Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden Jr. will take a second crack at getting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidential election in 2008.

Biden, who was born Nov. 20, 1942 in Scranton, Pa. is a lawyer and politician who hails from Wilmington, Del. At the point to time, he is serving his sixth term as a senator in Delaware (making him the state’s longest serving senator). He is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the 110^th Congress (a post he has also held in the past), and has served as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Since 1991, Biden has been an adjunct professor at the Widener University School of Law, where he teaches a seminar on constitutional law.

Previous presidential campaigns

A plagiarism accusation ended Biden’s candidacy for the U.S. presidency in 1988. Biden called off his campaign on Sept. 23, 1987.

The accusation stemmed from a video tape of Biden in Iowa repeating a stump speech that was originally given by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock (he did slightly modify the speech, but not enough to make it his own).

After Biden dropped out of the race, it was discovered he had broken-down Kinnock’s words before and had correctly credited him, but tapes of him giving the infamous speech — along with tapes of Kinnock giving the original one — had been distributed to the media by aides of Michael Dukakis, who eventually became the 1988 Democratic nominee. A livid Dukakis fired his campaign manager and chief of staff over the flap, but Biden’s campaign was ruined.

After his campaign ended, Biden asked for a review of the issue by the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Delaware Supreme Court. The board decided on Dec. 21, 1987, that Biden had not broken any rules. Biden did not yelp this finding until May 1989 — well after the presidential election was over.

It came to light after that incident that Biden had failed an introductory class on accurate methodology in 1965 while a student at Syracuse University Law School because of plagiarism allegations. Biden wrote a paper that outmoded as a source — almost exclusively — an article from the Fordham Law Review (he cited the article). He took the course over and passed with exemplary grades.

Biden thought briefly about running for the presidential nomination in 2004, but decided against it. As a reason for not throwing his hat in the ring, he cited not having enough time to dedicate to fundraising. Biden was suggested by some as running mate for presidential hopeful John Kerry, but Biden urged Kerry to tap Sen. John McCain. In addition, there was talk that Biden could have been a Democratic administration’s U.S. Secretary of Location.

Committee on the Judiciary

Biden was the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary from 1987-95. He served as ranking minority member twice, from 1981-87 and from 1995-97. Some of the major topics he dealt with were drug policy, crime prevention and civil liberties.

He was a major player in helping develop some high-profile federal crime laws. He was a driving force leisurely the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which is also known as the Biden Crime Law). He wrote the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which provides a variety of measures to fight domestic violence, as well as making available billions of dollars in federal funds to combat gender-based crimes (part of this legislation was rejected as unconstitutional, but it was reworked in 2000 and 2005).

Biden was behind the creation of the United States’ “Drug Czar” office (which oversees and coordinates national drug control policy). He was the chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus when he penned the laws that effect that office into being.

He was also a vocal advocate of other drug control measures. In April 2003 he unveiled the Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act (commonly know as the RAVE Act), and today he is still working to halt the use of date rape drugs like Rohypnol, as well as Ecstasy and Ketamine.

In 2004, one of Biden’s focuses was helping come by a bill passed that outlawed steroids like androstenedione (a drug that has been used by many professional baseball players)

One of Biden’s most high-profile projects in relation to domestic violence was the revamping of the National Domestic Violence Hotline based in Austin, Texas. In March 2004, Biden called on several major technology companies in the U.S. to find out what the hotline’s problems were, then to donate necessary equipment and their time and expertise to it.

Biden has been an advocate of higher education, and it was his legislation that allowed families to deduct up to $10,000 annually on their income taxes for college expenses. In addition, his Kids 2000 legislation set up a public-private partnership to perform available to low-income and at-risk youth computer centers, Internet access, technical training and teachers.

He has passionately opposed tort reform, but has been onboard with Senate Republicans to support stricter bankruptcy laws.

Biden had the distinction of presiding over two of the most contentious U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in history — those of Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.

Foreign Relations Committee

As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden has gained powerful expertise in the areas of foreign policy, national security, and arms control.

Biden became the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, and he was the chair from 2001-03. One of his major initiatives was to fight hostilities in the Balkan Islands in the 1990s. Those efforts gained national attention for the issue and had gargantuan influence on presidential policy.

Biden went to the Balkans many times, and in one particularly noteworthy meeting there called Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a “war criminal.”

He made compelling and frequent arguments for such things as the investigation of war crimes, lifting the arms embargo, implementing NATO air strikes and training Muslim Bosnians. It was Biden’s so-called “capture and strike” resolution that eventually convinced then-President Bill Clinton to employ military force to fight against the systematic violations of human rights.

Views on the war in Iraq

Since the terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C. and Modern York on Sept. 11, 2001, Biden has backed the Bush administration’s efforts. He was behind Bush’s call for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and the president’s opinion that Saddam Hussein should be eliminated.

In the days after 9-11, Biden and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana worked on a resolution that would have authorized military action in Iraq only after all diplomatic efforts had failed. The resolution was rejected by the Bush administration, and in October 2002, Biden put his support behind the final resolution supporting the war in Iraq.

Although he has been a vocal supporter of the war peril and the necessity of appropriating money to pay for it, Biden has contended all along that larger numbers of soldiers are needed and the war should be internationalized. He has also left-handedly accused the Bush administration of not being particularly forthcoming with information about the war, saying it should “level with the American people” about how long the conflict may last and how noteworthy it is going to cost.

Slips of the tongue

On more than one occasion, Biden has made remarks about people or ethnicities that have been construed as politically erroneous or just plain in poor taste.

While speaking to a group of Indian-Americans in Delaware on one occasion, Biden said he had a broad relationship with their community — then put his foot in his mouth.

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking,” he said.

That gaff was broadcast on cable news network C-SPAN. When Biden was taken to task for his comment, it was soft-pedaled by spokeswoman Margaret Aitken.

“The senator admires, supports and respects the Indian-American community,” Aitken said. “The point Sen. Biden was making is that there has been a vibrant Indian-American community in Delaware for decades. It has primarily been made up of engineers, scientists and physicians, but more recently, middle class families are piquant into Delaware and purchasing family-run, small businesses.”

On Jan. 31, Biden made a remark about fellow presidential ballot hopeful Sen. Barack Obama that some political writers declared a “begin pad effort.”

In an interview with the Modern York Observer, Biden said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is sing and bright and well-kept and a nice-looking guy … I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The Observer posted that audio clip on its Web site. In the audio clip, there is a pregnant pause after Biden says “African-American,” which some have said suggests the printed article led to misconceptions about what Biden really meant. On the same day the interview was released to the public, Biden went into damage control mode, apologizing to Obama and expressing his regrets that night on “The Daily Show.”

“Sight, the other part of this thing that got me in trouble is using the word clean. I should have said fresh,” Biden told host Jon Stewart.

Biden’s assertion that his remarks were taken out of context was backed by Jesse Jackson, an African-American who was a Democratic presidential candidate in 1984 and 1988. Jackson spoke to Biden by telephone about the situation.

“Senator Biden assured me that he regrets that his remarks were misinterpreted,” Jackson said. “He was serious and contrite. To me, this was a gaff, not a statement about his philosophy or ideology.”

Prior to the beginning of the war in Iraq, Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector and U.S. Marine Corps captain testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Biden was chairman.

Biden remarked to Ritter that “The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade.”

Family Background and History

Biden is the oldest of four children born to Joseph Robinette Sr. and Catherine Eugenia (Finnegan) Biden. His mother was an Irish Catholic, and Biden and his siblings were raised in that religion. Biden’s father worked as a car salesman.

Biden moved from Pennsylvania to Delaware when he was 10 years old, and he spent his formative years in New Castle County, Delaware. Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in Claymont, Del. In 1961, and went on to scrutinize at the University of Delaware, graduating in 1965. He studied law at Syracuse University College of Law. He finished his studies there in 1968, and was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.

Biden married Neilia Hunter in 1966.The couple were the parents of two sons, Joseph R. III (called Beau) and Robert Hunter (called Hunter), and a daughter, Amy. Neilia and the children were involved in an automobile accident in 1972 just after Biden was elected to the U.S. Senate Neilia and infant Amy died in the crash, while Biden’s sons were both seriously injured (both made full recoveries; Biden was sworn into office while at their bedsides).

Five years after his first wife died, Biden married Jill Tracy Jacobs. They have a daughter, Ashley. He and his family are still active in the Catholic Church.

Biden was forced to take a medical leave from the Senate for seven months in February 1988, when he had two brain aneurysms and was hospitalized.

The Civil War was and still remains the darkest chapter in United States history. Horrible conditions, terrible atrocities, incredible death tolls, and immense suffering were common depravities of life during the Civil War. The North firmly believed they could gather the war quickly, but such was not the case. By the end of 1861, their vision of expediently crushing the Southern rebels and returning home was lost.

Both Abraham Lincoln, President of the Union, and Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, knew they would be taking in prisoners-of-war, yet little preparations were made to provide for these men until it was clear that the war’s end was nowhere in study. They were convinced that the war would be short and no long-term holding facilities for prisoners were going to be necessary. By the time they realized they had no capacity to hold the prisoners flowing in on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, it was too late. Their miscalculation and lack of foresight caused broad suffering and death for 56,000 prisoners-of-war.[1]

In 1888, a former captive at Andersonville, Alonzo Cooper, described Southern prisons as “slaughter houses” and referred to Captain Henry Wirz as an “inhuman monster.”[2] In 1912, Clayton Wood Holmes published a work exonerating the citizens and Union soldiers of the Elmira prison camp in the North. Any suffering of Confederate soldiers at Elmira was due to circumstances beyond the camp’s control in what he termed “general cruelty.”[3] On the other hand, the suffering of Union soldiers in Southern prisons was due to “personal cruelty.”[4] He blamed the “tropical heat” of the Confederacy’s climate for causing Southerners to be vindictive and cruel in nature.[5]

In 1930, David Hesseltine became the first historian to look beyond the politics of the prison camps and write an unprejudiced account entitled Civil War Prisons: a Study of War Psychology. His work examined “the failures of foresight and policy that doomed so many prisoners” in both the North and the South.[6] Very few grand works on Civil War prison camps emerged until more than a half century later.

Historians over the last twenty years have focused more attention on the Civil War prison camps than ever before. They have finally taken a nearly unbiased and honest view towards an extremely controversial and sensitive issue. The works of such authors as Lonnie Speer, James McPherson, Michael Gray, Bruce Catton, and William Marvel (to name a few) have all shown that while life for Union soldiers in Confederate prisons was awful, similar conditions were suffered by Confederate soldiers in Union prisons. The standard of life in northern prisons was only slightly better and, in some cases, worse.

Life for soldiers in the Civil War in general was very hard. Around 600,000 to 700,000 men died during the Civil War.[7] Only around 200,000 were killed in action or on the battlefield.[8] When the war broke out in 1861, the Union and the Confederacy quick threw together all the men they could muster and the results were disastrous. Their armies were “haphazardly trained, badly organized, poorly fed, clothed and housed, and almost wholly without comforts, sports, entertainments or proper medical care.”[9] The general lack of sanitation led to a flood of diseases. This combined with inadequate medical care led to more than half of all Civil War deaths.[10]

The outbreak of the Civil War witnessed “the greatest explosion of disease and battlefield wounds the world had yet seen in warfare.”[11] Unfortunately, this occurred in the era just preceding the advent of modern medicine and valid medical treatment. Thousands of soldiers died as a result of easily curable diseases such as “diarrhea, dysentery, malaria, measles, smallpox, bronchitis, pneumonia, influenza, and scurvy.”[12] Common ‘medications’ were often more toxic than the effects of the disease itself. Many soldiers stood a better chance of survival without any ‘medication’ at all.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the “major cause of death was infections and contagious diseases in the United States.”[13] The same cause of death held true during the American Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers who survived the battlefield succumbed to a wide variety of illnesses and ailments. The mortality rate was high and the life expectancy was short for a Civil War soldier.[14] Life for those soldiers taken captive and placed in military prisons was infinitely worse.

Before the Civil War there was not one large prison compound anywhere in the United States. Up until this point, there had never been a need for one. Both the Union and the Confederacy took hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war, but neither side had a salubrious idea for what to do with their captives. The North tried to use old forts, existing jails, and makeshift prison camps to accommodate their massive number of prisoners.[15] The South, lacking the supplies and with very few pre-existing structures to house their captives, simply threw them into crudely built stockades and left them to consume whatever they had available to develop some sort of shelter.[16]

In 1861, the number of prisoners was very small and did not pose a major concern for the North or the South. Usually, when enemy soldiers were captured, the field commanders released them as long as they swore never to assume up arms against them or they were exchanged on the site for other prisoners.[17] This exchange was informal and generally fervent the mercy and mutual understanding of commanders in the field.[18]

After the first year of the war, the number of captive soldiers on both sides had grown at an alarming rate. In the battles between Fort Donelson and the Seven Days’ Campaign, the Confederacy and the Union had taken thousands upon thousands of prisoners. The only problem was that they had nowhere to put them and nothing to feed them, most notably in the South.[19] With the Confederacy’s extremely microscopic resources, they were barely feeding their enjoy soldiers, much less the prisoners-of-war.

By the summer of 1862, the South was pushing the North for a formal exchange system.[20] On July 22, 1862, General John Dix of the Union and General D.H. Hill of the Confederacy worked out an acceptable agreement for both sides thus beginning the Prisoner-of-War Cartel.[21]

The purpose of the cartel was to free all prisoners-of-war in a timely and equitable manner. Both the Union and the Confederacy paroled many of their prisoners as long as they swore not to fight them anymore, but they most often held them in parolee camps to ensure they held up their pledge. This caused a problem for both sides because they were losing sorely needed manpower. Under the provisions of the cartel, soldiers of equal rank could be exchanged and allowed to continue their military career.[22]

The institution of the cartel system in the Civil War bode well for the captive soldiers. During the short time it was in force (10 months), prisoners-of-war were taken better care of and had a much higher chance of survival or exchange than at any other time in the war. As the Civil War increased in intensity and the casualty rates on both sides reached the tens of thousands, the cartel system broke down. By this time, the escalation of the war had caused severe animosity on both sides making any negotiations all but impossible. Also, the North and the South could not reach a compromise on their disagreements related to paroled prisoners and black soldiers.[23]

The Union had many black regiments and when these shaded men were captured in the South, the Confederacy would not recognize them as prisoners-of-war. Instead, they regarded them as ’slaves-captured-in-arms’ and threatened them with immediate execution.[24] Their justification was that these Union ’soldiers’ were in fact escaped slaves engaged in a criminal rebellion against them.[25] The Confederacy agreed to exchange white prisoners-of-war but they refused to give up their murky captives whom they planned to kill or sell into slavery.[26] Lincoln, standing up for those who fought to preserve the Union, would not participate in such a discriminatory cartel system.[27] The Confederate government never officially sanctioned these harsh discriminatory practices, but, nevertheless, they took dwelling.[28]

The South’s adamant refusal to equally exchange black and white soldiers led the Union Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, to declare in 1863: “Very well, the 26,000 rebel captives in northern prisons can stay there!”[29]

The Dix-Hill Cartel, had it lasted, could have been instrumental in saving thousands of Union and Confederate soldiers from the squalid conditions in which they lived and died. It called for the exchange of prisoners within ten days or as soon as was humanly possible.[30] Once prisoners were exchanged, they could return to military duty. The prison camps for parolees were located in ‘friendly territory’ until such time as their exchange could be negotiated.[31] The rate of exchange was fair: three privates for one non-commissioned officer, ten privates for a commissioned officer, up to sixty privates for a General, and so forth.[32] Any surplus of prisoners was to be paroled and forbidden from racy in military activities until they could be exchanged.[33] The system successfully cleared out military prisons on both sides, except for the sick and wounded who could not be moved, for almost a year.[34]

The exchange system did not objective fail because of the issue of captive black soldiers. The time constraints for exchanging prisoners were often difficult to keep and, depending on the mosey of the war, exchanges were wearisome and winning commanders were not willing to part with a great number of prisoners.[35] Also, each side complained about the treatment of their prisoners-of-war and the terrible conditions they were confined to live in. This caused a public outcry, especially in the North where soldiers were returned “sick, emaciated and unable to fight whereas Confederate captives were returned fat and healthy” in some instances.[36]

The execution of William Mumford was the death blow for the continuance of the Exchange Cartel. When Union General Benjamin F. Butler ordered the execution of a man who had committed no offense except that he tore down a Union flag after the Battle of New Orleans, Jefferson Davis was outraged. He referred to the unjust execution as “cold-blooded murder.”[37]

He declared that Butler was “not unprejudiced an enemy to the Confederacy but a fugitive and an outlaw and, if he or any of his officers were captured, they would face immediate execution.”[38] He also declared in his proclamation that he was going to hold all Union officers in his captivity until such time as Butler was turned over to Confederate officials for his murder of Citizen William Mumford.[39] Lincoln refused to concede to Davis’ demand and, thereafter, the Exchange Cartel deteriorated into nonexistence.[40]

Through 1863, the Exchange system kept the prison population at acceptable levels, though by no means comfortable. Once the North, namely General Ulysses S. Grant, made the strategic decision to abandon Union soldiers held in Southern prisons, the prison population exploded. The South, nick off from negotiations, had no way to attain their great needed Confederate soldiers from northern prisons.[41]

Prison life was marked by “hardship, suffering, and death.”[42] The mortality rate in the prisons was powerful higher than on the battlefield. The prisons killed ten times as many men than in all of the Gettysburg campaign.[43] The exact numbers of those imprisoned and the death toll are unknown. The best estimates that exist today are that around 30,000 of the almost 195,000 Union soldiers imprisoned in the South died and around 26,000 of the almost 215,000 Confederate soldiers imprisoned in the North died. [44] The South has been accused of being the bigger barbarians in the treatment of their prisoners-of-war. In reality, there was only a three percent difference between those killed in the North and those in the South.[45] Both sides were to blame for the deaths of more than 50,000 men within their prison camps.

