas? >> [indiscernible]
manifest to see how many people went to canada, the bahamas, or other british territories. thebell: we work on assumption that all the loyalists left, can we count them on boats or ships leaving the 13 rebel colonies, british ships presumably, and going somewhere else? ship manifests, thank you. property ownerships, say a bit more. >> the transfer of people who owned the property and then moved afterwards. dr. bell: so property transfer records, confiscation records, which might show that people of wealth and status to own real estate suddenly stop owning real estate and what could we read into that? it's about any. -- in the balcony. >> [indiscernible] england whok of left the country. dr. bell: so can we track
employees of her majesty's government through governmental human resource records? >> the bad boys and girls kick there and were told that could never return. dr. bell: i see a few more hands. anymore in the balcony i cannot see? there is a light shining in my case. >> [indiscernible] you really cannot assume people left from the mid-atlantic. dr. bell: i have been using that language of assumption, is it true all the loyalists left? guess what? it is not. that makes our job harder. it does not mean they were not loyalists but they could be very unhappy after the war. >> records from the british army with loyalists with them. dr. bell: very good, so there are loyalists in the army, which
is an appendage to the red coat army who fight for the british empire. i will come back to that one. it is tough. it is a really tough problem. given the intimidation and violence to which many loyalists were subjected, most loyalists during the war years probably took care to avoid boring undue attention to themselves. -- yould eat a vocal could be a vocal are quite loyalist and one is safer than the other. if not everyone identifies themselves, hi, i am a loyalist, how could we count those people? which we make about the americans who claimed just to be neutral? with a telling the truth, or were they keep in their loyalist secret safe to protect themselves and their family? should be only count the 19,000
or so men who enlisted in the loyalist regiment to take arms against the patriots, or should we only count the 60,000 men and women who fled the united states after washington's victory at yorktown? we know that from ship manifests, among other things, or should we assume any to loyalists kept their heads down and knew when to keep quiet, especially as patriots started to win? should we read the decision of spy anyalists to later oath of allegiance to the and convert to the patriot cause or simply wasn't a sign they do not want to be tortured by the patriots for it a sign they did not want to be tortured by the patriots for refusing? those are hard questions to which i do not necessarily know the answer. problems like those have made it difficult to say with certainty
what percentage of white americans identified as loyalists at any point during the revolutionary crisis. my last question in the first series of the questions is, why should historians care? what percentage of white americans identified as loyalist during the revolutionary crisis? why is that an important significance, meaningful question that we must, must do a better job finding the answer to? why does it matter to note that 95%?s 500 percent -- 5% or why does it matter? hello, balcony! keep raising your voice. just start talking. >> i would think some of it would have to be with i am assuming the definition that someone is a loyalist or patriot could mean they started
in one camp and moved to another, so you might want to study in terms of attracting the popularity of the rebel cause is how many people were loyalists at x point in time, and how many were at another point in time as key to what the patriots are doing that we're winning people over to their cause. you.ell: thank for the books you cannot catch a come, he said, if we could know the percentage of loyalists at the start, middle, and end, we can better understand the battle militaryng minds, what victories might be regarded as the population as being telling on the larger course of the war, when does the population start to believe that one side, the patriots, are going to win, which is not commonly held at the beginning of the war, and it might shed light on other important questions.
had constant revolutions around the world with similar questions to the extent that we the loyaltynd how issue changed over time in our evolution and it might help us to understand how loyalty changes in syria, iran, and other places. >> how to understand how revolutions unfold in the 20th century, and 21st century, studying the changes in fate and revolutionary wars providing interesting case studies might supply general principles. thank you. someone like arnold believed we were going to get clobbered
fighting the british, so he became a loyalist, there must have been people like that. dr. bell: why is following folks like arnold' is trajectory important? us, that not everyone goes from being a loyalist to patriot. some patriots go to be in a loyalist, multidirectional to use the phrase. >> concerned about what nowadays hidden,d people who are who when the moment arrives, would rise up and fight battles against the colonialists or whatever. dr. bell: i will put that in perspective of historians. would historians be interested to know whether there are lots of disgruntled former loyalists remaining in the new nation, and this that informed their social
behavior, that political behavior in the first 20 years or 40 years of the new republic? i will take one more. well, it is a warning to us because as we grow up, we have stories where everyone was all wereots, that the british indistinguishable and they were not that many of them and it was triumphant and inevitable in overcoming by the colonialists for independence. time, theevery other actual fact is that people had all kinds of kids in large numbers and they were just as conflicted and unsure of the future as we are. the divisions and turmoil we have -- dr. bell: it reminds us that the
outcome of the american revolution was not preordained by god or washington, or anyone else, it was a real human battle militaryn cost, and campaigns had to be prosecuted against considerable odds, and the outcome of the war startled many who could not report it was possible. >> [indiscernible] peopleple -- a lot of would have to put up with whatever was there. dr. bell: right, it is not a simple story of black and white, to use a pun. thank you. that's good going with what we do know. know is a strong word. most estimates are in the region of 1/5 to one third, the number of white revolutionary people who were loyalists. this was a famous and misunderstood statement made by
