StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Out of all the people responsible for the American Revolution, George Robert Twelves Hewes is probably the least well-known. This is odd, since he's arguably the individual most responsible for the early stages of the rebellion. He was present at the most important incidents that led to the start of the war and an outright instigator in several of them. The funny thing is, I had never heard of him until Saturday, when he was mentioned on the radio by a writer for BusinessWeek.

Hewes was born to a poor family and spent his early years running away from indentured servitude and the law. He served time in debtor's prison when he couldn't repay the loan he took out for his one decent set of clothes. Poverty and hard labor took a physical toll on Hewes, who was barely 5'1" tall and scrawny. It also instilled deep dislike for authority figures who, at the time were officials in the British government and their colonial lackeys who, when they weren't bullying and extorting the locals, were using press gangs to abduct them.

Hewes experienced first hand what British trade and commerce restrictions (to say nothing of the taxes) made a difficult job of earning a living as a shoemaker almost impossible. Hewes was one of the artisans protesting the Redcoats' habit of taking from locals and refusing to pay, something that happened to the little shoemaker numerous times. He was present on February 22 1770, when a paid snitch-turned customs official shot and killed a 10-year-old boy (Christopher Seider) in a crowd of protesters and received a royal pardon. Eleven days after Seider was gunned down, an apprentice wigmaker was clubbed with the stock of a musket by a British soldier for jeering and throwing rocks and snowballs at an officer who had refused to pay his bill. Having just seen one child killed, Hewes and numerous others gathered and started throwing rocks and snowballs at the Redcoats, daring them to fire as Ebenezer Richardson had done when he killed Seider. The British, panicked by a mob enraged at the killing of one child and the clubbing of another, opened fire -killing five in what became known as The Boston Massacre. Four of the men killed were friends of Hewes', including James Caldwell, whom Hewes caught as he collapsed -dead from a British gunshot wound to the chest.



Knowing that the Redcoats now more or less had a license to shoot those who took to the streets, Hewes and other radicals laid low until the Tea Act was passed three years later. At first, colonists refused to buy East India Company tea -they even refused to unload it as angry mobs turned EIC ships away from the docks. When the Royal Navy appeared and threatened to use force to bring the tea to Boston if it wasn't unloaded the next day, George Robert Twelves Hughes and others dressed as Indians crept aboard the ships at night and threw the tea in the harbor.



Like the other Patriots, Hewes despised British customs officials almost as much as the "lobster backs" themselves. Customs officials and their hired snitches stood to gain one-third of all goods and property of smugglers they helped catch. One was John Malcolm, who had already been tarred and feathered in New Hampshire for being a bullying, obnoxious mini-tyrant. He was even worse in Boston,and when he was about to club a boy over the head with his cane for insolence, Hewes intervened. Malcolm fancied himself as a gentleman, and he berated Hewes for being such an impertinent lower-class nobody. Hewes responded that he may not be a "gentleman" but he had never been tarred and feathered either. Malcolm clubbed him so hard that his scalp was split open and he was knocked cold. Hewes was dragged by spectators to a doctor and then to a magistrate to swear out a warrant for his attacker's arrest. When the constable and Hewes arrived, an angry mob (thinking that Hewes had been killed) had tarred and feathered Malcolm a second time and surprisingly, Hewes pleaded with the crowd not to hang him, causing them to relent.



Between the Boston Tea Party and the tar-and-feather treatment given to a British official, Parliament responded by closing Boston to all shipping and imposing martial law. When word of this reached the other colonies (especially Virginia), not only were they not intimidated by the example being made of Massachusetts, they joined in the fight against the Redcoats. The roles of most of the others who took part, from John Hancock to George Washington -even Aaron Burr- have been covered at length by historians for 200 years.

Although he spent most of the rest of his life in obscurity and poverty, George Robert Twelves Hewes has something of a second act in life due to his status as the last known survivor of the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre and the tarring and feathering of John Malcolm. By the early 1830s he was also one of the few remaining veterans of the American Revolution and his interviews with an attorney, Benjamin Thatcher, offer one of the few first-hand accounts of these events. It helped that Hewes had a photographic memory, and subsequent historians have found out time and again that Hewes' version checks out when compared with statements made at the time.

Hewes wasn't just a rabble-rouser. The actions he and other "troublemakers" took (and the British reactions that followed) kicked off the Revolution and had a great effect on American culture and attitudes. Everything from the preference for coffee over tea, scorn for the highfalutin, hatred of taxes, fondness for vigilante justice and gun ownership can be traced back at least in part to this incorrigible little shoemaker and others like him who decided that enough was enough.

George Robert Twelves Hughes wrote:"I'll not take my hat off to any man!"

There's an excellent website called Boston 1775 that has many interesting links, book reviews and articles about what it was like in the days leading up to the American Revolution. They have an article about George R.T. Hewes that describes his role in the Boston Massacre. Great reading for those with a casual interest as well as enthusiasts.

Ironically basing a national economy on privateers and smugglers is frowned on a bit these days. That crazy 18th century, laying the groundwork for the early 20th century of revolution.

The whole article is pretty much biased.