No one knew how to accelerate these massive camps and no one had the capacity or the resources to save these men from dying of disease and starvation. The prisons were filled beyond their limits and they were filthy and disease-ridden. Many prison camps were thrown together with little thought of construction or sanitation because no one anticipated the war dragging on for four years. The war effort required an exorbitant amount of supplies and resources and, in the waste, there honest was not enough left to properly care for imprisoned enemy soldiers. Those that died in the camps were not executed or beaten in large numbers; for the most piece they died of diseases caused by the unfavorable conditions in which they lived. Many withered away from malnutrition and starvation. Most assuredly, these men died slow and painful deaths and many would have welcomed the chance to die quickly on the battlefield.[46]

During the war, most people believed that prisoners on both sides were deliberately being mistreated and killed but, looking assist, there is no evidence to support such a claim. Certainly, there were prison commanders and guards who brutalized their captives, but, overall, these men were victims of terrible circumstances and inadequate facilities.[47]

In the South, the guards and prisoners lived off the same meager rations, sometimes there was more and sometimes less, but never enough.[48] The North had better provisions, but they also had bouts of severe food shortages.[49] The plight of the prisoners-of-war was a gross consequence of the war and not the actions of individual people in most cases.

The most infamous and vilified prison camp of the Civil War was and still is the Andersonville prison camp in Georgia. In the nine months of its existence between 1864 and 1865 nearly 13,000 out of 45,000 Union prisoners died.”[50]

The Andersonville Prison Camp was spread out over sixteen acres (later extended to around 40 acres). It was enclosed by twenty foot high stockades on all sides. There was no shelter and very few tents. In fact, shelters were disallowed because there were not enough for everyone.[51]

Andersonville was built to hold a maximum of 10,000 prisoners. By the winter of 1864, more than 24,000 prisoners had been packed into this prison.[52] At this late period in the war, they had no way to feed or provide medical care for these prisoners yet the prison population continued to grow exponentially.[53] The prison had few permanent structures, no sanitation, and little provisions.[54] The only drinking water came from a stream that ran through the camp. It was also used as a public bath and a toilet.[55]

The deplorable conditions combined with the unbearably hot summers led to an epidemic of dysentery, scurvy, malaria, and exposure that, at its height, claimed the lives of one-hundred soldiers a day.[56] One inmate at Andersonville named Sergeant Clark Thorp described what he saw upon his arrival, he said:

…here was a picture of squalor and misery seldom equaled in the sight of man – thousands of men, many of them nearly naked, barefoot, black and filthy beyond the power of words to describe.[57]

New prison arrivals were known to get sick upon entering Andersonville because of the rancid smells and unspeakable conditions that existed. By the destroy of 1864, the Confederates had packed so many men into this camp that it was the “fifth largest city in the Confederacy.”[58]

The Confederacy’s resources were spent and they could not afford to divert their meager resources from their troops to the ailing prison camps. Their own soldiers were dying of disease and starvation in worthy numbers and the Union prisoners were, regrettably, expendable.

The Andersonville prison was far from the only nefarious prison camp during the Civil War. Most all military prisons suffered from similar problems as Andersonville such as inadequate housing, lack of sanitation, disease, dreadful medical care, and severe shortages of food. Andersonville received the most attention partly because the Union won the war and, therefore, was able to prosecute and accuse those they felt were guilty of war crimes.

However, while the Union leaders highlighted the Southern atrocities after the war, they forget to mention their own. One major Union prison camp whose record of atrocities and deaths drew many similarities with Andersonville was in Elmira, Current York.

.

Late in the War, the Union was in desperate need for more prison camps to house the influx of Confederate captives coming in. In May of 1864, the War Department learned that there were some vacant barracks in Elmira, New York. They quickly sent men to surround the barracks with stockade fences and named it a prison. Within two months, they began shipping in Confederate soldiers. In July of 1864, they started out by moving 700 men here from the Point Lookout Prison Camp.[59]

Many other prison camps in the North were critically overcrowded, and soon they poured in prisoners from many different camps. By August of 1864, the number of prisoners at Elmira increased from 700 to an incredible 10,000 men.[60]

In its year of existence, around twenty-five percent of the prison population died. This was double the percentage of other Union camps and only two percent shy of the Andersonville prison. The camp was built on forty acres of land and held thirty-five barracks. It stood on very low ground near the Chemung River objective a few miles short of Pennsylvania.[61]

It was originally intended for no more than 5,000 prisoners, but within a few months of its opening, the population had swelled to over 10,000. While some of the prisoners slept in barracks, most slept outside without adequate clothing or blankets, even in the winter.[62]

Elmira was the worst prison camp in the Union by far. There was no drainage system and all the excess water pooled in the middle of the camp creating what was called “Foster’s Pond.” This was no ordinary pond. It was a stinking, stagnant cesspool of filth and waste. Fecal matter and urine flowed into this pond constantly and there was a large sink musty by the prisoners located directly over it. The rancid smell of this lagoon permeated the camp and there was no relief from it. The one wonderful thing about the pond was it drew the rats. Rats were highly coveted by prisoners who got very little meat otherwise and this fetid pool of water made them easy to catch. [63]

Elmira was not atypical in that the majority of their soldiers died from exposure, dysentery, diarrhea, and scurvy. They were fresh in that they averaged between ten and sixteen tiring, per day and that was twice as high as anywhere else in the North.[64]

Elmira is also one of the few prison camps where there was a strong possibility that the prison commander and some of his medical personnel purposely mistreated and caused the death of prisoners. The camp surgeon, Dr. Eugene Sanger, was reportedly overheard by James Huffman, a staff member, saying he had killed “more Rebs than any Union soldier.”[65] He later resigned his army commission to avoid a court-martial for his awful conduct at Elmira.[66]

After the war, many Northerners viewed Andersonville as evidence of a Confederate “plot to assassinate Yankee prisoners.”[67] The commandant of Andersonville, Henry Wirz, was the only man to be tried and executed for war crimes after the Civil War, though certainly there were more heinous crimes than his. Atrocities happened and deplorable conditions existed in every prison camp during the Civil War (some more than others).

The North’s prisoners-of-war fared slightly better because there was an abundance of food and resources throughout the region, and, in the South, there was little to nothing left but devastated cities and burning fields. A great many Northerners, especially the government, attempted to demonize the Confederacy for its barbaric ways and Andersonville was a prime example. They did not bring to light that their own prison camp, Elmira, was, at the very least, as bad as Andersonville.[68]

The Confederacy wanted to reopen a prisoner exchange system, but they refused to give in on the question of black soldiers. In Andersonville, the guards and commanders allowed their prisoners to petition Lincoln several times to come to their aid, but no response was ever received.[69] The South was guilty of not giving in to Northern demands in order to save these dying men.

However, the North had more than enough men, food, and resources to acquire every prisoner-of-war in the South and bring them home, but they did not. They were not willing to give the South any of their soldiers serve and chose to let their own men demolish away under conditions beyond human comprehension.

War brings out the very worst in humanity. It forces ordinary people to act in extraordinary ways. Since time immemorial, enemy captives have been on the extreme vulgar extinguish of priorities in a war. Doing what is apt is replaced with doing whatever will achieve a victory, and morality has nothing to do with it. Never was this a more certain truth than with the prison camps of the American Civil War.

Bibliography

Berlin, Ira, Joseph Reidy & Leslie Rowland. Freedom’s Soldiers: The Black Military Experience in the Civil War. London & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Internet; inGoogle Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=O5fjMLG47WgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ira+berlin+The+black+experience&ei=JWlFSbX7OJHGlQT_urXbDg. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Brown, Gary Major. Prisonerof War Parole: Ancient Belief, Modern Utility. Military Law Review, Volume 156, June 1998. Internet; www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/pow_parole.pdf. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Bryant, Clifton. Handbook of Death and Dying. London: Memoir Publications, 2003. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=3z9EpgisKOgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=clifton+bryant+handbook+of+death+and+dying&ei=YmhFSfWxMYXikwT2k5zzAg. (Accessed on October 7, 2008)

Catton, Bruce. Prison Camps of the Civil War. American Heritage Magazine, August 1959, Volume 10, Issue 5. Internet; http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1959/5/1959_5_4.shtml. (Accessed on November 1, 2008)

Cloyd, Benjamin Gregory. “Civil War Prisons in American Memory.” PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2005. Internet; http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/…/unrestricted/Cloyd_dis.pdf. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

Commager, Henry Steele. How the Civil War Soldiers Lived. Civil War Home, last updated February 2002. Internet; http://www.civilwarhome.com/soldierslife.htm. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

Cooper, Alonzo. In and Out of Rebel Prisons. New York: Harvard University Press, 1888. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=L5YCEeUqDNoC. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Copeland, Peter. A Soldier’s Life in the Civil War. Delaware: Courier Dover Publications, 2001. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=DV0IGnleUMAC&pg=PP1&dq=Peter+Copeland+a+soldier%27s+life+in+the+civil+war&ei=3GZFSeL8KY_AlQTEyIHTAw. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

Davies, Phil. American Civil War. North Pomfret, VT: Pocket Essentials, 2001

Davis, Jefferson. A Proclamation. Official Record of the War of the Rebellion. Internet; http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisbutlerproclamation.htm. (Accessed on November 1, 2008)

Eicher, David. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. United Kingdom: Simon & Shuster, 2002. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=1p94XzYASDAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Eicher+the+longest+night&ei=hWdFSc2VDYqakwTmipjPDg. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

Gay, Martin and Kathlyn Gay. Civil War: Voices from the Past. New York: Twenty-First Century Books, 1995

Grey, Michael. The Business of Captivity: Elmira and its Civil War Prison. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2001. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=a6vZiled2mAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+gray+the+business+of+captivity&ei=F2tFSY7gNIXikwT2k5zzAg. (Accessed on November 11, 2008)

Hattaway, Herman. Shades of Blue and Grey. Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1997. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=zLUVBK5mMEEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=herman+hattaway+shades+of+blue+and+grey&ei=x2hFSY-HJYq6kwT00ezRDg. (Accessed on October 7, 2008)

Holmes, Clayton Wood. The Elmira Prison Camp. New York: Harvard University Press, 1912. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=fWOGNjFfXbcC. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Horigan, Michael. Elmira: Death Camp of the North. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=6Rmpr3Dk2XYC&pg=PP1&dq=michael+horigan&ei=amtFSZ_cFoqakwTmipjPDg. (Accessed on November 27, 2008)

King, David. Civil War and Reconstruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003

Marvel, William. Andersonville: The Last Depot. Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, 1994

McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988

Mintz, S. The Civil War: The Death Toll. Digital History, 2007. Internet; http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm? HHID=107. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

Randall, J.G. and David Donald. The Civil War and Reconstruction. Lexington, MA: Heath Publishing, 1969. Internet; http://www.civilwarhome.com/prisoners.htm. Article taken from Fragment 3 of Chapter 18. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Skock, George ed. Inside Andersonville. Civil War Times, Oct 2007, Vol. 46 Whisper 8, p40-47. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier, Internet; http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=26555350&site=ehost-live. (Accessed on November 11, 2008)

Speer, Lonnie. Portals to Hell: Military Prisons of the Civil War. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1997

Tulloch, Hugh. Routledge Companion to the Americdn Civil War Era. London & New York: Taylor & Routledge, 2006. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=RrxXAgAACAAJ&dq=hugh+tulloch+the+routledge+companion&ei=w2lFSfKtK4rUlQSYpZmzDA. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

Walker, Scott. Hell’s Broke Loose in Georgia. Atlanta, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2007. Internet; in Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=B7j21qTeN5UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Scott+Walker+Hell%27s+broke+loose+in+georgia&ei=NmpFSf6DOoPKkQSN5rXADg. (Accessed on November 3, 2008)

[1] Lonnie Speer, Portals to Hell: Military Prisons of the Civil War (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1997), xv-xvi (paragraph cited)

[2] Alonzo Cooper, In and Out of Rebel Prisons (New York: Harvard University Press, 1888), 4-It was originally published by R.J. Oliphant Printer and recently digitized on August 8, 2006 by Harvard and made available for public viewing on google books at http://books.google.com/books? id=L5YCEeUqDNoC. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

[3] Clayton Wood Holmes, The Elmira Prison Camp (Unusual York: Harvard University Press, 1912), 6-It was originally published by G.P. Putnam and digitized by Harvard on August 9, 2006 and made available for public viewing on google books at http://books.google.com/books? id=fWOGNjFfXbcC. (Accessed on October 27,2008)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Benjamin Gregory Cloyd, “Civil War Prisons in American History” (PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2005), 8. Internet; http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/…/unrestricted/Cloyd_dis.pdf. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

[7] S. Mintz, The Civil War: The Death Toll (Digital History, 2007) Internet; http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm? HHID=107. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

[8] Ibid.

[9] Henry Steele Commager, How the Civil War Soldiers lived (Civil War Home, last updated February 2002) Internet; http://www.civilwarhome.com/soldierslife.htm. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

[10] Peter Copeland, A Soldier’s Life in the Civil War (Delaware: Courier Dover Publications, 2001), 3. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=DV0IGnleUMAC&pg=PP1&dq=Peter+Copeland+a+soldier%27s+life+in+the+civil+war&ei=3GZFSeL8KY_AlQTEyIHTAw. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

[11] David Eicher, The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War (United Kingdom: Simon & Shuster, 2002), 787. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=1p94XzYASDAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Eicher+the+longest+night&ei=hWdFSc2VDYqakwTmipjPDg. (Accessed on September 30, 2008)

[12] Ibid, 788

[13] Clifton Bryant, Handbook of Death and Dying (London: Sage Publications, 2003), 188. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=3z9EpgisKOgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=clifton+bryant+handbook+of+death+and+dying&ei=YmhFSfWxMYXikwT2k5zzAg. (Accessed on October 7, 2008)

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 791

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] McPherson, 791

[21] Herman Hattaway, Shades of Blue and Grey (Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1997), 161. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=zLUVBK5mMEEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=herman+hattaway+shades+of+blue+and+grey&ei=x2hFSY-HJYq6kwT00ezRDg. (Accessed on October 7, 2008)

[22] McPherson, 791 (paragraph cited)

[23] J.G. Randall & David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Lexington, MA: Heath Publishing, 1969) Internet; http://civilwarhome.com/prisoners.htm. (Accessed on October 27, 2008) (paragraph cited)

[24] Ira Berlin, Joseph Reidy & Leslie Rowland, Freedom’s Soldiers: The Black Military Experience in the Civil War (London & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 104-105. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=O5fjMLG47WgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ira+berlin+The+black+experience&ei=JWlFSbX7OJHGlQT_urXbDg. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Phil Davies, American Civil War (North Pomfret, VT: Pocket Essentials, 2001), 85

[29] McPherson, 792 (paragraph cited)

[30] Major Gary Brown, Prisonerof War Parole: Ancient Concept, Modern Utility (Military Law Review, Volume 156, June 1998) Internet; www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/pow_parole.pdf. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

[31] Ibid

[32] Ibid

[33] McPherson, 791

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Brown, Ibid

[37] Jefferson Davis, A Proclamation (Official Record of the War of the Rebellion) Internet; http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisbutlerproclamation.htm. (Accessed on November 1, 2008) (paragraph cited)

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid. (paragraph cited)

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Speer, xi-xix (paragraph cited)

[47] Ibid (paragraph cited)

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Hugh Tulloch, Routledge Companion to the Americdn Civil War Era (London & New York: Taylor & Routledge, 2006), 141. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=RrxXAgAACAAJ&dq=hugh+tulloch+the+routledge+companion&ei=w2lFSfKtK4rUlQSYpZmzDA. (Accessed on October 27, 2008)

[51] Scott Walker, Hell’s Broke Loose in Georgia (GA: University of Georgia Press, 2007), 11-12 (paragraph cited) Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=B7j21qTeN5UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Scott+Walker+Hell%27s+broke+loose+in+georgia&ei=NmpFSf6DOoPKkQSN5rXADg. (Accessed on November 3, 2008)

[52] David King, Civil War and Reconstruction (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003), 106

[53] Ibid.