john adams 40 years after the revolution in 1815. he was writing to a friend and estimated that one third of the white population during the war were as he put it, over to breaking with britain. adams suggested another one third of white americans were neutral or wavering. i use the word americans delivered only to describe the population -- deliberately to describe the population. it is important to remember patriots and loyalists forced themselves as americans. they both admired british culture, but they both had more in common with one another then they had with the people of britain. my own definition would be to say and it echoes something someone said at the start of our conversation, my own definition would be to say a thorough list was an american who preferred the colonies to remain a part of the british empire rather than
become a separate country. nothing more complicated or ideological than that. it is a broad enough definition that will catch more people. of course, the causes of that preference remaining part of the british empire could the area tremendous amount. for example, many loyalists thought reasonably that the colonies could not actually win a war against the most powerful superpower in the world had ever seen, the british armed forces would win the conflict handily ran this argument. in response to tom paine's common sense, which tries to make the case that winning this war is going to be easy, in response to his book, charles inglis and the assistant director at new york's trinity church wrote their own pamphlet called the true interest of america. you can see it appear on the
screen. this is a rebuttal of the idea that the idea independence will be easy and winning will be easy.in the loyalist pamphlet , charles inglis talks about asmas paine's argument complete and other nonsense. he says -- i find no common sense in this pamphlet that much uncommon frenzy. that wordplay or the kids call it a sick burn -- [laughter] and many other loyalists agreed. notice how does he identify himself? an american, just like you, but we would lose, so let's not do it. what is more, even if the rebels could somehow banish the british, where did that quickly turn out to be a disastrous move? a form of national economic suicide, like britain withdrawing from the european union? [laughter]
hell of a year, wasn't it? would it be a form of national economic suicide? in common sense, tom paine had worked hard to articulate a vision of the united colonies as an important and economically independent world power. and this loyalist guy, charles inglis, calls paine out, calling the notion that the rebel colonies could survive in the world on their own entirely ridiculous. why turn our backs, charles and was asks, on the country that most -- charles inglis asks, on the country that most america the main power? let's make up -- this would be like florida breaking away from the united states right now.
paying a little more taxes to help britain replenish empty coppers -- coffers after the seven-year war was surely more preferable than being coughed out into the wilderness of the earth beyond the protection of the world's mightiest superpower. and it is important to remember -- and i love this because it will annoy you -- it is important to remember that of the more than 30 british colonies in north america and the caribbean in 1775, when the of 30 ors, only 13 out so actually end up demanding independence. all of the others, florida, jamaica, barbados, and upper canada do not break away from the british empire during the revolutionary war. in that sense, the number of colonies that state versus the number that go, in that sense,
lawyer listened was -- loyalists and was the default position. as the patriot cause gained ground in the 13 colonies that do breakaway, as you can imagine, loyalists' lives got progressively harder. the series of events that trolls reverend jacob bailey and his spam -- that drove reverend jacob bailey and his family to flee are a good case in point. i keep using reverend. he is an anglican missionary. anglican ministers and missionaries, he had sworn what he regarded as a sacred oath to the king because the king was also the head of the church of england. patriot would be to renounce that allegiance and undo that religious oath.
for bailey, an anglican minister, that seems to be an act of treason and religious sacrilege, breaking a religious oath. you would not do it. loyalty was as constant struggle. rebels, he called them rebels, he would call them patriots, rebels tried all tactics to make and break his oath and join the rebellion. for instance, when daily refused -- bailey refuse to participate in thanksgiving in maine during the war, maine rebels threatened to put a liberty pole in front of his church and whip him on it if he failed to bless it for the patriot cause. on another occasion, reverend bailey pound seven of his sheep had been slaughtered and a cow of his had been shot dead in his
pastor. these are clear intimidator he -- these are clear intimidation tactics. clergy rain could write -- clergymen could write that he had been assaulted by mobs, held before an unfeeling patriot committee, three times driven from his family with attempts to shoot him. no morebels to him were than bugs per this is a quote -- certainly and savage beings who have power in their hands and murder in their hearts who serve and rule for the blood of those who have any connection with or affection for great britain. that is in his diary. in 1979, he and his family fled from maine to nova scotia. rebelsn, why do these seem to exert such attention and
time and invest resources and intimidating this man to switch sides? to embrace the patriot cause or abandon the royalist cause? why do they seem to target him? because they do. why do they bother? s? >> it was a church that was a symbol of britain. dr. bell: eight was a symbol of the crown of england because whoever wears the crown is the head of the anglican church and head of government and state. anything else? >> as a minister, presumably, he had influence with a lot of people. dr. bell: so this is a guy who probably has a small congregation of his own, a figurehead who people might listen to, and missionary, someone very persuasive, so perhaps he could be persuasive for the rebel team rather than