"British taxes that made living as craftsmen nearly impossible?"
"officials in the British government and their colonial lackeys who, when they weren't bullying and extorting the locals, were using press gangs to abduct them."
"Hewes and numerous others gathered and started throwing rocks and snowballs at the Redcoats, daring them to fire as Ebenezer Richardson had done when he killed Seider. The British, panicked by a mob enraged at the killing of one child and the clubbing of another, opened fire -killing five in what became known as The Boston Massacre. "

I mean, come on. I like how it nowhere mentions that the Patriots wanted the British to fire because they wanted the massacre, even going to the point of shouting at them to fire from behind them, to make it appear as if an officer had given the order.

Thanas wrote:The whole article is pretty much biased.

"British taxes that made living as craftsmen nearly impossible?"

The lower classes in Boston certainly thought so. But it wasn't just the taxes and extortion, it was also the fact that British troops competed with locals for jobs. Then again, what would they know about it? They just lived there at the time.

"officials in the British government and their colonial lackeys who, when they weren't bullying and extorting the locals, were using press gangs to abduct them."

You're right: Royal Navy press gangs were purely fictional. Sailors didn't join the fray over impressment or other indignities perpetrated by the Redcoats.

I mean, come on. I like how it nowhere mentions that the Patriots wanted the British to fire because they wanted the massacre, even going to the point of shouting at them to fire from behind them, to make it appear as if an officer had given the order.

The Patriots wanted to get themselves and their comrades shot? What bullshit! Even Captain Preston said in his deposition that there was no order to fire -just protesters daring the "lobsters" to fire.

The mob still increased and were more outrageous, striking their clubs or bludgeons one against another, and calling out, come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire and be damned, we know you dare not, and much more such language was used.

(emphasis mine)

This may have been reckless and stupid on their part, but it's not the same as saying they were trying to get themselves killed. They were heaping abuse (and snowballs, oyster shells, rocks, etc) on the soldiers, not trying to commit suicide for the cause.

The closest thing there was to an "order" to fire came from Pvt Hugh Montgomery who, after being knocked down by Crispus Attucks, shot him and yelled "Damn you, fire!" to his fellow soldiers. Does that make him part of the Patriots' scheme?

Elfdart wrote:

Thanas wrote:The whole article is pretty much biased.

"British taxes that made living as craftsmen nearly impossible?"

The lower classes in Boston certainly thought so. But it wasn't just the taxes and extortion, it was also the fact that British troops competed with locals for jobs. Then again, what would they know about it. They just lived there at the time.

Please show how there was a direct connection between british taxes and making living impossible. By that account it reads as if there was a crushing tax designed to put craftsmen out of jobs or at least having that effect. Demonstrate so now and show how it was worse than any other tax levied on the British population itself.

"officials in the British government and their colonial lackeys who, when they weren't bullying and extorting the locals, were using press gangs to abduct them."

You're right: Royal Navy press gangs were purely fictional. Sailors didn't join the fray over impressment or other indignities perpetrated by the Redcoats.

Yeah, my beef is mainly that the article makes it sound as if the British governemnt was quite okay and spent all its time with bullying, extortion and impressing people. Which simply is not true. (Funny how the very same people who gallantly defended the colonies in the French/Indian war became extorters and bullies overnight).

The Patriots wanted to get themselves and their comrades shot? What bullshit! Even Captain Preston said in his deposition that there was no order to fire -just protesters daring the "lobsters" to fire.

The mob still increased and were more outrageous, striking their clubs or bludgeons one against another, and calling out, come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire and be damned, we know you dare not, and much more such language was used.

(emphasis mine)

This may have been reckless and stupid on their part, but it's not the same as saying they were trying to get themselves killed. They were heaping abuse (and snowballs, oyster shells, rocks, etc) on the soldiers, not trying to commit suicide for the cause.

You call it reckless and stupid, I call attacking people with clubs and daring said people to shoot suicidal. Note how the Jury itself believed that the soldiers felt threatened by the crowd. And testimony by Carr shows that the idiots in the crowd were of suicidal behavior.

Thanas wrote:Yeah, my beef is mainly that the article makes it sound as if the British governemnt was quite okay and spent all its time with bullying, extortion and impressing people. Which simply is not true. (Funny how the very same people who gallantly defended the colonies in the French/Indian war became extorters and bullies overnight).

There was a combination of unhelpful factors, and it wasn't exactly sudden: there was a period of about ten years between the end of the French and Indian War and the peak of unrest in Boston.

I would have to go digging through college notes to put together a history-paper grade argument, but there were a number of legitimate grievances the colonists had. Aside from the generally irritating principle that colonial taxes were set by a legislature that the colonists had no direct representation in, I recall reading about a money supply problem: taxes were collected in specie, trading with foreign powers for specie was illegal under the Navigation Act, and the overall balance of trade between North America and Britain was such as to leave the colonies with a trade deficit.

That led to a currency shortage in the colonies, one which the British then exacerbated by forbidding the colonial governments to print paper money (including some that were backed by land, interestingly).

It wasn't entirely a matter of whiny colonists being ungrateful for the British saving their asses during the war;* the colonists did have some issues that they had reason to want resolved somehow, and that the British government was slow and reluctant to resolve by peaceful means.

Though I doubt you really believe it was that one-sided in any case: "whiny Colonial ingrates" strikes me as as unlikely a myth for a competent historian to support as "tyrannical British thugs."

*For that matter, the idea of the French actually being able to conquer the North American colonies seems unlikely to me when I consider the huge imbalance of manpower and resources on the ground. The British troops that conquered Canada were doing the colonists a favor, but I question whether the favor was all that important in the grand scheme of things.