[54] Martin & Kathlyn Gay, Civil War: Voices From the Past (Modern York: Twenty-First Century Books, 1995), 50

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid

[57] George Skoch ed., Inside Andersonville (Civil War Times, Oct2007, Vol. 46 Issue 8, p40-47) Retrieved from Academic Search Premier, Internet; http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=26555350&site=ehost-live. (Accessed on November 11, 2008)

[58] William Marvel, Andersonville: The Last Depot (Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 111

[59] Michael Gray, The Business of Captivity: Elmira and its Civil War Prison (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2001), 11. Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=a6vZiled2mAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+gray+the+business+of+captivity&ei=F2tFSY7gNIXikwT2k5zzAg. (Accessed on November 11, 2008)

[60] Ibid, 11-12 (paragraph cited)

[61] Speer, 6 (paragraph cited)

[62] Ibid (paragraph cited)

[63] Michael Horigan, Elmira: Death Camp of the North (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006), 36 (paragraph cited) Internet; Google Books, http://books.google.com/books? id=6Rmpr3Dk2XYC&pg=PP1&dq=michael+horigan&ei=amtFSZ_cFoqakwTmipjPDg. (Accessed on November 27, 2008)

[64] Ibid, 166

[65] Grey, 51

[66] Ibid.

[67] McPherson, 796

[68] Ibid, 796-797

[69] Ibid, 798

Delaware, “The First Residence,” is a place full of history. Located between Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Modern Jersey, Delaware is tiny in size and population but grand on natural beauty, geographical convenience to major cities in the BosWash corridor, and has plenty to offer its residents and visitors alike.

As does every state, Delaware offers the state-trivia buff many fun “info nuggets.” So, let’s examine at five interesting facts about Delaware.

1: Delaware’s Twelve-Mile Circle is the Only True-Arc-Shaped Geo-Political Boundary in the Country

Have you ever looked on a map and noticed something interesting about Delaware’s northern border? It forms part of a circle. In fact, the border – known as “Twelve-Mile Circle” – forms part of the only true-arc geo-political boundary in the nation. Twelve-Mile Circle also is part of the Mason-Dixon line. If you follow the arc and make it a complete circle, the center of the circle would be the cupola of New Castle’s courthouse in 1750.

2: Delaware’s Population is Less Than 1 Million

Believe it or not, a dwelling which sits amid some of the largest cities in the entire country has less than a million people! For many, this fact is a extraordinary thing, because Delaware provides a quiet, small, quaint place to live within only a couple hours of cities like Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Baltimore.

Delaware is estimated to have had a little more than 870,000 residents in 2008. This figure represents an increase since 2000, when the Census counted 783,000 residents. In 1990, Delaware’s population stood at 666,000.

3: Delaware Has Just Three Counties

While some states boasts dozens of counties, Delaware has just three counties: New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties.

In fact, Delaware holds the record for the state with the fewest counties in the entire nation. New Castle is the northernmost county, home to cities like Wilmington and Newark. Kent County is in the center of Delaware and is where you will find Dover. At the southern end of the position is Sussex County, with Georgetown its county seat.

By the way, New Castle is the state’s largest county by population, with more than 500,000 residents; Interstate-95 runs through New Castle, and Wilmington is the largest city in the state as measured by population.

4: Delaware Has No Sales Tax

While residents and those living nearby Delaware know, some outside of the region may not: Delaware has no sales tax! Many people living outside Delaware will make the trek into Delaware to shop in the position because of the lack of a sales tax.

It is grand to go to a sales counter and know exactly what you will be paying (because virtually everything winds up being priced as marked). While a few-cents’ savings on the dollar may not seem like powerful, when you make large purchases, having no sales tax saves a bundle and makes an hour-long drive from Baltimore or Philadelphia well worth the difficulty.

5: There Are Two Primary Climates in Delaware

For being such a small position geographically, it may surprise you to learn that Delaware actually straddles two climate regions: humid sub-tropical and continental.

The southern regions, primarily Kent and Sussex counties, sit on the Delmarva Peninsula. The Delmarva Peninsula juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and forms virtually all of Delaware as well as the eastern portions of Maryland and Virginia. The Delmarva Peninsula is known for its hot and humid summers and milder winters. The station around New Castle County also experiences hot and humid summers but tends to have colder, snowier winters. The New Castle County area also boasts plants that are more similar to those found in the Northeastern U.S. as well as a shorter growing season than in Kent and Sussex Counties.

Resources:

Personal and first-hand experience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation? _event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US10&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/the-twelve-mile-circle/

Delaware, “The First State,” is a situation fleshy of history. Located between Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Recent Jersey, Delaware is tiny in size and population but stout on natural beauty, geographical convenience to major cities in the BosWash corridor, and has plenty to offer its residents and visitors alike.

As does every site, Delaware offers the state-trivia buff many fun “info nuggets.” So, let’s look at five enchanting facts about Delaware.

1: Delaware’s Twelve-Mile Circle is the Only True-Arc-Shaped Geo-Political Boundary in the Country

Have you ever looked on a map and noticed something appealing about Delaware’s northern border? It forms section of a circle. In fact, the border – known as “Twelve-Mile Circle” – forms fragment of the only true-arc geo-political boundary in the nation. Twelve-Mile Circle also is part of the Mason-Dixon line. If you follow the arc and make it a complete circle, the center of the circle would be the cupola of New Castle’s courthouse in 1750.

2: Delaware’s Population is Less Than 1 Million

Believe it or not, a region which sits amid some of the largest cities in the entire country has less than a million people! For many, this fact is a wonderful thing, because Delaware provides a quiet, small, quaint place to live within only a couple hours of cities like Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Baltimore.

Delaware is estimated to have had a little more than 870,000 residents in 2008. This figure represents an increase since 2000, when the Census counted 783,000 residents. In 1990, Delaware’s population stood at 666,000.

3: Delaware Has Objective Three Counties

While some states boasts dozens of counties, Delaware has just three counties: New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties.

In fact, Delaware holds the record for the state with the fewest counties in the entire nation. New Castle is the northernmost county, home to cities like Wilmington and Newark. Kent County is in the center of Delaware and is where you will find Dover. At the southern end of the state is Sussex County, with Georgetown its county seat.

By the way, New Castle is the state’s largest county by population, with more than 500,000 residents; Interstate-95 runs through New Castle, and Wilmington is the largest city in the state as measured by population.

4: Delaware Has No Sales Tax

While residents and those living nearby Delaware know, some outside of the region may not: Delaware has no sales tax! Many people living outside Delaware will make the trek into Delaware to shop in the state because of the lack of a sales tax.

It is great to go to a sales counter and know exactly what you will be paying (because virtually everything winds up being priced as marked). While a few-cents’ savings on the dollar may not seem like much, when you make large purchases, having no sales tax saves a bundle and makes an hour-long drive from Baltimore or Philadelphia well worth the effort.

5: There Are Two Primary Climates in Delaware

For being such a small position geographically, it may surprise you to learn that Delaware actually straddles two climate regions: humid sub-tropical and continental.

The southern regions, primarily Kent and Sussex counties, sit on the Delmarva Peninsula. The Delmarva Peninsula juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and forms virtually all of Delaware as well as the eastern portions of Maryland and Virginia. The Delmarva Peninsula is known for its hot and humid summers and milder winters. The area around New Castle County also experiences hot and humid summers but tends to have colder, snowier winters. The New Castle County area also boasts plants that are more similar to those found in the Northeastern U.S. as well as a shorter growing season than in Kent and Sussex Counties.

Resources:

Personal and first-hand experience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation? _event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US10&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/the-twelve-mile-circle/

Sources: Delaware News Journal, Courier Post

Mill Creek, Delaware – Terri Penza of Delaware was planning a trip to Jamaica so she tried to renew her passport. She couldn’t because she was dead, according to U.S. passport officials and the Social Security records.

Other than “being officially dead” she might have been concerned last descend, when she got a notice from a clothing store informing her: her credit application was denied because she was dead. She put this off as a fluke. All her other credit cards and accounts still worked.

Terri Penza is a very noteworthy alive 49 year old “stay at home” mother. Her friends all admit “she looks very distinguished alive”.

As she was uninteresting, officials would not share details with her. Penza went to the Social Security office near New Castle, which confirmed that sometime in 2008 she was falsely listed as deceased. As she looked like the person in her I.D. and her fingerprints matched Terri Penza’s the Social Security Office was quick to help.

Penza said a Social Security employee told her that her death, at least in government computers, was probably caused by a mistyped Social Security number of an actual death. Penza, though, suspects identity theft.

She was able get her passport and the whole incident, for Terri Penza, has become a fascinating story.

What can we learn from this story? Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Burke said people have to guard their Social Security numbers closely. “You have to think of it like a stack of money.” (Burke)

“Burke said that in prosecuting identity theft cases he’s never come across one in which the victim was erroneously reported dreary, but added that odd things have happened because of identity theft. Not all cases involve financial fetch — with a thief opening a credit card in the victim’s name, he said. Some involve undocumented workers stealing identities to secure employment or criminals trying to hide their convictions.” (Delaware News Journal)

“Burke said a New Jersey woman recently found that out during a traffic stop when police informed her she was wanted on an outstanding warrant for prostitution. The mistake was later corrected and the Delaware identity thief — who had a lengthy criminal record — was convicted.” (Delaware News Journal)

Another consideration: Aidan Diviny, a public affairs specialist with the Social Security Administration. said they (Social Security) cannot state definitively what happened but he believes human error, either by an employee or an agency that reports deaths to Social Security is to blame. Per Diviny: Social Security receives reports of more than 2.5 million deaths every year “and keystroke errors happen.”

Diviny believes Terri Penza’s case does not have the “tell-tale” signs of an identity theft. He added that the agency does not track how often people are mistakenly declared tiresome, but said the office recognizes the serious consequences of such an error. When officials gather it has occurred they act quickly to correct it (Which was proven with the Penza case).

What do your official records say about you?

“Our Heroes they’re not daunted when Canhon Balls do flee, For we’re refolved to conquer, or bravely we will die. Then roufe all you New England Oakes, give MANLY now a Cheer, Likewise thofe Sons of Thunder who go in Privateers.“[1]

Americans went head-to-head with the traditional standing military and navy of the British Empire, while America lacked any traditional fighting force besides militia units on land, and privateering vessels at sea. The well-known step of evolving a traditional fighting force while at war with a professional, seasoned army was a terrifying experience for colonials. Thus, in defense of themselves, Americans reacted in 1775 with what their traditional means of warfare were up to that point-privateering and militia duty.

This paper will focus on the initiation and success of American privateering during the Revolution. Early privateering efforts reflected the continuity of a European tradition of privateering. Privateers proved their value as long as they remained strategically within their natural role as an individualistic unit. They were so successful, that their efforts at the beginning of the war provided a morale boost for not only the public, but for figures and acquaintances of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Privateering was small, however, as a sort of floating militia for the Atlantic coastal network, while the Penobscott Assault proved that upon stepping out of their natural roles, privateers were out of site and failure was immanent. The resemblance is like militia in joint campaign abroad with the Continental Army-it was not their nature to leave their local posts and often proved miserable service.

To succor the argument, the paper will bring to light the successes, yet point out limitations, of privateering efforts. Only a professional navy, by tradition, could successfully engage in military operations far away from home, with the gaining of ground as the only strategic motivation. Privateers traditionally required material motivation-which did not align with most military pursuits involving the tackling of huge fortifications with almost suicidal odds, or, the engagement of multiple British men-of-war for the mere purpose of striking enemy vessels. Privateers would rather hit weak enemy logistical units, such as merchant ships, while usually avoiding men-of-war. Their motivation was booty-prizes included hard currencies, the ship itself, naval stores, slaves, powder, ammunition, rifles, and strategic documents, such as enemy strategy and dates of movements, etc. Thus, when Massachusetts threw together in joint action the Continental Navy and a few local privateers in order to lay siege to Fort George in the Penobscot Bay (1779), the joint difficulty was a failure, because privateers never before undertook an amphibious assault of that magnitude, and would never do so again, due to their traditional role as primarily local units.

This paper looks mostly at 1775 to 1776, because these beginning years of the war mark a period of colonists scrambling to defend themselves by implementing familiar practices, such as militia and privateer duty. No formally recognized American Navy fought in the ocean while the battles of Lexington and Concord ensued. The colonists were a bit reluctant to declare independence from their home land, and so they saw no need for any organized naval existence because that would be extreme defiance, expensive, and a declaration of independence in itself. Soon, as history has noted, that would change, and both a standing navy and army would confront the British along with privateer and militia units.

To add weight to sources cited from the beginning of the war, the paper includes the Penobscot Expedition of 1779 as an attempt to exhibit that the two differing schools of naval warfare did not work well together. This was the trial and error joint effort between privateers and the American Navy which failed, because as the beginning of the paper will prove, privateers were part of a colonial tradition in support of a larger organized force (formerly the Royal Navy,) and not to be a major supplement of that force. This was much like the usual disappointments Washington faced when militia accompanied the Continental Army abroad.

Since the successes and failures of the American professional navy can be found in any encyclopedia, this paper does not need to delve further into its importance. None would argue that a archaic navy was not important during 18^th century conflicts. However, the activities of many privateering vessels exist in only a few naval surveys, while minor individual activity is hard to find. Christopher Hawkins and George Robert Twelves Hewes have been given semi-heroic identities in the past. Both were privateers at some point, and both were of the lower classes. Many privateers were funded by the rich, and manned by the poor. Robert Morris was among many who backed private ventures from land. But the possibility of striking huge profits at random drew all ranks of society to privateering duty, while a standing navy both paid very little and was very unattractive by tradition and reality.

What about the South? The ship Defence served as American protection in the Chesapeake Bay. “She will cruise in the Bay, and as Occasion may require, proceed up Potowmack and the Captain shall have Orders to contribute every Thing in his Power to the common Defence on all Occasions.” However, everything in ‘his’ power was very runt, because, “Our inexperience in naval Preparations prevents us at present from either approving or disapproving your Plan of…Protection.” Along with that, powder was in a very short supply, with the meager local navy standing in line after the set militia waiting for re-supply.[2]

Legal Pirates were a Tradition of Sea Warfare

While being a part of imperial warfare at home and abroad, many American colonials and British set sail under the officially licensed and romanticized job as privateer. These merchants and adventurers left their land legs at home, and joined the ranks of seamen to not only skim from the top of the French Empire’s fortune, but also to agitate enemy commerce as well. Their livelihood from then on was as unstable as the sea, with its moments of peaceful, gentle rocking interrupted by the violent hand of crashing waves, which during a storm tried each man and decided who could remain alive, and who would be cast into the hungry blue sea. The fear of distinct judgment kept the men working under the whistle of the boatswain, because nobody knew when disease would strike, or when hunting French patrols would pick up and kill every last one of them. Unity on board the vessel adhered to whatever codes the captain had for them. Privateering vessels, then, were organized locally, and sought any enemy ship-regardless of strategic value-that they could catch. What the future held for each man was mysterious, and anything could go wrong, as with any military unit. Their fears, however, could be put to rest when the Royal Navy was on patrol. This traditional organization protected colonial assets and could survive any standoff with the French fleet. Privateers, then, were old-fashioned to inflict major damages alongside the British Navy, but have been given light historical credit for their fragment in the wars of 1739-1748 and the French and Indian War.[3] After this period, privateer duty slowed down, until once again, the waters of the Atlantic boiled for blood.