the loyal same -- anyone else? >> [indiscernible] that he listed here could express himself clearly and with persuasion, -- dr. bell: proof of what i said about his eloquence is on the screen, even in his private diary, he writes with elegance and a way with words. let me keep going. similar tales of harassment and intimidation feature in a great many accounts written by loyalist during or after the war. here is another. rebelght in 1776, soldiers broke into a private home and yanked five-year-old catherine skinner from her bed before plunging their bayonets into her mattress to see if her
father, a loyalist lawyer, was hiding underneath it. he was not. behindalready escaped british lines, leaving his family to fend for themselves. what a guy. [laughter] this is in the new jersey countryside, by the way. five-year-old, catherine skinner, she will remember this the rest of her life. as rebel braids consumed this part of -- raids consumed this part of new jersey the next months, mrs. skinner and her children, including catherine, found themselves prisoners in their own house. they took to hiding in their seller to escape the kidnapped. ask supplies dwindled, with desperation and hunger, at last, catherin's mother manage's tilted her tenure -- catherine's
mother managed to lead her 10 youngest children -- i do not know how many she had -- but lead them to her eldest daughter's home. every time the family went to the elder daughter's farm fields, they found another outbuilding had been burned, then another, and another, and takes and cows had been poisoned by the rebels. notice how attacking livestock is a theme. this skinner family, once wealthy, but now dangerously poor by their decision to remain loyal to the empire, they scraped through the winter of 1776 on buckwheat that they had buried beneath the hard frozen ground of the eldest daughter's farm. one frigid day, the youngest of the family, a 14-month-old baby boy, died. for days, mrs. skinner kept that
tiny body inside the house, unable to get hold of an anglican priest who would perform a funeral. in the end, one of five-year-old kathryn skinner's eldest brothers -- catherine skinner's brothers carried the body out in the night and buried the body in the field. 60 years later, catherine still remember that dramatic scene like it happened yesterday. these stories suggest intimidation of loyalists could take all sorts of forms. free speech and property rights were both very frequent targets. s wereample, loyalist pressured to turn their papers into patriot vehicles, while loyalist pamphlets, like charles ingalls, work often seized from the printer and burned in the streets in what inglist
condemned as a violent attack on the liberty of the press. a question for you. i cannot think of a way to say this without sounding like a loaded question. let me try. can you think of another explanation for why they would burn loyalist pamphlets, in addition to the idea patriots might have been insecure on their own arguments? a loaded question. wyvern loyalist pamphlets? is it just insecure -- why burn loyalist pamphlets? could be other arguments to entertain? perspective,itary you are asking for trouble. [indiscernible] it went to me that winning the battle and you want to minimize the argument. hell and in war is
to win a war, you have to win the minds and burning pamphlets is what it takes. i would love to hear from people i have not heard from. >> stamp act? dr. bell: you tell me. >> it might have, i do not know. dr. bell: the stamp act of 1755 is a tax on the commercial use of paper, so pamphlets get more expensive, sometimes they were stamped with little crowns. i could see how it might give some rebels some pleasure to set those stamps on fire. other things? loyalist printers out of business. dr. bell: why is that good? >> because you have no opposition and you control the press. dr. bell: you minimize printed opposition to your ideological agenda and you put the loyalists out of business who have to
think hard about where their money will come from and who their friends are to get back on their feet. anyone else? last one in the redshirt. >> [indiscernible] and you the enemies want to stick your thumb in their eye. dr. bell: to show that there was boss. i take all the arguments. a tax on free speech, property rights, like burning livestock, that kind of thing, and on other occasions, the attacks were much more dangerous and physical. in may of 1770 -- and might be behind us live -- here we go. in may of 1776, the rebels rounded up prospective loyalists in new york and force them to hand over any weapons in their possession. more suspected, loyalists were seized by mobs in wasyork and their clothing
torn off. they were beaten and abused. by the end of the war, at least two dozen suspected loyalists, and not just high-ranking officials, but also bakers, carpenters, at least two dozen suspected loyalists were tortured and publicly humiliated by being tarred and feathered. my students tend to think there's something hilarious about being tarred and feathered. i showed him that clip from john adams, the hbo show, where you see the physical agony of having hot tar poured all your body, for the humiliation when the feathers come -- that is torture. of course, not all of this was by the rebels against the loyalist without provocation. throughout the war, loyalist vigilante groups gave as good as they got, intimidating and doing vitamins to plenty of patriots,
especially in mid atlantic colonies like new jersey and delaware, where the rebels were in the numerical minority. sometimes members of the loyalists were conducting legitimate partisan operations disrupting rep. conyers:, but at other times, there seemed to be plundering or engaging in heady property crime. for example, when patriots captured and interrogated a member of one of these gangs of loyalists in june 1780, the loyalist prisoner confessed -- i have a quote -- that he was not a soldier, neither was he to receive any pay. his sole business was to take numbers of the inhabitants from their houses and plunder. and the plunder was to be divided amongst them. this guy is a pirate, privateer.
as the tide of the war turned in the rebels' favor, the patriots would round up many of the loyalists and bandits and execute them as traitors. usually without a fair or formal trial. after george washington stick to re--- washington' is victory in yorktown in october 1781, loyalist were forced to confront the bitter truth that britain would not maintain control of the 13 rebel colonies. in the south, all of the loyalist who had fled to the safety of british occupied cities, like savannah and charleston over the war years, allow themselves to not be evacuated to british occupied new york, when the red coat army retreated in 1782.