Upon the opening of the American Revolution, volunteers once again applied for privateer licenses from their state council. This practice was nothing new for this period of time in European history, but the Americans, by the time of Revolution, were culturally splitting from Europe. One European element that Americans did not have was a old standing navy. State councils and the Continental Congress licensed privateers. These Americans who set sail for the romantic and dangerous life of a pirate were alone on the sea. They had no other protection unless aided by the shot of a nearby port fortification. In turn, these vessels antagonized the British with pride and the desire for profit.

Advantages of a Traditional Role

On both July 4^th and 5^th of 1775, after passing on news regarding the burning of “Charleston,” Thomas Jefferson told Francis Eppes (Grandson) and George Gilmer both that New England was beginning to fit out privateering vessels to attack “every thing below ships of war.”[4] Rumors must have been spreading throughout the war hungry colonies that the British were obviously being confronted on land, but also that an effort would meet them at sea. Jefferson was giving sound information. A rage for privateering thus went far beyond Novel England ports. William Gordan, writing from Jamaica in October of 1775, pleaded with John Adams that privateers had proven themselves in the past, and to “let the Congress give out letters of m[5]

Almost anyone could participate in the rage, despite economic deficiencies. Elbridge Gerry, writing to John Adams in 1775, wrote that,

“The late Act and Resolve for fitting out armed Vessels in this Colony, I apprehend will have a good Effect, having already animated the Inhabitants of the Seaports who were unable to command much property, to unite in Companies of twenty or thirty Men and go out in Boats of 8 or 10 Tons Burthen which they call “Spider Catchers”. One of these last Week bro[ugh]t in two prizes, the last of which was a Vessell of 100 Tons burthen from Nova Scotia loaded with potatoes and 8 or 10 head of Cattle.”[6]

Immediately by 1775, the successes of American privateers were being made public. Patriot Boston Gazette identified Captain Manley’s local privateering adventures and his sort of reign of terror imposed upon British supply movements across the Atlantic heading toward British forces in Boston. A contemporary reader of the article learned that this American took four British ships of different weights, all consisting of food stores, ammo, powder, and various supplies. Two captured ships named were the Lee and Nancy. The article makes sure to mention the fact that the captured Lee was used against her original owners in the capturing of the Nancy! Prisoners of war were interned, and cannons were captured, along with various other considerable prizes. Beyond that, the public was seeing British munitions and supplies being ragged instantly against the Empire by seeing a former Royal ship serve the American cause. A slap in the face to the British, and a morale boost to any patriot reader, it must be imagined.

Also, the article identified Beverly, Cape Anne, and Salem as popular prize ports good within the Massachusetts area. More significantly, the usually confidant British Navy was identified here as “equipping Men of war Schooners with Hay, wood &c. on their Decks, to Decoy our [7] The next day, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported an proper enumeration of the articles taken from the Nancy. It is amazing to see such a variety of stores, supplies, and military articles taken from the British and supplied to the Revolutionaries. Two-thousand “Muskets, bayonets, scabbards, cartouch boxes, and tanned leather slings” are but a small portion of the prize. “Flints, Forge bellows, Wheel barrows…camp kettles…shot [various kinds both cannon and musket]…and much more.[8] George Washington, upon learning of the successful ventures around Massachusetts and especially of Captain Manely’s taking of the Lee and the Nancy, asked Congress in November, 1775 for,

“A more summary method of proceeding, to determine the property and mode of condemnation of such prizes… Should not a court be established…to take cognizance of the Prizes made by the Continental Vessels? …The inhabitants of Plymouth have taken a Sloop laden with Provision &ca. from Halifax bound to Boston, and the Inhabitants of Beverly have under cover of one of the Armed Schooners taken a Vessel from Ireland laden with Beef, Pork, Butter &ca…”[9]

By the waste of December that year, the Continental Congress acted on Washington’s advice-sort of. The meeting decided that the colonies needed a naval armament committee. One man was to be selected from each colony to hold office. Two members were Samuel Adams and Robert Morris. The meeting next discussed obvious limitations imposed upon the transportation of supplies from American port to port. Merely, they were to acquire authentic documents by “two Merchants of known character and reputation, residing in the same port; and that on executing such bond, the said chairman sign a permit to the said petitioner, allowing him to export the said cargo.” The resolution required that no ships may buy supplies to British colonies or Britain herself. That may be considered a kind of preventive measure making mercenary privateering explicitly illegal, despite that being obvious treason.[10]

When a prize of considerable value entered Great-Egg Harbour, the same above question offered by Washington was posed to the Continental Congress. How should they divvy up the loot? The powder was to be sent to Congress to be best dispersed throughout the military. The resolution decided “that the Commander in chief have one twentieth part of the allotted prize-money, taken by any ship or ships, armed vessels or vessels, under his order and command.” Also,

“That the captain of any single ship or armed vessel, have two twentieth parts for his share…Lieutenants of the ships…share together…three twentieth parts divided among them equally…surgeons, chaplains, pursers, boatswains, gunners, carpenters, the masters’ mates…have [their parts] equally distributed…”

The list goes on, as men were to receive their respective fraction in a somewhat equal, egalitarian fashion-yet a strict government hierarchy did indeed govern the sharing practice on the larger ships, obviously.[11] These and other limitations provided for a very confusing and probably anger ridden state of affairs upon capturing a vessel, unlike a pirate or traditional privateering vessel.

No matter who volunteered for American Privateer duty, they had to act under the restrictions of two Congressional bonds, and were not simply permitted to be piratical in manner, or acting totally for their own personal gains. A prospective merchant that desired the romantic and pleasurable role of privateer, in any state, had to first gain permission, in traditional European fashion, from the government. Sidney G. Morse has stated that the proper protocol for requesting permission to legally patrol the Atlantic Seaboard and European waters for British vessels was that a petition was first submitted to the state council. This petition was a written statement, which not only displayed information about the ship, but also, the “purposes of the owners.”[12]

On December 11^th, 1775, the Massachusetts council supplied an important commission to Captain Peter Roberts, of the sloop Gamecock. A portion of the crew and owners of the ship supplied the captains’ name to the council with a petition for a license, and it is assumed that Captain Roberts received this appointment as if he was democratically selected by his crew at Newburyport for his skill. The captain is given permission to assault any ships of the enemy and any ships accused of supplying the enemy, as well as, “for the Defence of America.” However, the captain is sternly warned to adhere to prize court and American naval restrictions limiting his targets to enemies of the Revolutionaries. The council was making sure that Roberts was in sworn allegiance to the strict rules governing privateers, while being sort of a police vessel for the ports of New England.[13] Thus, commissions limited the ‘purpose’ of privateers, so they were more than mere legalized pirates, but considered a patrolling watchdog and defensive militia for the coast.

Imagine being on board a pirate vessel during the 17^th and 18^th century, and having the opportunity to ask the captain what his or her ‘purpose’ was at sea. Depending upon the state of inebriation or education of the captain, the answer one would receive would be the same as if one were to ask the ruler of any self-sufficient country. Basically, a pirate crew operated for itself, and not any external state ideologies. Marcus Rediker says that pirate crews operated “beyond the reach of traditional authority.”[14] A privateer vessel, in European fashion, was nothing more than a pirate ship that plundered and pillaged in the name of the state that outfitted and sponsored her. The crew sailed under the colors of the country of origin, but the vast oceans of the world are not owned by any country, and thus, piracy was piracy, no matter whose country a vessel hailed from.[15]

American Privateers were more than pirates, because they did not exist for the sole purpose of self-fulfillment for themselves or a patron country. Even if the only reason some sailors and adventurers volunteered for privateer duty was for the profit, they all had to adhere to two kinds of bonds: The ‘general conduct bond’ and the ’special conduct bond.’ The general conduct bond implied that privateers would adhere to the “laws and regulations governing privateers.” Massachusetts began the commissioning of privateers under this residence bond on November 1, 1775. In April 1776, however, Congress passed resolves (the special bond) that required privateer commanders to “perform certain acts desirable for the public estimable, and refrain from doing other undesirable acts…and hence not covered by the general bond.”[16] Cape Ann, on January 1^st, 1776, had a number of rules for privateers to follow that were to serve as orderly protocol toward British vessels. Instead of being able to assault and pirate any suspicious ship in their path, the captain of the rebel privateer must first demand identification papers before plundering. Only if the vessel in question could produce official documents proving that the ship did not represent the King of England, would the jaws of the privateer be held back from whatever supplies or fortunes lay in the ships’ hold. Christopher Hawkins’ shipmates revealed the tensions hungry seamen must have felt toward these “papers,” as shown later.

Upon arrival at a rebel port such as Cape Ann, the captain was to have a complete inventory of the prizes’ cargo before the plunder even hit the wharf. The sailors of the prize were to end up prisoners, and, by law, were to be treated with “humanity and tenderness.” As far as the hull itself, it became the property of the rebels, and could only be used as directed by further notice from headquarters.[17] The above restrictive orders, which made sure all seamen fitted for privateer duty were aligned against Britain, were discovered by the British upon their own taking of an American vessel, which contained some of the above restrictions in writing. Hugh Pullizer, writing to Lord Sandwich, remarked that in January, 1776, a captured American ship contained documents “proving the rebels are at sea…limited against ships and vessels employed in the service of the [British] hastily and army in America.”[18] These units were more than mere privateers. They should be considered Naval Militia because of their explicit contractual limitations, and their popularity through success.

As more prizes entered New England during the early part of the war, ports like Beverly, Massachusetts became primary targets for harassment from British naval vessels. According to a petition to George Washington from the Beverly Committee of Correspondence, geography multiplied Beverly’s burden by being a town stretched along the Atlantic and thus easy prey for the British. Civilians apparently built the necessary fortifications, but they were without enough cannon, powder, and ammunition to defend valuable prizes.[19] A larger presence was needed to ward off the feared British Navy, but none would acknowledge until discipline and organization could supply powder, canon, and a disinterested presence in the water-not looking for prizes, but for British blood.

Privateers proved an important piece of the American defense effort by being the guardians of the colonial port, but also, by inflicting substantial hurt on the already crippled economy of Britain. Major General William Howe predicted, in 1775, that rebel naval possibilities would hinder the British presence in America when he stated to Lord Dartmouth;

“I could wish a distinction to be made between prisoners taken on shore and on sea, which last mode of war will hurt us more effectually than anything they can do by land during our stay at this place.”[20]

The Atlantic Ocean provided the road to profit for Great Britain for years. Mercantilism had, by this time, built and destroyed nations, and made gentlemen out of commoners. The water was the key. Sea commerce was the backbone of the mercantilist system, so vessels for centuries raced the deep, blue sea with riches from port to port. With all of a nations’ pride floating almost helplessly on the sometimes-treacherous sea, Britain, like Spain, France, Portugal, and every other European nation alive to in this system, traditionally developed a strong sense of protection for their ports and other assets. The American colonies had been assets under the protection of Britain since Jamestown was established. All of this history was well known to state councilmen and Congress alike, and thus, they knew that they stood no chance in water that was stained with British pride and blood over hundreds of years. Viscount Barington, Secretary at War, wrote (around 1774-1775) to the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary for the Colonies, that the British army would not be able to hurt the rebellious colonists as much as the presence of the British navy would.[21]

A decision as to what to do about the awesome presence of the British navy was needed, and the Massachusetts state council moved (faster than Congress) to mobilize a local defense of the port from the powerful British navy. The ability of Massachusetts to quickly pass the November 1, 1775 defensive law was admired by John Adams as “one of the most important documents in the history of the Revolution.”[22] John Adams, along with most colonists in port communities, probably feared the British navy, and they had every right to. But those that did must have forgotten that American colonial ships had fought in the Atlantic alongside the British in past wars.

J. Franklin Jameson has written that

“The Americans were old hands at privateering. In the War of the Spanish Succession, in the Spanish war of 1739, the French war of 1744, and especially in the French and Indian War, the business had attained prodigious proportions…In one cruise, in 1759 and 1760, Abraham Whipple of Rhode Island captured twenty-three prizes, valued at a million dollars.” Jameson goes on about how American privateering efforts were extremely successful throughout the war, as more and more prizes were brought into port towns. As these ships, money, and prisoners arrived at random, privateering looked like the profession of choice for the “doughty sailor.” Jameson says that possibly ninety thousand men enlisted as privateers from the states.[23] Port towns in New England reacted to the standing British Navy, then, by spewing forth with hungry, angry sailors.

The thousands of American sailors trolling around the Atlantic were ready to storm the decks of any unlucky British merchant ship that came into their view. American raids caused commerce within the Empire to plummet. Insurance on exported goods from the West Indies reached “twenty-eight percent of the value of the ship and goods.” This increase might have something to do with the fact that roughly 250 men had been captured from the West Indies. These factors help explain the 1,800,000 pounds obedient that reportedly were missing from the English treasury that year (1776.) As the English treasury began to lose weight, Americans like Robert Morris, who invested in privateering expeditions, made roughly 300,000 to 400,000 pounds sterling on raids.[24] The British came into the Revolution in a horrid economic state, and thus, the constant gouging by American seamen poked larger holes in the dwindling moneybag of the British Empire. The Naval Militia, then, attacked where it hurt the most, which shook victory further away from Parliament’s grasp with every ship brought as a prize back to an American harbor.

Privateers could only do so much in regards of defense. Their defensive role was more like a side-effect of heavy patrolling for prizes. Noteworthy like their landed status militia counterparts, the privateers were often dangerous to neutrals and allies as well as the enemy, due to restlessness and the monotony of the sea, probably. Christopher Hawkins, upon writing about his personal experiences as a sailor on board the privateer Eagle, (under Captain Mowry Potter,) claimed that during an interaction with a French vessel “laden with flour,” the men were quick to “pronounce her a British vessel,” and were angry that Captain Mowry did not allow them to take the ship. Hawkins says the men made up stories that the French on that ship were not even French at all, but British in disguise.[25] Another example of these Naval Militia poking and prodding seafarers as if consuming cats was described to Adams by Elbridge Gerry. Apparently a British decoy ship fooled a “Continental Commander” advance the port, causing the American frigate to chase the fake. A Spider Catcher nearby decided to chase the American frigate unprejudiced leaving! Soon enough, “One of the Spider Catchers like a brave fellow gave likewise Chase to the Frigate, and by the Time they had got within Near of her Guns the found their Mistake and were obliged to make Use of their Heels Whilst the Ship with a Cloud of Sail pursued and pelted them; They Ran with great Dexterity and like Heroes escaped.”[26]

“Spider Catchers” and men on board the Eagle were probably keen primarily in the economic gain from taking the French ship as a prize, but these hungry men, who probably wanted to bother almost every ship that crossed their paths, actually inadvertently created a kind of defensive guard between the ports of New England and Britain. So what if they sometimes ended up badgering allies-the overprotection drained British assets and forged an informal American naval presence where there had previously been none at all.

Unfortunately, for the Naval Militia, their identity was equal to that of illegal pirates and could be treated so if captured by England, because America had no established flag (colors) that could be recognized as an official military vessel.[27] Hugh F. Rankin states that privateer vessels flew either colors that they had created themselves, or provincial colors. This wide array of unknown flags caused a tense space, because seamen knew that if caught, that might seal their fate as pirates at the gallows and not as prisoners of war. Rankin continues to say that “This diversity of designs was a decided disadvantage in the strike-and-run tactics of the privateers. The use of so many different flags was in direct violation of the law of the sea; neither England nor any other nation would recognize the validity of a flag designed and flown by a privateer captain on his contain initiative. It was simply to save their own necks that these sea rovers gradually adopted the Grand Union flag… by September, 1776.”[28]

The British Navy, like every other European Navy, had specific flags that denoted each vessel a formal military vessel. Britain was a worthy and thus well known force in the Atlantic and abroad, and from a distance, any competent seaman could understand which vessels were British and which were French, for example. Imagine, now, that what looks to be an innocent merchant ship is swaying gently toward a British Naval vessel. English sailors on board might focus intently on the mast of the ship, in hopes to make out exactly to whom the oncoming ship belonged. This map, the captain knows whether to mobilize his men to attack, or, if a noble ship, ignore it or make some sort of gracious contact.

Upon scanning the horizon from the privateer Eagle, Christopher Hawkins noticed “…something in appearance resembling a very small bush without leaves. I mentioned this to the crew, many of them tried to discover it without success.” It was eventually found that this “small bush without leaves” must have been a vessel that they had recently given creep too, but they had lost her. Sailing avidly closer and enraged that they possibly may assume her as a prize, “she now discovered us, and in turn made sail for us…by this time our spirits became damped, and our course immediately shifted from a chase to a runaway.” Hawkins’ mates had encountered unknowingly the H.M.S. Sphinx, of 21 guns. This man-o-war captured them, as his story continues.[29] It was well-known that the Americans find a flag not only for their safety, but also, for international recognition as a formal fighting force. There were a multitude of designs and colors used. South Carolina privateers rose a “red and blue stripped flag, with a rattlesnake undulating across its folds above the warning ‘Don’t Tread On Me.’” Massachusetts, on April 29, 1776, decided their naval flag should be a “white flag, with a green pine tree, and the inscription: ‘Appeal to Heaven.’”[30] Hugh Pulizer wrote, “Captain Meadows has brought the American vessels’ colours, it is a white field with a green pine tree in the middle: the motto, Appeal to Heaven. …Wish that it might be sent to Admiral Montagu, as it was taken by his son.”[31] If the flag of the ship was totally unrecognizable or cheaply made, it could possibly be assumed by hostile navies that the oncoming ship was either an outlaw (mutineers, maybe) or a pirate ship. Both groups were traditionally treated harshly. To consider American privateers as common pirates or outlawed vessels was to discredit their standing and importance as protectors of their homes-much like the land militia was.

Massachusetts privateers speedily took to sail almost immediately after Lexington and Concord. A couple patriotic men fitted out a vessel and took the Falcon, a British sloop of war, which was floating near Martha’s Vineyard. Another group of rebels, sailing out of Machias, Maine, took the King’s sloop Margaretta. The Massachusetts Naval militia preferred sailing home waters, and they prospered heavily at the cost of the British. Prize court records of 1779 show roughly 184 captures. On May 16, 1779, an estimate given on the number of British prisoners being held was around 1000. One can hardly question the success of these roaming patriots and profiteers. The Naval Militia was not restricted to the coasts, however. An example of success abroad can be found

in the Spring of 1777, [when] the Tyrannicide, Captain Jonathan Haraden, Massachusetts, Captain John Fisk, and Freedom, Captain John Clouston, cruised eastward as far as France and Spain, capturing some twenty-five prizes,… This was a most fortunate venture, for all told one can not now count more than seventy prizes captured by the Massachusetts Navy.[32]

The Penobscot Assault

The Penobscot Expedition, while being the largest strategic naval assault of the American Revolution, was a total pains because the whole plan required the trained units of a European Navy, when the American Privateers (who assisted the strike) were nothing like their European counterparts. Maine (Massachusetts territory) was a strong source of timber for the port towns of Current England. No ships could be built without proper timber supplies, and Britain knew the value of this wooded space well. The Begaduce Peninsula off of the Pennobscott bay also provided not only a port of anti-privateering operations for the British, but also served as a place for loyalists to hide from the Patriots of Unusual England. As soon as the Massachusetts Status Council heard of this improper, plans were thrown together for a swiftly assault on the fortification.[33] Privateer and other vessels floating in the harbor were pressed into service (18,) and patriotism possibly explains why other private ship owners joined the task force.

By June, the Massachusetts House of Representatives moved to raise 1200 men from the counties of Cumberland and Lincoln for two-month terms. Food, ammo, and other supply ratios were definite here and in further council meetings asking for more men.[34] Some Continental, merchant, and privateer vessels were already floating near the coast. Continental frigates adhered to Congressional acts and not location movements. Bright this, the council wrote to the Navy Board on June 30, 1779, declaring the British installation in Maine at Majorbagwayduce (Begaduce) an important target and capable of capitulation under a unified Continental and state flotilla.[35] On July 2nd, the Council promised a joint action between the land and sea forces upon assault, with command of the entire expedition now bestowed upon the higher-ranking commander on board the Warren (Continental Frigate). By July 9^th, the Navy Board replied with hopes of cooperation and a statement that Dudley Saltonstall was officially in command of the Warren. Plans for rendezvous were included and a plan to synchronize their sail was stated.[36]

Upon launching, the crews of the privateer vessels were undermanned, most likely because this mission was of total strategic value, and no profit was to be gained.[37] Much like state militia, however, the American Privateer did not perform well abroad and under the command of formal naval operations. Privateers commanded themselves, and were not trained in traditional naval style. Massachusetts State Council understood the deficiencies of sending privateer vessels abroad until 1779. Unfortunately, the council changed its mind for this expedition.[38] As soon as the American flotilla launched from Boston, “the expedition would continue with a divided assure.”[39] Miscommunication and shabby order described the onset, as the Council asked what the frigate Delaware was doing, because no one else seemed to know its plans as it headed off “on the 16^th current, and stood to the Eastward; their destination was not known.”[40] By August 12^th, the Navy-Board warned Saltonstall that if the American quickly did not pursue the enemy ships immediately, British reinforcements would arrive soon and foil the entire mission.[41] From the beginning, the assault was a military disaster, and Americans would find every single ship that left Boston was destroyed or captured. Total damages to the Massachusetts state government were estimated at about 1,739,174 pounds sterling.[42] The rebels had failed to take the unfinished Fort George quickly, and Britain was able to rescue her men under siege. Captain Henry Mowat wrote that upon slowing the poor advance of the American flotilla, “…Intelligence having reached New York, that Penobscot was attacked, Sir George Collier Sailed to its relief, with the Raisonable Ship… Blonde, Virginia, Carmilla, Galatea, &c. They were perceived off Penobscot Bay by the rebel look-out vessel in the Evening. In the course of the night they embarked their troops,… In the morning early their fleet was seen under sail; but the wind failing them to acquire round the upper end of Long Island, they had no alternative but to run up Penobscot River.” Captain Mowat described the ruined American expedition at its utter defeat as in “utmost hurt,” whilst some rebel vessels were burned, others were captured, and the various crewmembers turned to running home through the woods, [43] probably much like a gang of fugitives escaping the jaws of authority.

The failure of the Penobscott Expedition provided an example of just how young America was, because the Massachusetts State Council had utilized a European mindset that was out of its place when applied to American constructs, and thus, dangerous when applied to a non-professional fighting force such as the American Privateer. The planners of the Penobscot assault threw the mission together quickly and without much view. Charles Oscar Paullin declares that the assaulted position was hardly strategic, after all. Even if the Americans had taken Fort George (on the Peninsula,) it would have mattered little to the American war effort.[44] But hindsight is always 20/20.

As stated earlier, colonial privateers were hardly given much credit when they fought alongside the Empire. When the privateers took on the role as Naval Militia in the Revolution, it was usually that basic Mercantilist interest of profit that made sailors fever for plunder. They had to adhere to strict limitations and rules governing their fiendish behavior, however. Those rules were sometimes hard to apply to the reality and monotony of the sea, but they kept intact and thus webbed the Atlantic hover. They themselves hardly understood their distinguished role in the Revolutionary cause. By hurting British re-supply, the American Naval Militia played a more valuable part in the American Revolution–more than that of greedy sailors. A letter out of British-occupied Boston in 1775 discussed the dire need for food and medicine and other stores, yet went on to say that a few ships dispatched to fulfill those needs were taken by American privateers. Some “were taken almost within sight of our Admiral’s ship [45]

Their brave service on those crowded vessels against their own brethren across the sea reflected the desire for American society to push away from Britain permanently. Finally, their gradual sacrifice of their provincial flags for the adoption of the Grand Union Flag, like the Declaration of Independence, when recognized by foreign nations, signified the unity of a new, respectable nation on the rise. [46]

[1]By a Sailor. “A Favorite New Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. edited by Clark, William Bell. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. Washington, 1968. 47. To call the early privateersmen “Sons of Thunder” works. A contemporary patriot probably received a morale boost when reading headlines of their successes or using the stolen goods acquired from British holds. Looking back, being “Sons of Whisper” seems to take on another symbolic meaning. Being an amateur force, and often badgering allies and each other, a true Son of Thunder had thus at one time wielded his bolts on the Atlantic. Their tactic was quick yet immature and individualistic, but they did have to adhere to the laws of their father country on the rise. Also, the author has not found any female privateers.

[2]Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. 1179.

[3]Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-1748.” William and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382. 382.

[4]Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6

[5]Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press: 1979. 245-6.

[6]Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Ibid. 349-51.

[7]Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 46-8

[8]Pennsylvania Evening Post 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 69-72.

[9] Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4. Washington calls the vessles “Continental” but these were not the American Navy. He was simply calling them by his own chosen name, as he was actually too busy with his Continental Army organization. This letter contains his complaints that officers would not sign up unless they new who they would be leading them personally.

[10]Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 59-60.

[11]Journal of the Continental Congress. Naval Documents. 6 January 1776. 655-7

[12] Morse, Sidney G. “State or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review 52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73. 68-9.

[13]Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Command Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 52-3.

[14]Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987. 255.

[15]Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543. 540-41.

[16]Morse, “State or Continental Privateers,” 69-70.

[17]Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 553-4.

[18]Pullizer, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1. 96-97.

[19]Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 44-5

[20]Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. Quote derived from pre-text.

[21]Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1. Williamstown,

Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970. 18-19.

[22]Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd, 1971. 320-21.

[23]Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 1926. 65-6.

[24]Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement, Jameson says, “The impulse that led men into it [privateering] was…that same love of collect which also inspired commerce.” 64-66.

[25]Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. Recent York: Arno Press, 1968. 12-13. Hawkins continued to say that the men– for 3 or 4 days– talked about the French vessel as a British one in disguise. They had convinced each other of this false truth, and one can only imagine the enrage on board. These sailors were probably restless enough without having ships slip by them because they had “papers” that the captain declared true.

[26]John Adams Papers. Vol 3. 350.

[27]A single torn piece of canvas flying high above the deck of a pirate or mutinous ship might have painted on it skull-and-crossbones with an hourglass or any number of death dealing and mortality images. Regardless, American privateers did not fly such pirate flags while assaulting the British, however, they did fly unconventional colors that could wait on as home representation, as described in the paper. By traditional law of the sea, a pirate ship representing no formal entity was the enemy of every mercantilist empire. The American vessels initially lacked the recognition of a global force, and were openly plundering English shipping-an action that could be seen as mutinous piracy. Such treachery for centuries usually got one hanged at the gallows. But, captured rebels were instead detained as prisoners of war most of the time, probably because if the British quelled the rebellion, they did not want to have further stained their reputation with the lower-laboring classes of America. The merchant marine served as an important laboring class during the time, and angering them beyond that which impressments had done in the past would not have helped the British in their economic future-if they had won the war.

[28]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 340, 344.

[29] The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. 21-2.

[30]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 343. See appendix for flag representations.

[31] Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. Vol 3. Naval Documents. 481-2.

[32]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 339, 340-1, 343.

[33]Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-1779.” Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer, 1953): 83-94. 83-85.

[34]State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 180-81. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. New York: Arno Press, 1971. 44-5. General Lovell is mentioned here as being appointed to command the expedition.

[35]Ibid, 54-5. Council’s Letter to the Navy-Board. June 30, 1779. 190-1.

[36]Ibid, 55-6. Council’s Letter to the Hon. Meshech Weare, Esq. President of the Sate of New-Hampshire, dated July 9, 1779.191-2.

[37]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87-8.

[38]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 347-8.

[39]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87.

[40]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 59. Council’s Letter to General Lovell, dated July 23, 1779.195.

[41]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: Penobscot Expedition. 65. Navy-Board’s Letter to Commodore Saltonstall, dated August 12, 1779.201.

[42]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 93-4.

[43]Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in 1783.” Maine Historical Society. Collections. 1890. 340-1. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 52-3.

[44]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 352.

[45] “Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 84-6.

[46]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 344. Rankin states that The Dutch of FortOrange at St. Eustatius had saluted the Tremendous Union Flag in 1776. This recognition of the newly established American nation was very significant.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1 and 2.

Williamstown, Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970.

Clark, William Bell, ed., Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3.

Washington, 1968.

Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement.

Boston: Beacon Press, 1926.

Morse, Sidney G. “State or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review

52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73.

Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell

House Publishers Ltd, 1971.

Rankin, Hugh F. “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution.” William and Mary

Quarterly 11, no. 3 (Jul., 1954): 339-353.

Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. Novel York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543.

Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer,

1953): 83-94.

Smith, Dr. Whitney. Flags through the Ages and across the World. Maidenhead,

England: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-William

and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382.

Primary Sources

Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap

Press: 1979. 349-51.

Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Papers of John Adams. 245-6.

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6.

Following Sources derived out of

Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark. Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968.

Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. 44-5.

Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. 46-8.

Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The

Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. Recent York: Arno Press, 1968.

Colony Bond for the Massachusettes Private Armed Vessel “Lizard”, Journal of the Massachusettes House of Representatives, 8 February 1776. 1172-3.

Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Command Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. 52-3.

“Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. 84-6.

Hichborn, Benjamin. Letter to John Adams, 10 December 1775. 32-5.

Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Quote derived from pre-text.

Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. 553-4.

Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. 59-60.

Journal of the Continental Congress. 6 January 1776. 655-7.

Journal of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, 11 December 1775. 50-2.

Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. 1179.

Massachusettes Council. Commission to Captain Peter Roberts, 11 December 1775. 52-3.

Naval Committee. Commission to Abraham Whipple, 6 January 1776. 657-8.

Pennsylvania Evening Post. 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. 69-72.

Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1.96-97.

Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. 481-2.

By a Sailor. “A Favorite New Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. 47.

Warren, James. Letter to John Adams, 11 December 1775. 49-50.

Following Sources Derived out of

Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. New York: Arno Press, 1971.

Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in Collections. 1890. 52-3.

State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 44-5.

Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4.

[1]By a Sailor. “A Favorite New Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. edited by Clark, William Bell. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. Washington, 1968. 47. To call the early privateersmen “Sons of Thunder” works. A contemporary patriot probably received a morale boost when reading headlines of their successes or using the stolen goods acquired from British holds. Looking back, being “Sons of Thunder” seems to take on another symbolic meaning. Being an amateur force, and often badgering allies and each other, a true Son of Thunder had thus at one time wielded his bolts on the Atlantic. Their tactic was quick yet immature and individualistic, but they did have to adhere to the laws of their father country on the rise. Also, the author has not found any female privateers.

[2]Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. 1179.

[3]Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-1748.” William and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382. 382.

[4]Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6

[5]Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press: 1979. 245-6.

[6]Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Ibid. 349-51.

[7]Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 46-8

[8]Pennsylvania Evening Post 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 69-72.

[9] Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4. Washington calls the vessles “Continental” but these were not the American Navy. He was simply calling them by his own chosen name, as he was actually too busy with his Continental Army organization. This letter contains his complaints that officers would not sign up unless they new who they would be leading them personally.

[10]Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 59-60.

[11]Journal of the Continental Congress. Naval Documents. 6 January 1776. 655-7

[12] Morse, Sidney G. “State or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review 52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73. 68-9.

[13]Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Bid Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 52-3.

[14]Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987. 255.

[15]Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543. 540-41.

[16]Morse, “Spot or Continental Privateers,” 69-70.

[17]Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 553-4.

[18]Pullizer, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1.96-97.

[19]Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 44-5

[20]Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. Quote derived from pre-text.

[21]Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1. Williamstown,

Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970. 18-19.

[22]Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd, 1971. 320-21.

[23]Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 1926. 65-6.

[24]Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement, Jameson says, “The impulse that led men into it [privateering] was…that same love of gain which also inspired commerce.” 64-66.