1783, there were more than 30,000 loyalist refugees .uddled in new york city they plan to evacuate in the spring of 19 -- 1883, and there were no signs that local patriots surrounding the city would allow the wireless to stay in manhattan after the british beingat least without bothered on a daily basis. there were lots of hints as to what welcomes the loyalists would get when the patriots entered the city. in westchester county outside loyalist an elderly had recently been viciously beaten and told to run to halifax, nova scotia, or to your damned king, for neither he nor one of his breed should be suffered to remain in the county. get out of westchester, no one
will help you here. while a piece in several regional newspapers warned loyalist -- let's see what i have. there i am, i am on the second quote, sorry for the lapse in technology. a quote in regional newspapers warned loyalist toughly while it is -- to flee while it is still in your power. reject asu as suitable admonitions will have nothing to deliver you from the just vengeance of our collected [indiscernible] loyalists it seemed to her about to be driven out. thankfully for them, the british government had promised to resettle any british subjects who were willing to leave, and the first transport ships had set sail for britain and for canada. several mischievous patriot
newspaper said already started to print made up letters supposedly written by the first loyalist refugees to arrive in nova scotia, turbine team -- trumpeting the beauty of british bounty of the bod british canada. here is 1 -- a delight i came to this place -- read one of the stick letters from a satisfied loyalist evacuee. come and see, said another. evacuatingstion, tens and thousands british subjects, loyalists from new york city, that is not a cheap thing, is it? the british government go to the expense and take all of that effort to make that offer to voluntarily resettle any loyalists who wanted to leave the mainland colonies and
resettle in british canada? that sounds expensive. there must be something is going on, right? let's start here. >> their position in canada makes them -- puts them in a stronger spot to hold onto. dr. bell: they are positioning canada and puts them in a stronger spot to hold onto it, in what ways? >> bringing in loyalists. dr. bell: what do they do for the british empire? or everyone else i think you are -- or everyone else? i think you are onto something. youy bringing them in, [indiscernible] to bell: and the opportunity move against the french is also come by the british government that we are a bit further along the timeline since 1763, so that is less than removing the french -- so that is less of a problem in removing the french.
go ahead. >> you see the population. dr. bell: to enlarge the economy. this gentleman in my reading guest the idea that they want the vacuum is to become soldiers. you are saying they become producers. they become job creators and drive the economy, which is a separate but related argument. british canada -- [indiscernible] settling land, farming land, cities -- dr. bell: were there british settlers coming to canada in that time? one way to answer that would be to say prior to the revolution, the destination of choice had been one of the 13 colonies rather than canada. >> [indiscernible] dr. bell: oliver canada billions of
by 1783 novanerals scotia had been clear-cut. they wanted to fish. areas to thean >> canadae caribbean is rich in natural resources including minerals and fish and lumber three examples. many of those export value back in britain but also in other colonies of the british empire. [indiscernible] the list goes on, absolutely. [indiscernible] we focused and perhaps lead you
towards economic explanations but perhaps there are moral explanations as well. let's go right here. they could be considered refugees and do they have rights as people who have been victimized or been caught in literal crossfire in a conflict they didn't necessarily start? thank you very much. >> the south and dynamic was completely different. south carolina and georgia substantial loyalist militias [indiscernible] even after cornwallis surrendered, the american time.l's spent a lot of some of these were allowed to renounce their loyalist things but others were reasons why these troops were protected in savanna and in charleston.
in terms a reciprocity of debt that was owed to them. they were protecting those people in the towns. they were about half and half british subjects and half loyalist. >> they have been putting their lives on the line. lives will continue to be on the line if they continue to hang around after the war. last comment. >> one reason why britain wanted more people in canada was because the breakaway colonies indeed invaded and they tried again in the war of 1812. of 1812. having the loyalists settling their are having a good number of -- number of them settle their strength in the british ability to hang onto them. >> british colonies whether they are in canada or in jamaica,
they are vulnerable. they're vulnerable to the french or the spanish possibly. they are also vulnerable to independent movements of their own. stocking them with people who have proven their loyalty to the empire might suppress domestic independent insurrection. there are also native american groups to consider. were talking about evacuation of new york. soon enough that evacuation begins. thousands of loyalist prepared to leave new york with the british army. in the streets of new york carts are piled high with household goods and furniture. when is no end of auctions newspaper proclaims. everything is selling off. one immigrant even tries to move a two-story house onto one of these departing transport ships. my god for an image of that. from aprilx months
1783 the entire british army and about 30,000 loyalist civilians evacuated new york city including charles inglis. those 30,000 head for nova scotia and for ontario. a further two and a half thousand travel to quebec in the bahamas. 25, when the last british transport departs, very few self-proclaimed loyalists are left in new york city. that is just as well because later that same day, general george washington leads the continental army in a procession into the city claiming new york for the united states. it is not possible given the time we have tonight to track these 30,000 refugees.
as they try to build this themselves and the far corners of the british empire. the rosy reports about life in rep nova scotia published in the new york paper in 1783 are not entirely accurate in truth. british officials struggled to find sufficient shelter and food for this massive influx of new arrivals. ,n quebec for instance loyalists and settle in townships that were settled so hastily that each of these new towns don't even have a name just a number. think of them as can't. across canada, rations are often in short supply and available farmland proves difficult system cyst on. many loyalist refugees do not survive the first few winters. in sum, more than 60,000
loyalist leave the united states between 1775 and 1783. rest0 via new york and the typically by land across the northern border into canada. many other loyalists remain in america. the ties of home, the ties of family proved too strong to break and to abandon. even if the remaining part of the british empire had to be sacrificed to stay on. behindts who do stay find themselves in a terrible awkward position. many radical patriots are calling for their heads. according to an anonymous piece in the independent new york 1783,e published in
closeted loyalists would soon face a better and that breaking hurricane. loyalists,for those most state legislatures fell not into the hands of radicals but into the hands of more moderate politicians. continuing to fight a war the patriots had already one served no long political purpose. make the mistake, the conflict between loyalists and patriots could not be easily forgotten. how could it be easily forgotten? it had been a civil war. it had been a civil war. that phrase, civil war, was used hundreds of times by people who at the time over and over again to describe the american revolution.