[25]Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. Unique York: Arno Press, 1968. 12-13. Hawkins continued to say that the men– for 3 or 4 days– talked about the French vessel as a British one in disguise. They had convinced each other of this false truth, and one can only imagine the anger on board. These sailors were probably restless enough without having ships breeze by them because they had “papers” that the captain declared true.

[26]John Adams Papers. Vol 3. 350.

[27]A single torn piece of canvas flying high above the deck of a pirate or mutinous ship might have painted on it skull-and-crossbones with an hourglass or any number of death dealing and mortality images. Regardless, American privateers did not skim such pirate flags while assaulting the British, however, they did fly unconventional colors that could serve as home representation, as described in the paper. By traditional law of the sea, a pirate ship representing no formal entity was the enemy of every mercantilist empire. The American vessels initially lacked the recognition of a global force, and were openly plundering English shipping-an action that could be seen as mutinous piracy. Such treachery for centuries usually got one hanged at the gallows. But, captured rebels were instead detained as prisoners of war most of the time, probably because if the British quelled the rebellion, they did not want to have further stained their reputation with the lower-laboring classes of America. The merchant marine served as an important laboring class during the time, and angering them beyond that which impressments had done in the past would not have helped the British in their economic future-if they had won the war.

[28]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 340, 344.

[29] The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. 21-2.

[30]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 343. See appendix for flag representations.

[31] Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. Vol 3. Naval Documents. 481-2.

[32]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 339, 340-1, 343.

[33]Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-1779.” Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer, 1953): 83-94. 83-85.

[34]State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 180-81. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. New York: Arno Press, 1971. 44-5. General Lovell is mentioned here as being appointed to command the expedition.

[35]Ibid, 54-5. Council’s Letter to the Navy-Board. June 30, 1779. 190-1.

[36]Ibid, 55-6. Council’s Letter to the Hon. Meshech Weare, Esq. President of the Sate of New-Hampshire, dated July 9, 1779.191-2.

[37]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87-8.

[38]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 347-8.

[39]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87.

[40]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 59. Council’s Letter to General Lovell, dated July 23, 1779.195.

[41]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: Penobscot Expedition. 65. Navy-Board’s Letter to Commodore Saltonstall, dated August 12, 1779.201.

[42]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 93-4.

[43]Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in 1783.” Maine Historical Society. Collections. 1890. 340-1. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 52-3.

[44]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 352.

[45] “Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 84-6.

[46]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 344. Rankin states that The Dutch of FortOrange at St. Eustatius had saluted the Grand Union Flag in 1776. This recognition of the newly established American nation was very valuable.

“Our Heroes they’re not daunted when Canhon Balls do soar, For we’re refolved to conquer, or bravely we will die. Then roufe all you New England Oakes, give MANLY now a Cheer, Likewise thofe Sons of Thunder who go in Privateers.“[1]

Americans went head-to-head with the traditional standing military and navy of the British Empire, while America lacked any weak fighting force besides militia units on land, and privateering vessels at sea. The important step of evolving a traditional fighting force while at war with a professional, seasoned army was a terrifying experience for colonials. Thus, in defense of themselves, Americans reacted in 1775 with what their faded means of warfare were up to that point-privateering and militia duty.

This paper will focus on the initiation and success of American privateering during the Revolution. Early privateering efforts reflected the continuity of a European tradition of privateering. Privateers proved their value as long as they remained strategically within their natural role as an individualistic unit. They were so successful, that their efforts at the beginning of the war provided a morale boost for not only the public, but for figures and acquaintances of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Privateering was limited, however, as a sort of floating militia for the Atlantic coastal network, while the Penobscott Assault proved that upon stepping out of their natural roles, privateers were out of spot and failure was immanent. The resemblance is like militia in joint campaign abroad with the Continental Army-it was not their nature to leave their local posts and often proved miserable service.

To help the argument, the paper will bring to light the successes, yet point out limitations, of privateering efforts. Only a professional navy, by tradition, could successfully lift in military operations far away from home, with the gaining of ground as the only strategic motivation. Privateers traditionally required material motivation-which did not align with most military pursuits involving the tackling of expansive fortifications with almost suicidal odds, or, the engagement of multiple British men-of-war for the mere purpose of striking enemy vessels. Privateers would rather hit traditional enemy logistical units, such as merchant ships, while usually avoiding men-of-war. Their motivation was booty-prizes included hard currencies, the ship itself, naval stores, slaves, powder, ammunition, rifles, and strategic documents, such as enemy strategy and dates of movements, etc. Thus, when Massachusetts threw together in joint action the Continental Navy and a few local privateers in order to lay siege to Fort George in the Penobscot Bay (1779), the joint effort was a failure, because privateers never before undertook an amphibious assault of that magnitude, and would never do so again, due to their faded role as primarily local units.

This paper looks mostly at 1775 to 1776, because these beginning years of the war brand a period of colonists scrambling to defend themselves by implementing familiar practices, such as militia and privateer duty. No formally recognized American Navy fought in the ocean while the battles of Lexington and Concord ensued. The colonists were a bit reluctant to dispute independence from their home land, and so they saw no need for any organized naval existence because that would be extreme defiance, expensive, and a declaration of independence in itself. Soon, as history has eminent, that would change, and both a standing navy and army would confront the British along with privateer and militia units.

To add weight to sources cited from the beginning of the war, the paper includes the Penobscot Expedition of 1779 as an attempt to point to that the two differing schools of naval warfare did not work well together. This was the trial and error joint effort between privateers and the American Navy which failed, because as the beginning of the paper will prove, privateers were part of a colonial tradition in encourage of a larger organized force (formerly the Royal Navy,) and not to be a major supplement of that force. This was much like the usual disappointments Washington faced when militia accompanied the Continental Army abroad.

Since the successes and failures of the American professional navy can be found in any encyclopedia, this paper does not need to delve further into its importance. None would argue that a outmoded navy was not important during 18^th century conflicts. However, the activities of many privateering vessels exist in only a few naval surveys, while minor individual activity is hard to find. Christopher Hawkins and George Robert Twelves Hewes have been given semi-heroic identities in the past. Both were privateers at some point, and both were of the lower classes. Many privateers were funded by the rich, and manned by the poor. Robert Morris was among many who backed private ventures from land. But the possibility of striking mountainous profits at random drew all ranks of society to privateering duty, while a standing navy both paid very little and was very unattractive by tradition and reality.

What about the South? The ship Defence served as American protection in the Chesapeake Bay. “She will cruise in the Bay, and as Occasion may require, proceed up Potowmack and the Captain shall have Orders to contribute every Thing in his Power to the common Defence on all Occasions.” However, everything in ‘his’ power was very limited, because, “Our inexperience in naval Preparations prevents us at present from either approving or disapproving your Belief of…Protection.” Along with that, powder was in a very short supply, with the meager local navy standing in line after the state militia waiting for re-supply.[2]

Legal Pirates were a Tradition of Sea Warfare

While being a fragment of imperial warfare at home and abroad, many American colonials and British region sail under the officially licensed and romanticized job as privateer. These merchants and adventurers left their land legs at home, and joined the ranks of seamen to not only skim from the top of the French Empire’s fortune, but also to agitate enemy commerce as well. Their livelihood from then on was as unstable as the sea, with its moments of peaceful, gentle rocking interrupted by the violent hand of crashing waves, which during a storm tried each man and decided who could remain alive, and who would be cast into the hungry blue sea. The fear of obvious judgment kept the men working under the whistle of the boatswain, because nobody knew when disease would strike, or when hunting French patrols would find and kill every last one of them. Unity on board the vessel adhered to whatever codes the captain had for them. Privateering vessels, then, were organized locally, and sought any enemy ship-regardless of strategic value-that they could catch. What the future held for each man was mysterious, and anything could go wrong, as with any military unit. Their fears, however, could be put to rest when the Royal Navy was on patrol. This traditional organization protected colonial assets and could survive any standoff with the French fleet. Privateers, then, were used to inflict major damages alongside the British Navy, but have been given light historical credit for their part in the wars of 1739-1748 and the French and Indian War.[3] After this period, privateer duty slowed down, until once again, the waters of the Atlantic boiled for blood.

Upon the opening of the American Revolution, volunteers once again applied for privateer licenses from their state council. This practice was nothing original for this period of time in European history, but the Americans, by the time of Revolution, were culturally splitting from Europe. One European element that Americans did not have was a traditional standing navy. Situation councils and the Continental Congress licensed privateers. These Americans who set sail for the romantic and uncertain life of a pirate were alone on the sea. They had no other protection unless aided by the shot of a nearby port fortification. In turn, these vessels antagonized the British with pride and the desire for profit.

Advantages of a Traditional Role

On both July 4^th and 5^th of 1775, after passing on news regarding the burning of “Charleston,” Thomas Jefferson told Francis Eppes (Grandson) and George Gilmer both that New England was beginning to fit out privateering vessels to attack “every thing below ships of war.”[4] Rumors must have been spreading throughout the war hungry colonies that the British were obviously being confronted on land, but also that an effort would meet them at sea. Jefferson was giving sound information. A rage for privateering thus went far beyond Novel England ports. William Gordan, writing from Jamaica in October of 1775, pleaded with John Adams that privateers had proven themselves in the past, and to “let the Congress give out letters of m[5]

Almost anyone could participate in the rage, despite economic deficiencies. Elbridge Gerry, writing to John Adams in 1775, wrote that,

“The late Act and Resolve for fitting out armed Vessels in this Colony, I apprehend will have a good Effect, having already animated the Inhabitants of the Seaports who were unable to command much property, to unite in Companies of twenty or thirty Men and go out in Boats of 8 or 10 Tons Burthen which they call “Spider Catchers”. One of these last Week bro[ugh]t in two prizes, the last of which was a Vessell of 100 Tons burthen from Nova Scotia loaded with potatoes and 8 or 10 head of Cattle.”[6]

Immediately by 1775, the successes of American privateers were being made public. Patriot Boston Gazette identified Captain Manley’s local privateering adventures and his sort of reign of terror imposed upon British supply movements across the Atlantic heading toward British forces in Boston. A contemporary reader of the article learned that this American took four British ships of different weights, all consisting of food stores, ammo, powder, and various supplies. Two captured ships named were the Lee and Nancy. The article makes sure to mention the fact that the captured Lee was used against her fresh owners in the capturing of the Nancy! Prisoners of war were interned, and cannons were captured, along with various other important prizes. Beyond that, the public was seeing British munitions and supplies being used instantly against the Empire by seeing a obsolete Royal ship serve the American cause. A slap in the face to the British, and a morale boost to any patriot reader, it must be imagined.

Also, the article identified Beverly, Cape Anne, and Salem as popular prize ports right within the Massachusetts area. More significantly, the usually confidant British Navy was identified here as “equipping Men of war Schooners with Hay, wood &c. on their Decks, to Decoy our [7] The next day, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported an exact enumeration of the articles taken from the Nancy. It is amazing to look such a variety of stores, supplies, and military articles taken from the British and supplied to the Revolutionaries. Two-thousand “Muskets, bayonets, scabbards, cartouch boxes, and tanned leather slings” are but a small portion of the prize. “Flints, Forge bellows, Wheel barrows…camp kettles…shot [various kinds both cannon and musket]…and much more.[8] George Washington, upon learning of the successful ventures around Massachusetts and especially of Captain Manely’s taking of the Lee and the Nancy, asked Congress in November, 1775 for,

“A more summary way of proceeding, to determine the property and mode of condemnation of such prizes… Should not a court be established…to take cognizance of the Prizes made by the Continental Vessels? …The inhabitants of Plymouth have taken a Sloop laden with Provision &ca. from Halifax bound to Boston, and the Inhabitants of Beverly have under cover of one of the Armed Schooners taken a Vessel from Ireland laden with Beef, Pork, Butter &ca…”[9]

By the end of December that year, the Continental Congress acted on Washington’s advice-sort of. The meeting decided that the colonies needed a naval armament committee. One man was to be selected from each colony to hold office. Two members were Samuel Adams and Robert Morris. The meeting next discussed obvious limitations imposed upon the transportation of supplies from American port to port. Merely, they were to acquire authentic documents by “two Merchants of known character and reputation, residing in the same port; and that on executing such bond, the said chairman sign a permit to the said petitioner, allowing him to export the said cargo.” The resolution required that no ships may purchase supplies to British colonies or Britain herself. That may be considered a kind of preventive measure making mercenary privateering explicitly illegal, despite that being obvious treason.[10]

When a prize of considerable value entered Great-Egg Harbour, the same above question offered by Washington was posed to the Continental Congress. How should they divvy up the loot? The powder was to be sent to Congress to be best dispersed throughout the military. The resolution decided “that the Commander in chief have one twentieth share of the allotted prize-money, taken by any ship or ships, armed vessels or vessels, under his order and drawl.” Also,

“That the captain of any single ship or armed vessel, have two twentieth parts for his share…Lieutenants of the ships…fragment together…three twentieth parts divided among them equally…surgeons, chaplains, pursers, boatswains, gunners, carpenters, the masters’ mates…have [their parts] equally distributed…”

The list goes on, as men were to receive their respective share in a somewhat equal, egalitarian fashion-yet a strict government hierarchy did indeed govern the sharing practice on the larger ships, obviously.[11] These and other limitations provided for a very confusing and probably anger ridden area of affairs upon capturing a vessel, unlike a pirate or traditional privateering vessel.

No matter who volunteered for American Privateer duty, they had to act under the restrictions of two Congressional bonds, and were not simply permitted to be piratical in manner, or acting totally for their own personal gains. A prospective merchant that desired the romantic and profitable role of privateer, in any state, had to first gain permission, in traditional European fashion, from the government. Sidney G. Morse has stated that the proper protocol for requesting permission to legally patrol the Atlantic Seaboard and European waters for British vessels was that a petition was first submitted to the residence council. This petition was a written statement, which not only displayed information about the ship, but also, the “purposes of the owners.”[12]

On December 11^th, 1775, the Massachusetts council supplied an important commission to Captain Peter Roberts, of the sloop Gamecock. A portion of the crew and owners of the ship supplied the captains’ name to the council with a petition for a license, and it is assumed that Captain Roberts received this appointment as if he was democratically selected by his crew at Newburyport for his skill. The captain is given permission to assault any ships of the enemy and any ships accused of supplying the enemy, as well as, “for the Defence of America.” However, the captain is sternly warned to adhere to prize court and American naval restrictions limiting his targets to enemies of the Revolutionaries. The council was making sure that Roberts was in sworn allegiance to the strict rules governing privateers, while being sort of a police vessel for the ports of New England.[13] Thus, commissions little the ‘purpose’ of privateers, so they were more than mere legalized pirates, but considered a patrolling watchdog and defensive militia for the coast.

Imagine being on board a pirate vessel during the 17^th and 18^th century, and having the opportunity to ask the captain what his or her ‘purpose’ was at sea. Depending upon the space of inebriation or education of the captain, the answer one would receive would be the same as if one were to ask the ruler of any self-sufficient country. Basically, a pirate crew operated for itself, and not any external state ideologies. Marcus Rediker says that pirate crews operated “beyond the reach of traditional authority.”[14] A privateer vessel, in European fashion, was nothing more than a pirate ship that plundered and pillaged in the name of the state that outfitted and sponsored her. The crew sailed under the colors of the country of origin, but the vast oceans of the world are not owned by any country, and thus, piracy was piracy, no matter whose country a vessel hailed from.[15]

American Privateers were more than pirates, because they did not exist for the sole purpose of self-fulfillment for themselves or a patron country. Even if the only reason some sailors and adventurers volunteered for privateer duty was for the profit, they all had to adhere to two kinds of bonds: The ‘general conduct bond’ and the ’special conduct bond.’ The general conduct bond implied that privateers would adhere to the “laws and regulations governing privateers.” Massachusetts began the commissioning of privateers under this state bond on November 1, 1775. In April 1776, however, Congress passed resolves (the special bond) that required privateer commanders to “perform certain acts desirable for the public wonderful, and refrain from doing other undesirable acts…and hence not covered by the general bond.”[16] Cape Ann, on January 1^st, 1776, had a number of rules for privateers to follow that were to serve as orderly protocol toward British vessels. Instead of being able to assault and pirate any suspicious ship in their path, the captain of the rebel privateer must first demand identification papers before plundering. Only if the vessel in question could develop official documents proving that the ship did not represent the King of England, would the jaws of the privateer be held encourage from whatever supplies or fortunes lay in the ships’ hold. Christopher Hawkins’ shipmates revealed the tensions hungry seamen must have felt toward these “papers,” as shown later.

Upon arrival at a rebel port such as Cape Ann, the captain was to have a complete inventory of the prizes’ cargo before the plunder even hit the wharf. The sailors of the prize were to end up prisoners, and, by law, were to be treated with “humanity and tenderness.” As far as the hull itself, it became the property of the rebels, and could only be used as directed by further notice from headquarters.[17] The above restrictive orders, which made sure all seamen fitted for privateer duty were aligned against Britain, were discovered by the British upon their own taking of an American vessel, which contained some of the above restrictions in writing. Hugh Pullizer, writing to Lord Sandwich, remarked that in January, 1776, a captured American ship contained documents “proving the rebels are at sea…limited against ships and vessels employed in the service of the [British] fleet and army in America.”[18] These units were more than mere privateers. They should be considered Naval Militia because of their explicit contractual limitations, and their popularity through success.

As more prizes entered New England during the early part of the war, ports like Beverly, Massachusetts became primary targets for harassment from British naval vessels. According to a petition to George Washington from the Beverly Committee of Correspondence, geography multiplied Beverly’s burden by being a town stretched along the Atlantic and thus easy prey for the British. Civilians apparently built the necessary fortifications, but they were without enough cannon, powder, and ammunition to defend valuable prizes.[19] A larger presence was needed to ward off the feared British Navy, but none would acknowledge until discipline and organization could supply powder, canon, and a disinterested presence in the water-not looking for prizes, but for British blood.

Privateers proved an important portion of the American defense effort by being the guardians of the colonial port, but also, by inflicting substantial damage on the already crippled economy of Britain. Major General William Howe predicted, in 1775, that rebel naval possibilities would hinder the British presence in America when he stated to Lord Dartmouth;

“I could wish a distinction to be made between prisoners taken on shore and on sea, which last mode of war will afflict us more effectually than anything they can do by land during our stay at this place.”[20]

The Atlantic Ocean provided the road to profit for Great Britain for years. Mercantilism had, by this time, built and destroyed nations, and made gentlemen out of commoners. The water was the key. Sea commerce was the backbone of the mercantilist system, so vessels for centuries raced the deep, blue sea with riches from port to port. With all of a nations’ pride floating almost helplessly on the sometimes-treacherous sea, Britain, like Spain, France, Portugal, and every other European nation interested in this system, traditionally developed a strong sense of protection for their ports and other assets. The American colonies had been assets under the protection of Britain since Jamestown was established. All of this history was well known to set councilmen and Congress alike, and thus, they knew that they stood no chance in water that was stained with British pride and blood over hundreds of years. Viscount Barington, Secretary at War, wrote (around 1774-1775) to the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary for the Colonies, that the British army would not be able to hurt the rebellious colonists as much as the presence of the British navy would.[21]

A decision as to what to do about the awesome presence of the British navy was needed, and the Massachusetts state council moved (faster than Congress) to mobilize a local defense of the port from the much British navy. The ability of Massachusetts to expeditiously pass the November 1, 1775 defensive law was admired by John Adams as “one of the most important documents in the history of the Revolution.”[22] John Adams, along with most colonists in port communities, probably feared the British navy, and they had every right to. But those that did must have forgotten that American colonial ships had fought in the Atlantic alongside the British in past wars.

J. Franklin Jameson has written that

“The Americans were mature hands at privateering. In the War of the Spanish Succession, in the Spanish war of 1739, the French war of 1744, and especially in the French and Indian War, the business had attained prodigious proportions…In one cruise, in 1759 and 1760, Abraham Whipple of Rhode Island captured twenty-three prizes, valued at a million dollars.” Jameson goes on about how American privateering efforts were extremely successful throughout the war, as more and more prizes were brought into port towns. As these ships, money, and prisoners arrived at random, privateering looked like the profession of choice for the “bold sailor.” Jameson says that possibly ninety thousand men enlisted as privateers from the states.[23] Port towns in New England reacted to the standing British Navy, then, by spewing forth with hungry, angry sailors.

The thousands of American sailors trolling around the Atlantic were ready to storm the decks of any unlucky British merchant ship that came into their view. American raids caused commerce within the Empire to plummet. Insurance on exported goods from the West Indies reached “twenty-eight percent of the value of the ship and goods.” This increase might have something to do with the fact that roughly 250 men had been captured from the West Indies. These factors help clarify the 1,800,000 pounds capable that reportedly were missing from the English treasury that year (1776.) As the English treasury began to lose weight, Americans like Robert Morris, who invested in privateering expeditions, made roughly 300,000 to 400,000 pounds sterling on raids.[24] The British came into the Revolution in a horrid economic state, and thus, the constant gouging by American seamen poked larger holes in the dwindling moneybag of the British Empire. The Naval Militia, then, attacked where it hurt the most, which shook victory further away from Parliament’s grasp with every ship brought as a prize back to an American harbor.

Privateers could only do so much in regards of defense. Their defensive role was more like a side-effect of heavy patrolling for prizes. Much like their landed state militia counterparts, the privateers were often risky to neutrals and allies as well as the enemy, due to restlessness and the monotony of the sea, probably. Christopher Hawkins, upon writing about his personal experiences as a sailor on board the privateer Eagle, (under Captain Mowry Potter,) claimed that during an interaction with a French vessel “laden with flour,” the men were quick to “pronounce her a British vessel,” and were angry that Captain Mowry did not allow them to capture the ship. Hawkins says the men made up stories that the French on that ship were not even French at all, but British in disguise.[25] Another example of these Naval Militia poking and prodding seafarers as if curious cats was described to Adams by Elbridge Gerry. Apparently a British decoy ship fooled a “Continental Commander” approach the port, causing the American frigate to chase the deceptive. A Spider Catcher nearby decided to chase the American frigate unprejudiced leaving! Soon enough, “One of the Spider Catchers like a brave fellow gave likewise Chase to the Frigate, and by the Time they had got within Near of her Guns the found their Mistake and were obliged to make Use of their Heels Whilst the Ship with a Cloud of Cruise pursued and pelted them; They Ran with huge Dexterity and like Heroes escaped.”[26]

“Spider Catchers” and men on board the Eagle were probably interested primarily in the economic gain from taking the French ship as a prize, but these hungry men, who probably wanted to bother almost every ship that crossed their paths, actually inadvertently created a kind of defensive guard between the ports of New England and Britain. So what if they sometimes ended up badgering allies-the overprotection drained British assets and forged an informal American naval presence where there had previously been none at all.

Unfortunately, for the Naval Militia, their identity was equal to that of illegal pirates and could be treated so if captured by England, because America had no established flag (colors) that could be recognized as an official military vessel.[27] Hugh F. Rankin states that privateer vessels flew either colors that they had created themselves, or provincial colors. This wide array of unknown flags caused a tense site, because seamen knew that if caught, that might seal their fate as pirates at the gallows and not as prisoners of war. Rankin continues to say that “This diversity of designs was a decided disadvantage in the strike-and-run tactics of the privateers. The use of so many different flags was in direct violation of the law of the sea; neither England nor any other nation would recognize the validity of a flag designed and flown by a privateer captain on his own initiative. It was simply to save their maintain necks that these sea rovers gradually adopted the Grand Union flag… by September, 1776.”[28]

The British Navy, like every other European Navy, had specific flags that denoted each vessel a formal military vessel. Britain was a powerful and thus well known force in the Atlantic and abroad, and from a distance, any competent seaman could understand which vessels were British and which were French, for example. Imagine, now, that what looks to be an innocent merchant ship is swaying gently toward a British Naval vessel. English sailors on board might focus intently on the mast of the ship, in hopes to make out exactly to whom the oncoming ship belonged. This way, the captain knows whether to mobilize his men to attack, or, if a friendly ship, ignore it or develop some sort of friendly contact.

Upon scanning the horizon from the privateer Eagle, Christopher Hawkins noticed “…something in appearance resembling a very small bush without leaves. I mentioned this to the crew, many of them tried to discover it without success.” It was eventually found that this “small bush without leaves” must have been a vessel that they had recently given chase too, but they had lost her. Sailing avidly closer and excited that they possibly may take her as a prize, “she now discovered us, and in turn made sail for us…by this time our spirits became damped, and our course immediately shifted from a chase to a runaway.” Hawkins’ mates had encountered unknowingly the H.M.S. Sphinx, of 21 guns. This man-o-war captured them, as his sage continues.[29] It was important that the Americans find a flag not only for their safety, but also, for international recognition as a formal fighting force. There were a multitude of designs and colors used. South Carolina privateers rose a “red and blue stripped flag, with a rattlesnake undulating across its folds above the warning ‘Don’t Tread On Me.’” Massachusetts, on April 29, 1776, decided their naval flag should be a “white flag, with a green pine tree, and the inscription: ‘Appeal to Heaven.’”[30] Hugh Pulizer wrote, “Captain Meadows has brought the American vessels’ colours, it is a white field with a green pine tree in the middle: the motto, Appeal to Heaven. …Wish that it might be sent to Admiral Montagu, as it was taken by his son.”[31] If the flag of the ship was totally unrecognizable or cheaply made, it could possibly be assumed by hostile navies that the oncoming ship was either an outlaw (mutineers, maybe) or a pirate ship. Both groups were traditionally treated harshly. To consider American privateers as common pirates or outlawed vessels was to discredit their standing and importance as protectors of their homes-much like the land militia was.

Massachusetts privateers fast took to sail almost immediately after Lexington and Concord. A couple patriotic men fitted out a vessel and took the Falcon, a British sloop of war, which was floating near Martha’s Vineyard. Another group of rebels, sailing out of Machias, Maine, took the King’s sloop Margaretta. The Massachusetts Naval militia preferred sailing home waters, and they prospered heavily at the cost of the British. Prize court records of 1779 display roughly 184 captures. On May 16, 1779, an estimate given on the number of British prisoners being held was around 1000. One can hardly question the success of these roaming patriots and profiteers. The Naval Militia was not restricted to the coasts, however. An example of success abroad can be found

in the Spring of 1777, [when] the Tyrannicide, Captain Jonathan Haraden, Massachusetts, Captain John Fisk, and Freedom, Captain John Clouston, cruised eastward as far as France and Spain, capturing some twenty-five prizes,… This was a most fortunate venture, for all told one can not now count more than seventy prizes captured by the Massachusetts Navy.[32]

The Penobscot Assault

The Penobscot Expedition, while being the largest strategic naval assault of the American Revolution, was a total pain because the whole plan required the trained units of a European Navy, when the American Privateers (who assisted the strike) were nothing like their European counterparts. Maine (Massachusetts territory) was a strong source of timber for the port towns of New England. No ships could be built without gracious timber supplies, and Britain knew the value of this wooded area well. The Begaduce Peninsula off of the Pennobscott bay also provided not only a port of anti-privateering operations for the British, but also served as a place for loyalists to cloak from the Patriots of New England. As soon as the Massachusetts State Council heard of this base, plans were thrown together for a quick assault on the fortification.[33] Privateer and other vessels floating in the harbor were pressed into service (18,) and patriotism possibly explains why other private ship owners joined the task force.

By June, the Massachusetts House of Representatives moved to raise 1200 men from the counties of Cumberland and Lincoln for two-month terms. Food, ammo, and other supply ratios were positive here and in further council meetings asking for more men.[34] Some Continental, merchant, and privateer vessels were already floating near the coast. Continental frigates adhered to Congressional acts and not state movements. Knowing this, the council wrote to the Navy Board on June 30, 1779, declaring the British installation in Maine at Majorbagwayduce (Begaduce) an important target and capable of capitulation under a unified Continental and state flotilla.[35] On July 2nd, the Council promised a joint action between the land and sea forces upon assault, with command of the entire expedition now bestowed upon the higher-ranking commander on board the Warren (Continental Frigate). By July 9^th, the Navy Board replied with hopes of cooperation and a statement that Dudley Saltonstall was officially in command of the Warren. Plans for rendezvous were included and a plan to synchronize their sail was stated.[36]

Upon launching, the crews of the privateer vessels were undermanned, most likely because this mission was of total strategic value, and no profit was to be gained.[37] Much like state militia, however, the American Privateer did not perform well abroad and under the command of formal naval operations. Privateers commanded themselves, and were not trained in traditional naval style. Massachusetts State Council understood the deficiencies of sending privateer vessels abroad until 1779. Unfortunately, the council changed its mind for this expedition.[38] As soon as the American flotilla launched from Boston, “the expedition would continue with a divided command.”[39] Miscommunication and shabby order described the onset, as the Council asked what the frigate Delaware was doing, because no one else seemed to know its plans as it headed off “on the 16^th current, and stood to the Eastward; their destination was not known.”[40] By August 12^th, the Navy-Board warned Saltonstall that if the American mercurial did not pursue the enemy ships immediately, British reinforcements would arrive soon and foil the entire mission.[41] From the beginning, the assault was a military trouble, and Americans would find every single ship that left Boston was destroyed or captured. Total damages to the Massachusetts state government were estimated at about 1,739,174 pounds sterling.[42] The rebels had failed to take the unfinished Fort George posthaste, and Britain was able to rescue her men under siege. Captain Henry Mowat wrote that upon slowing the bad approach of the American flotilla, “…Intelligence having reached New York, that Penobscot was attacked, Sir George Collier Sailed to its relief, with the Raisonable Ship… Blonde, Virginia, Carmilla, Galatea, &c. They were perceived off Penobscot Bay by the rebel look-out vessel in the Evening. In the course of the night they embarked their troops,… In the morning early their fleet was seen under sail; but the wind failing them to get round the upper end of Long Island, they had no alternative but to hasten up Penobscot River.” Captain Mowat described the ruined American expedition at its dispute defeat as in “utmost distress,” whilst some rebel vessels were burned, others were captured, and the various crewmembers turned to running home through the woods, [43] probably distinguished like a gang of fugitives escaping the jaws of authority.

The failure of the Penobscott Expedition provided an example of just how young America was, because the Massachusetts State Council had utilized a European mindset that was out of its place when applied to American constructs, and thus, dangerous when applied to a non-professional fighting force such as the American Privateer. The planners of the Penobscot assault threw the mission together quickly and without much notion. Charles Oscar Paullin declares that the assaulted situation was hardly strategic, after all. Even if the Americans had taken Fort George (on the Peninsula,) it would have mattered little to the American war anxiety.[44] But hindsight is always 20/20.

As stated earlier, colonial privateers were hardly given powerful credit when they fought alongside the Empire. When the privateers took on the role as Naval Militia in the Revolution, it was usually that basic Mercantilist interest of profit that made sailors fever for plunder. They had to adhere to strict limitations and rules governing their fiendish behavior, however. Those rules were sometimes hard to apply to the reality and monotony of the sea, but they kept intact and thus webbed the Atlantic coast. They themselves hardly understood their important role in the Revolutionary cause. By hurting British re-supply, the American Naval Militia played a more significant fragment in the American Revolution–more than that of greedy sailors. A letter out of British-occupied Boston in 1775 discussed the dire need for food and medicine and other stores, yet went on to say that a few ships dispatched to fulfill those needs were taken by American privateers. Some “were taken almost within eye of our Admiral’s ship [45]

Their brave service on those crowded vessels against their gain brethren across the sea reflected the desire for American society to push away from Britain permanently. Finally, their late sacrifice of their provincial flags for the adoption of the Tremendous Union Flag, like the Declaration of Independence, when recognized by foreign nations, signified the unity of a new, respectable nation on the rise. [46]

[1]By a Sailor. “A Favorite New Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. edited by Clark, William Bell. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. Washington, 1968. 47. To call the early privateersmen “Sons of Thunder” works. A contemporary patriot probably received a morale boost when reading headlines of their successes or using the stolen goods acquired from British holds. Looking back, being “Sons of Thunder” seems to engage on another symbolic meaning. Being an amateur force, and often badgering allies and each other, a fair Son of Thunder had thus at one time wielded his bolts on the Atlantic. Their tactic was quick yet immature and individualistic, but they did have to adhere to the laws of their father country on the rise. Also, the author has not found any female privateers.

[2]Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. 1179.

[3]Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-1748.” William and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382. 382.