the first civil war had polarize communities, destroyed friendships, divided households sending tens of thousands of fish subjects out into the anglo american diaspora trying to start over. any questions before i make a massive segue? [indiscernible] a couple of million. including white and black. number.s in a large it points to the idea that there are tens of thousands of people who had been loyalists or even raise your hand loyalists who remained behind. yes sir. >> this may be off-topic. , heard at the end of the war
the british who had surrendered at yorktown went to prisoner of war candace but ultimately were theted to spend time in colonies to start a , whatever. heather the colonists treat them versus the loyalists? clearly they were both , but theyh, pro-crown had a different point of view. >> yes i think there's something to that. they did receive more favorable treatment by patriots after the war. to do withmething fear of people in uniform. from state- usually to state. some states further north were much less hospitable to those folks in the south were loyalist had been more common.
make it quick. >> how did being a loyalist other than you joined one army or another? youan i throw that back at in general? that's an important question. >> talking. talking to people. >> sharing ideas over the dinner table. having a formal conversation. who do you have on your wall? having pictures of king george to have in your house. do they have the eyes and print out? did you burn them? absolutely. not having a liberty pole in your front yard.
[indiscernible] perhaps not engaging in the different nonproduction not consumption boy movements which we see in the run-up to the war. anyone else? [indiscernible] some people who did keep their own conscience during the war years and kept quiet we also know about their closeted loyalists and by reading their mail. there were different ways to exhibit that audiology. some more vocal somerset more subtle and implicit than others. i want to take a sharp turn now.
tonight has done basically nothing to incorporate african-americans into the unfolding story of loyalists versus patriots in the american revolution. in the time i have left, i want to try to fix that. by the eve of the american revolution, slavery was a fact of life. for hundreds of thousands of african-americans. as war broke out in 1775, any british spy sneaking around the colonies would of come across about 75,000 black slaves waiting in rice paddies in south carolina. blacka hundred and 87,000 slaves working in the tobacco and wheatfields of virginia, delaware, maryland. and tens of thousands more working as dockworkers and domestic servants from savannah
and charleston in the south to philadelphia, new york, newport, boston in the north. over the next eight years of war, both the continental army in the british army would appeal to black americans for manpower and for logistical support to prosecute the war. my arguments over these next few minutes is that how free and responded tole those offers can offer us a new way to think about whether or not the american revolution provided an opportunity for the men and women on the lowest rungs of america's latter to declare their independence like the fancy folks in wakes like george washington, thomas jefferson. wetalk about like loyalists
first need to talk about like patriots. that's what were going to do. freeay know that it was a black man living in boston who became the first casualty of the american revolution. he was descended from both african and natives. he shipped the first blood in a 1770 boston massacre. when paul revere and william dawes alerted the people of lexington and concorde the british were on the march, several legally free african-americans turned out to fight as patriots -- patriot militiamen. took parttiamen also in the siege of boston and the battle of bunker hill. over the course of the eight year war, the new england states enlisted more black militiamen than any other region of the new nation.
does that surprise you? lotengland seems to have a and other patriot colonies seem to have fewer? no one is surprised. if you're not surprised, tell me why you are not surprised. shouldn't you be surprised given never vastly more black folks outside of new england and worked in new england? why are you not surprised? >> because the last thing you're going to do is armed black if you're in the mid-atlantic and self states. because if they want their freedom are going to use their arms against you. themsulates people, giving -- enslaved people, giving them
a weapon might harm you. there's always the question of opportunity cost of replacement labor when you try to enlist someone who has a job into an armed force. thank you. anyone else? just to build on the first comment of course, numerically, white folks are so numerically dominant in the northern colonies that the potential margin for error of arming any free black person seems like something they can handle demographically. let's keep going. i've been talking about the militia. whether black men would be allowed to join full-time the continental army. when the army was set up in the
summer of 1775, general washington was initially hesitant to include black soldiers. when he saw the scale of reinforcements that they were bringing in to reinforce boston, washington reluctantly changed his mind and allowed a few free black men not slaves from the various new england colonies into the ranks of his army. it was never terribly common for black slaves to serve in the continental army. in fact is early enthusiasm for the patriot war effort, as washington grew more desperate for manpower, proposals to arm slaves were usually shouted down. of 1776ance, in august a former member of the new jersey congress drafted a plan to arm slaves in the state of
new jersey and to form them into a patriot battalion. according to that plan, these black soldiers will be closely watched and their numbers will be kept small so as not to suffer them to bear any large proportion to the white. even those promises proved insufficient to calm fears from other white folks. john adams responded to this plan saying this: your negro battalion will never do. south carolina would run out of his wits if there was a hint of such measure. south carolina would lose their minds he started giving guns to enslaved people in new jersey. arming slaves was still a step too far for many patriots. the only slaves who served in the continental army tended to do so in noncombat roles. one man who saw this kind of
non-combat mission was a man called prince whipple. he was the slave of a white new hampshire officer. did work for the officer corps. we know his name and the sort of grunt work he did because he literally wrote into history as men caught in a the nightnowstorm george washington crossed the delaware river. heremoment as you see became the subject of one of the most famous history paintings in the world. he is forth from the left. ofear later and the winter 1777, white recruitment have become even more difficult for the patriots.
by then the continental army was beginning to start a fresh recruits willing to pick up a musket and fight. washington decided to form a new regiment of armed black soldiers to fill the growing manpower gap. northern states with small black populations found it easier to arm slaves than did southern states. it was to the great state of rhode island that washington turned first. asking slave owners there to let their slaves form the first black regiment of the continental army. his invitation to rhode island slave owners was whittled received -- well-received. one out of four able-bodied male slaves obtained their master's consent to enlist. why would the master of a rhode island enslaved man give
permission for him to enlist in a new regiment with guns? that doesn't strike you as strange echo --? anything for the war effort. we have to win this war. right. the who is super important. >> wasn't very expensive to own slaves in rhode island. they were earning their keep per financially beneficial for them to not own slaves. >> it could be an ideological proposition that they are responding to. it could also be an economic opposition they are responding to. they can also make some money. do you think the slaves that
paid for their work? ofwas there any kind abolitionist movement arty ?tarting in the north there was a very small antislavery movement at this time. 1775 which isin where we are in the timeline here. it has a massive court, newport rhode island, but a major port in an international slave trade. rhode island is not where you go looking for anti-slavery sentiment in this. . up, rhode island slave
owners are of course compensated or at least they are promised or two pointch $5,000 today. everyone always thinks the war will end two weeks from now but then it ends 10 years from now so there is a disconnect there. during its four years of active 1781, thisn 1777 and regiment comprised of 700 black soldiers. 142 of whom were enslaved at the time they were enlisted. the rest were either free blacks, mixed race, or narragansett indians. 1783, roughly in 5000 african-americans had served in the continental army in some capacity.
usually in noncombat roles. sometimes on the front lines. additionally 4000 americans served in patriot forces. this accounted for about 3% of total patriot mobilization. peachut of 200,000 were -- people of color on the patriot side. imagine the british also tried to enlist black slaves as soldiers. in fact the british started to do so long before washington formed the rhode island regiment in 1777. in virginia november 1775, the royally appointed commander of the british army there famously
promised lifelong freedom to any enslaved man brave enough to desert his patriot master and come and fight with the british. up and down the colonies, patriot leaders soon began cursing lord dunmore's name. some called him the king of the blacks. which is about as poisonous and insult to an elite white gentleman as they could think of at that time. abhors of lord once othern journalists said that hell itself could not have vomited up anything more black than this design. isobvious question for you ?hy
[indiscernible] >> you have invested a large amount of money in either buying or raising enslaved people to be part of your labor force and now those people are being encouraged to run away from you and not do any more work for you . that is a massive economic >> it would be a bad example to the others. if one person does take him up on this offer, doesn't that set a president to other people -- a precedent to other people? >> it makes the owner look weak. >> it makes the owner look weak and unable to control his labor
force. anyone else? >> he just talked about what but it was said against the law for slaves to be literate. reads a slave going to this and say, where do i go to sign up? >> if it is against the law in some colonies and states for a slave to be taught to read or write, it was usually the teaching that was illegal, how did the slaves ever see this broadside? >> what are -- what are possible answers? >> [indiscernible] you could hear your master talking about it. that did happen. >> if there were loyalist property owners, slave owners, it was pretty known in slave
communities that they communicated amongst themselves. it was not an issue to rapidly destroy this. >>it was not an we have been abt in oral word-of-mouth network among slaves which carried news about pretty much anything in this. period.is owner toakes one slave be talking when they forgot about someone in the back of the room for this to spread. the teaching of literacy was illegal but that does not mean that people were not literate and broke a lolly time. frederick douglass learned to read by conning a school kid into teaching him. a small but useful enough percentage of slave people did have those skills. this could be back to fight in their utility these oral networks. let's keep going. hell was vomiting this black
design. imagine, i'm going to skip this next slide so ignore this quote. southern planters tried every possible tactic to stop their valuable slaves from making a -- for the british line. watch, they the organized slave patrols, they mobilized their indian allies to return any fugitives they could find back to slavery. the virginia committee of safety even passed a menacing resolution threatening the lives and children of any male slaves him up onony who took this master -- on his offer. if you had kids and you are a slave, you're going to leave them behind. the virginia committee of safety wants to spell out what will provokedasters will be to severity should part of their
slaves desert them. should there be any amongst them weak enough to believe that dunmore intends to them a kindness, wicked enough to provoke the fury of the americans against their mothers,ss thought -- children, wives. you see white slave owners characterizing slaves as weak and then in the next phrase characterizing them as wicked smart. many slavest so thought this chance at freedom was worth the risk was remarkable. one of these men was a new jersey slave who bled his master -- fled his master the day after the proclamation reached him. we do not know much about what happened until two years after he runs away in the summer of 1778 when he turns up fighting alongside white loyalists against the patriots at the
battle of monmouth. colonel tye as he now calls himself launches a series of surprise raids against wealthy slaveholding patriots against -- across northern new jersey. historians believe many of his 's assaults were reprisals against former masters for past mistreatment. he was hardly the only black farmhand to take up the offer. within the first month after the proclamation in november 1775, more than 300 men had joined the british army and returned with a promise of freedom after the war. dunmore was not the only british commander to try to turn american slaves against a patriot masters.
known as the phillipsburg proclamation, general henry clinton's 1779 declaration was bigger and better. it was not just limited to men willing to fight, as dunmore's had been. his proclamation promised negror freedom to every who shall desert the rebels. in both proclamations, it is not anyone can come join who is black. you must have a p tritt master. if you have a loyalist master, we don't want you. you see why. we want to undercut the economic underpinnings of the patriots. such a broad promise, not just to fighting men but to every negro who shall desert the rebel standard of the attention not only of men of fighting age but also of women and families. as a result, not hundreds of
thousands of black men, women and children began to tag along with the british army. for instance, when thomas pinkley, south carolina's presented it to the patriot continental congress returned home to his plantation in the spring of 1779, thinking he discovered his plantation to be empty of its slaves except for a handful of pregnant women and older people. likewise, when the british general lord cornwallis swept through one of thomas jefferson's plantations in early june 1781, he left the plantation accompanied by 23 of the future presidents slaves including a man named hannibal, his wife patty and six of their children.
when more dunmore's army marched 1781, 17 ofame year general washington's own slaves ran away to join the british, including some of his most trusted artisans in house servants. famously, one of his stable keepers, a man named harry evacuated with the british heel on -- and up alongside other tryings in sierra leone to set up a post-racial government which had trouble of its own. slavesan 5000 virginia including harry washington fled slavery this way during the war years. all 13haps 25,000 across colonies. many ended up working in support functions for the british army. this got of countryside, built
trenches, tended horses, cooked food, foraged for firewood and washed laundry all in exchange for shelter, protection and most of all they hoped, a life in freedom after this war. very few saw active duty as soldiers. that theruth was british army wanted black men mostly for their muscle. when he british captain incovered the fortifications south carolina to be little more than a few heaps of sand, he ordered the 50 -- the 30 black men under his command to pick up axes and shovels and repair the fortifications. likewise during the siege of charleston, british officers used black men in place of forces to drag heavy pieces of ammunition into position.
if you able-bodied black men who ended up in combat did not see much action at all. dunmore called on the ethiopian regiment. . there were quickly defeated by as were many white regiments. just a month after dunmore's famous proclamation. he said, go fight the americans, the americans beat them. all of dunmore's troops were forced to treat -- forced to retreat to british ships. when a smallpox epidemic broke dunmore fought the
african-american soldiers on board to get off. he offloaded them onto an isolated island in the chesapeake bay then sail off without them. later when a patriot force took that island, the patriots found many of those black soldiers stranded, dying of starvation in a putrid fever. others were lying dead in the open fields, there were a few scattered women and children there. one starving child was suckling at the breast of its dead mother. of the blackf regiment died that way. a shameful reward for their service to the british. the british as you know were soon in retreat but it took years for them to formally and finally surrender. in the meantime, thousands of black refugees flooded into new york city. i talked about the white refugees flooding in. several were black. the british held on to new york city for most of the war.
because of the shortage of white workers in the city, black refugees found 20th employment in the quartermaster general's, the bargain master generals and forage and provision departments and in the commissary. city artisans in new york worked on rebuilding projects in the british navy yard. black teamsters hauled provisions and collected firewood. black nurses and orderlies staffed british hospitals. laundress's and new women to the washing and sewing. black pilots guided british ships in and out of new york. thek musicians entertained army officers at social events. black cooks, servants, valets ensure the comfort of the military elite. every day, more refugees arrived in new york city, some under the protection of retreating british
commanders like dunmore and clinton. others having failed -- sailed to safety in manhattan. by 1783, it was finally clear that the british cause in america had failed. in occupied new york, the british army prepared to and in direct contravention of the terms of in treaty of paris signed 1783, the british commanders decided to take many of their black allies with them. opposition of bitter from george washington, from the continental congress and from the patriot governors of the various southern states who wanted their slaves back, british commanders attempted to fulfill their promises of freedom to runaway slaves.
inr the course of six months 1783, more than 3000 former slaves were evacuated onto british ships leaving new york city and were transported to parts of the british empire where they could be legally freed. some ended up in london, others in canada, and a few even made it to west africa where they tried to establish a new colony in which x slaves might govern themselves. turns out thatit the evacuation of more than 3000 former slaves from new york city was the most significant act of emancipation in american history before the civil war. but, we need to keep some perspective. for every black refugee who made it to london, to canada or perhaps to sierra leone, there
were hundreds upon hundreds of slaves who would remain in bondage in america. but in the north and in the south. more african americans were born into slavery during the war than ever exited by fleeing to join the british. in that context, the patriots 'victory seems like you defeat for african-americans hope for freedom in america. southern slaveholders certainly gave a collective sigh of relief when they learned that the .ritish had surrendered without a marauding foreign army promising slaves freedom, they could now repair the damage that the war had caused.
during the american revolution i'm going to wrap up now, enslaved men and women risked much more than most white colonists did. that is to say, no part of colonial american society responded to the call to arms with anywhere near the enthusiasm of those who are black. proportionate to their small number in the population as a whole, african-american males were more likely to participate in the war between britain and her colonies and white american males were. most black americans took lord dunmore's side, fighting against the patriot cause against the side of what to them must of seems like slaveowning hypocrites who proclaims that all men are born free and equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. even though tens of thousands of adult slaves, along with many of their children, made it
declarations of independence by choosing the british side, britain as i hope you have heard also treated them disgracefully. despite two highly conditional proclamations from commanders in the field, the british government itself in london, in state conspicuously silent during the war and to not issue any sort of universal emancipation decree as lincoln would later do during the civil war. british commanders left black soldiers and their families to die on that island in the chesapeake after exploiting them for their brute strength as if they were little more than horses or cattle. only those promises of freedom after the war made by men like dunmore and clinton kept so many black refugees from abandoning
the british. for these reasons, this is where i will stop, the majority of black americans probably regarded themselves as neither patriot north loyalist but instead, independent actors caught up in a drama that was largely written by white men of power on either side of the atlantic. that is where i will stop. [applause] we have a few minutes left for questions. i also welcome questions -- comments as well. let's start in the back. >> [indiscernible] released slaves in wondered if we
would've never revolted against the british slavery would have ended in the united states and we would've never had a civil war. different timelines for emancipation in the united states and of british empire, the british empire abolished there was a833, involvingyear process dubious half measures and the argument runs, would american slaves have been emancipated at the same time if they stayed part of the empire? i think no because the british people took a large number of slave colonies out of the empire, the net number of enslaved people who would benefit from emancipation drastically falls within the 13tish empire, when those
colonies are taken out of it. as an economic proposition, something that has to be funded by compensating slave owners whether slaves are free, the loss of the colonies makes emancipation suddenly a whole lot cheaper for the british government and therefore a whole lot more likely. >> [indiscernible] saratogaths after [indiscernible] [laughter] >> i am going to totally dodge that. if you were in that position, what would you do and tell us your logic? >> i don't know. then, i don'tk know. >> what sort of factors would've been important to you? >> that is worthy of a whole
other discussion. >> it is hard to answer these hypotheticals. >> in your research and your lecture, let me take it back on to, if you had to go back this era knowing what you know about all of this, where would you go and not so much change history but to observe or ask some buddy a question why you did this just to see what he was thinking about? things which will partially dodge your question and try to answer it at the same time. i became a father for or five years ago and how i think about , my career path, might mobility, my freedom has changed as a result of having people who depend on you. my wife is an independent woman, does not depend on the, let's be
clear but my two young children depend on both of us. thinking structure my about how much risk i am to take in anything. i don't know how many of you have seen that meme going around , pictures of a bunch of the younger founding fathers that tells you how old they were in 1776 and to some of these kids were kids. 18 years old through 21 years old, i sort of wonder about how life responsibility or lack thereof might reflect your decision making. if i could ask any questions of people in the past, have always the effects of the publication of common sense in 1736 in philadelphia. it seems to spread the idea that independence as possible, victory is possible, and independence is desirable and
popularize those notions with amazing rapidity. what i would love to ask readers is, were you secretly thinking this before you read this pamphlet and were too scared to say it out loud, does this give you permission to say it out loud? balcony questions. >> with all the loyalists in the north american colonies, it seems a good british could have done more to support them. perhaps they could have won the war or at least prolonged it. my question is, what were they doing? they were trying to free african-americans, invading the colonies and trying to occupy cities, but what more could they have done to support loyalists because it seems like a third of them had quite a lot of people. >> what could the british have done to hold on the colonies
given the apparent early strength of the loyalists? i would probably point you to an excellent book on that subject, it is not on this screen which is why i am mentioning it, it "thet couple years ago, menw h who lost america." it is about british military and political strategy. i don't like talking about men in positions of power as if they are the people who make history. but i do think if you want to look at it in terms of grand strategy, this book is a great place to start. we will take maybe one or two more. information atny all about reprisals against
african-americans after the war? >> reprisals against african-americans after the war? >> those who went into the british lines. >> some of those runaway slaves were recovered by their former patriot masters and it is easy to generalize. physical reprisals were very common, limits on your future mobility. your future tasks you are given going forward, it affected your life going forward. we know from british records just how keenness am a patriot slave owners were to get this slaves back. part of that was they wanted to
insist -- to recover economic losses, part was to serve up different degrees of violence against them. let's take one more. if there are any more questions, you can ask me afterward. 2500 loyalists who went bahamas ors -- the jamaica. whether other flows of loyalists to florida or cross the mississippi or other places? any idea of how much of that there was? >> i don't have anything to say about west of the minister -- west of the mississippi, but i would add jamaica and barbados and other british islands. florida as well. saint augustine, the oldest settlement in the
united states and we tend to think of it because of its spanish influence but it and other parts of florida for british possessions at this point. the southern border between georgia and florida became another exodus line in the same way we think of the northern border in new hampshire, vermont and canada. >> you might be looking at another 10,000 or 15,000. >> if you have more questions come up and ask me. thank you very much. [applause] >> this weekend on the c-span, tonight at 8:30 eastern, the national rifle association leadership forum in dallas. speakers include ted cruz and
richard hudson. sunday at 6:30, starbucks executive chair on the responsibility of global companies. on book tv, tonight at 9:00 eastern, author sally kohn talks with candy crowley about where hate begins. at 8:00 p.m. sunday, former secretary of state condoleezza rice on the future of american diplomacy. tv,on american history tonight at 8:00 eastern, on the presidency, hillary clinton and johnson talk about betty ford. atday at uno clock -- sunday falwelle case hustler v and its impact on cartoonists. watch this weekend on the c-span network. c-span, where history unfolds
daily. c-span was created as a public service and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the policy court and public events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite divider. -- satellite provider. >> sunday, university of california santa barbara english professor on his book, "inse parable." about the life of conjoined twins. couples, to married they cannot be in the same bed. -- these are two married
couples, two separate households about a mile from each other. his deck based -- to this very rigid schedule. one house for three days and chang is the master of the house. the other will give up his free will. move toys later, they the other house. chang will give up his own free will. >> did it work? >> apparently. they had 21 children. next, s.c. gwinn talks about his book in which he recounts
the life and military career of the military general. he reports that jackson, a employed unique tactics that propelled him to fame. this was recorded at the atlanta history center in 2014. it is just under one hour. >> our speaker tonight lived in austin texas, he is a prolific writer, he has written for time magazine for 12 years, where he won a national headliners award for his reporting on the columbine shootings. he was executive director for the texas monthly between 2000 and 2008 for he wrote on high-profile subjects from karl