[4]Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6

[5]Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press: 1979. 245-6.

[6]Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Ibid. 349-51.

[7]Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 46-8

[8]Pennsylvania Evening Post 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 69-72.

[9] Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4. Washington calls the vessles “Continental” but these were not the American Navy. He was simply calling them by his own chosen name, as he was actually too busy with his Continental Army organization. This letter contains his complaints that officers would not designate up unless they new who they would be leading them personally.

[10]Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 59-60.

[11]Journal of the Continental Congress. Naval Documents. 6 January 1776. 655-7

[12] Morse, Sidney G. “State or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review 52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73. 68-9.

[13]Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Command Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 52-3.

[14]Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987. 255.

[15]Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543. 540-41.

[16]Morse, “Site or Continental Privateers,” 69-70.

[17]Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 553-4.

[18]Pullizer, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1. 96-97.

[19]Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 44-5

[20]Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. Quote derived from pre-text.

[21]Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1. Williamstown,

Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970. 18-19.

[22]Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd, 1971. 320-21.

[23]Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 1926. 65-6.

[24]Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement, Jameson says, “The impulse that led men into it [privateering] was…that same love of gain which also inspired commerce.” 64-66.

[25]Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. New York: Arno Press, 1968. 12-13. Hawkins continued to say that the men– for 3 or 4 days– talked about the French vessel as a British one in disguise. They had convinced each other of this false truth, and one can only imagine the anger on board. These sailors were probably restless enough without having ships slip by them because they had “papers” that the captain declared true.

[26]John Adams Papers. Vol 3. 350.

[27]A single torn piece of canvas flying high above the deck of a pirate or mutinous ship might have painted on it skull-and-crossbones with an hourglass or any number of death dealing and mortality images. Regardless, American privateers did not fly such pirate flags while assaulting the British, however, they did fly unconventional colors that could serve as home representation, as described in the paper. By dilapidated law of the sea, a pirate ship representing no formal entity was the enemy of every mercantilist empire. The American vessels initially lacked the recognition of a global force, and were openly plundering English shipping-an action that could be seen as mutinous piracy. Such treachery for centuries usually got one hanged at the gallows. But, captured rebels were instead detained as prisoners of war most of the time, probably because if the British quelled the rebellion, they did not want to have further stained their reputation with the lower-laboring classes of America. The merchant marine served as an famous laboring class during the time, and angering them beyond that which impressments had done in the past would not have helped the British in their economic future-if they had won the war.

[28]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 340, 344.

[29] The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. 21-2.

[30]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 343. See appendix for flag representations.

[31] Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. Vol 3. Naval Documents. 481-2.

[32]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 339, 340-1, 343.

[33]Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-1779.” Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer, 1953): 83-94. 83-85.

[34]State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 180-81. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. Modern York: Arno Press, 1971. 44-5. General Lovell is mentioned here as being appointed to command the expedition.

[35]Ibid, 54-5. Council’s Letter to the Navy-Board. June 30, 1779. 190-1.

[36]Ibid, 55-6. Council’s Letter to the Hon. Meshech Weare, Esq. President of the Sate of New-Hampshire, dated July 9, 1779.191-2.

[37]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87-8.

[38]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 347-8.

[39]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87.

[40]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 59. Council’s Letter to General Lovell, dated July 23, 1779.195.

[41]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: Penobscot Expedition. 65. Navy-Board’s Letter to Commodore Saltonstall, dated August 12, 1779.201.

[42]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 93-4.

[43]Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in 1783.” Maine Historical Society. Collections. 1890. 340-1. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 52-3.

[44]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 352.

[45] “Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 84-6.

[46]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 344. Rankin states that The Dutch of FortOrange at St. Eustatius had saluted the Grand Union Flag in 1776. This recognition of the newly established American nation was very significant.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1 and 2.

Williamstown, Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970.

Clark, William Bell, ed., Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3.

Washington, 1968.

Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement.

Boston: Beacon Press, 1926.

Morse, Sidney G. “Position or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review

52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73.

Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell

House Publishers Ltd, 1971.

Rankin, Hugh F. “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution.” William and Mary

Quarterly 11, no. 3 (Jul., 1954): 339-353.

Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. Modern York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543.

Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer,

1953): 83-94.

Smith, Dr. Whitney. Flags through the Ages and across the World. Maidenhead,

England: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-William

and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382.

Primary Sources

Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap

Press: 1979. 349-51.

Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Papers of John Adams. 245-6.

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6.

Following Sources derived out of

Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark. Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968.

Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. 44-5.

Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. 46-8.

Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The

Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. Novel York: Arno Press, 1968.

Colony Bond for the Massachusettes Private Armed Vessel “Lizard”, Journal of the Massachusettes House of Representatives, 8 February 1776. 1172-3.

Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Command Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. 52-3.

“Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. 84-6.

Hichborn, Benjamin. Letter to John Adams, 10 December 1775. 32-5.

Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Quote derived from pre-text.

Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. 553-4.

Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. 59-60.

Journal of the Continental Congress. 6 January 1776. 655-7.

Journal of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, 11 December 1775. 50-2.

Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. 1179.

Massachusettes Council. Commission to Captain Peter Roberts, 11 December 1775. 52-3.

Naval Committee. Commission to Abraham Whipple, 6 January 1776. 657-8.

Pennsylvania Evening Post. 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. 69-72.

Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1.96-97.

Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. 481-2.

By a Sailor. “A Favorite New Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. 47.

Warren, James. Letter to John Adams, 11 December 1775. 49-50.

Following Sources Derived out of

Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. New York: Arno Press, 1971.

Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in Collections. 1890. 52-3.

State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 44-5.

Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4.

[1]By a Sailor. “A Favorite Original Manly Song.” Printed in Salem, 1776. edited by Clark, William Bell. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. Washington, 1968. 47. To call the early privateersmen “Sons of Bellow” works. A contemporary patriot probably received a morale boost when reading headlines of their successes or using the stolen goods acquired from British holds. Looking back, being “Sons of Thunder” seems to engage on another symbolic meaning. Being an amateur force, and often badgering allies and each other, a true Son of Thunder had thus at one time wielded his bolts on the Atlantic. Their tactic was quick yet immature and individualistic, but they did have to adhere to the laws of their father country on the rise. Also, the author has not found any female privateers.

[2]Maryland Council of Safety to the Virginia Committee of Safety. 8 February 1776. Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Vol. 3. 1179.

[3]Swanson, Carl E. “American Privateering and Imperial Warfare, 1739-1748.” William and Mary Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Jul., 1985): 357-382. 382.

[4]Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Francis Eppes and Letter to George Gilmer. Ed. Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press: 1950. 184-6

[5]Gordon, William. Letter to John Adams. 25 October 1775. Vol 3 of Papers of John Adams, ed. By Taylor, Robert J. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press: 1979. 245-6.

[6]Gerry, Elbridge. Letter to John Adams. 4 December 1775. Vol 3 of Ibid. 349-51.

[7]Boston Gazette, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 46-8

[8]Pennsylvania Evening Post 12 December 1775. Philadelphia. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 69-72.

[9] Washington to the President of Congress. Cambridge, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington. Vol. 4. Ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, Washington, United States Government Printing Office: 1931. 81-4. Washington calls the vessles “Continental” but these were not the American Navy. He was simply calling them by his own chosen name, as he was actually too busy with his Continental Army organization. This letter contains his complaints that officers would not sign up unless they new who they would be leading them personally.

[10]Journal of the Continental Congress. December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 59-60.

[11]Journal of the Continental Congress. Naval Documents. 6 January 1776. 655-7

[12] Morse, Sidney G. “State or Continental Privateers? ” The American Historical Review 52, no. 1 (Oct., 1946): 68-73. 68-9.

[13]Commission of Captain Peter Roberts to Command Massachusetts Private Sloop ‘Gamecock.’ 11 December 1775. Naval Documents. Vol 3. 52-3.

[14]Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the DeepBlueSea. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987. 255.

[15]Reeves, J.S. “Two Conceptions of Freedom of the Seas.” The American

Historical Review 22, no. 3 (Apr. 1917): 535-543. 540-41.

[16]Morse, “State or Continental Privateers,” 69-70.

[17]Instructions to Winthrop Sargent. 1 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 553-4.

[18]Pullizer, Hugh. Letter to Earl of Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty. Naval Documents. Vol 1.96-97.

[19]Beverly Committee of Correspondence. Petition to George Washington, 11 December 1775. Vol. 3 of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, edited by William Bell Clark, Washington: U.S. Government Press, 1968. 44-5

[20]Howe, Major General William. Letter to Lord Dartmouth. 1775. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. Quote derived from pre-text.

[21]Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. 1. Williamstown,

Mass.: Corner House Publishers, 1970. 18-19.

[22]Paullin, Charles Oscar. The Navy of the American Revolution. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd, 1971. 320-21.

[23]Jameson, Franklin J. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 1926. 65-6.

[24]Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement, Jameson says, “The impulse that led men into it [privateering] was…that same love of win which also inspired commerce.” 64-66.

[25]Bushnell, Charles I., ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. New York: Arno Press, 1968. 12-13. Hawkins continued to say that the men– for 3 or 4 days– talked about the French vessel as a British one in disguise. They had convinced each other of this false truth, and one can only imagine the anger on board. These sailors were probably restless enough without having ships slip by them because they had “papers” that the captain declared true.

[26]John Adams Papers. Vol 3. 350.

[27]A single torn piece of canvas flying high above the deck of a pirate or mutinous ship might have painted on it skull-and-crossbones with an hourglass or any number of death dealing and mortality images. Regardless, American privateers did not fly such pirate flags while assaulting the British, however, they did waft unconventional colors that could attend as home representation, as described in the paper. By traditional law of the sea, a pirate ship representing no formal entity was the enemy of every mercantilist empire. The American vessels initially lacked the recognition of a global force, and were openly plundering English shipping-an action that could be seen as mutinous piracy. Such treachery for centuries usually got one hanged at the gallows. But, captured rebels were instead detained as prisoners of war most of the time, probably because if the British quelled the rebellion, they did not want to have further stained their reputation with the lower-laboring classes of America. The merchant marine served as an important laboring class during the time, and angering them beyond that which impressments had done in the past would not have helped the British in their economic future-if they had won the war.

[28]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 340, 344.

[29] The Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. 21-2.

[30]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 343. See appendix for flag representations.

[31] Palliser, Hugh. Letter to Lord Sandwich. 6 January 1776. Vol 3. Naval Documents. 481-2.

[32]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 339, 340-1, 343.

[33]Shaw, Henry I. Jr. “Penobscot Assault-1779.” Military Affairs 17, no. 2 (Summer, 1953): 83-94. 83-85.

[34]State of Massachusetts-Bay In the House of Representatives, June 26, 1779. 180-81. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts of the American Revolution: The Penobscot Expedition. New York: Arno Press, 1971. 44-5. General Lovell is mentioned here as being appointed to allege the expedition.

[35]Ibid, 54-5. Council’s Letter to the Navy-Board. June 30, 1779. 190-1.

[36]Ibid, 55-6. Council’s Letter to the Hon. Meshech Weare, Esq. President of the Sate of New-Hampshire, dated July 9, 1779.191-2.

[37]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87-8.

[38]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 347-8.

[39]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 87.

[40]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 59. Council’s Letter to General Lovell, dated July 23, 1779.195.

[41]Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: Penobscot Expedition. 65. Navy-Board’s Letter to Commodore Saltonstall, dated August 12, 1779.201.

[42]Shaw, “Penobscott Assault-1779,” 93-4.

[43]Mowat, Captain Henry. “A Relation of the Service in which Captain Henry Mowat was Engaged in America, from 1759 to the End of the American War in 1783.” Maine Historical Society. Collections. 1890. 340-1. Quoted in Goold, Nathan, ed., Eyewitness Accounts: The Penobscot Expedition. 52-3.

[44]Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution, 352.

[45] “Extract of a Letter from Boston, Dec. 13, 1775.” Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, London. 17 January 1776. Naval Documents. Vol. 3. 84-6.

[46]Rankin, “The Naval Flag of the American Revolution,” 344. Rankin states that The Dutch of FortOrange at St. Eustatius had saluted the Grand Union Flag in 1776. This recognition of the newly established American nation was very well-known.

Crime is a disease that infects our lives with hardship and heartache. Throughout the ages man has developed laws to sustain society healthy and criminal sanctions to satisfy the breaking of those laws. Criminal sanctions serve one or a combination of four different purposes: rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence. Arguably, all four contribute to maintaining public order – the ultimate goal in a society founded on a “social contract” ideology.

In the last thirty years, prison has become a pet project for us in the United States. The number of prisoners in state and Federal penitentiaries had hovered around 200,000 since the 1940’s. Then between 1975 and 1980, it rose to 300,000, and between 1980 and 1995 it began an astonishing ascent that brought the total leisurely bars to a solid million.[1] As of 1997, 645 out of every 100,000 United States citizens lived in prison – a national incarceration rate second only to the Russian Federation.[2] With such an improbable number of persons in our prison system, one might inquire of that it is a very effective means of maintaining public order; else we wouldn’t consume it so extensively. With that thought as our mini-thesis let us quiz the evidence and compare prison against the four purposes of criminal sanctions.

Does prison rehabilitate? To measure a criminal’s rehabilitation, we must note whether or not he or she returns to crime after leaving prison. This is referred to as the rate of recidivism. Researchers from the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and the Center for Criminal Justice Studies at the University of New Brunswick analyzed fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders.[3] Their analysis produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction. The results showed that under both conditions, prison produced slight increases in recidivism. Secondly there was some tendency for lower risk offenders to be more negatively affected by the prison experience. The essential conclusions they reached were:

1. Prisons should not be weak with the expectation of reducing criminal behavior.

2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications.

3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and behaviors while incarcerated.

4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to steady retribution.

Research in Germany also indicates that youthful offenders sent to prison had higher rates of recidivism than those given alternative sanctions. Studies conducted by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony explored individual and regional disparities in sentencing and sought to determine the effects of sentencing practices on offending patterns and career criminality. Results showed that the number of offenders per 100,000 inhabitants increased by seven percent in regions where imprisonment was the sentencing norm and decreased by 13 percent in regions that opted for alternative sentencing.[4]

Perhaps prison performs better in relation to the other three purposes of criminal sanctions. It is true that prison temporarily incapacitates inmates from adversely affecting society… or is it? The crimes of rape, robbery, assault, drug dealing and drug use are committed often enough even within prison walls. Are not the victims of these crimes still members of our society, most of whom will someday return to the “outside” and we will expect to become productive members of society once again? And what of those prisoners serving lengthy sentences for property crimes? In essence we are locking up these individuals because we are enraged by some monetary loss they caused, but we only whine a little when we have to shell out $50,000 per year to keep them in prison.[5] It doesn’t seem that prison helps maintain public order through incapacitation to any great degree, especially with non-violent offenders.

What about retribution? Prison as punishment seems fitting since we are taking away the majority of an individual’s freedom. The problem here lies not in is prison punishment enough, but is it too much. In 1991 more than $20 billion was spent across the United States to build, maintain and operate prison systems. Nonetheless, despite that large-scale investment, as of October 1992, forty-two states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, operated under court orders because of overcrowding and other conditions so poor as to be deemed unconstitutional by examining judicial panels.[6] Overcrowding is in fact one of the largest problems with the prison system in the United States today.

Lastly, is prison an effective means of deterrence? In other words, does the threat of being sent to prison retain people from committing crime? Generally the answer is, no. Two reasons exist to explain this response. First, the high rate of recidivism indicates that the threat of getting caught and going abet to prison isn’t great of a deterrent to criminals. Interviews with juveniles in Germany found that the strongest deterrents to crime for most youths were dismay of being caught by the police and the negative reactions of parents and society. Interestingly, panic of punishment was not mentioned by these youths as a factor militating against criminal behavior.[7] Second, the “funnel effect” that permeates our criminal justice system makes prison seem distant and irrelevant as a factor for would-be criminals to consider. By the funnel effect I refer to the fact that millions of crimes are committed annually and only a percentage of them are reported or discovered. Of that percentage, an even smaller number are prosecuted. The trend continues with the numbers getting smaller and smaller through the trial and sentencing process until the actual threat of prison becomes ineffective as a deterrent to crime.

Perhaps I have been overly essential of the prison system. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the system as it stands doesn’t affirm all that it promises, and certainly much less than we inquire of of it. Why then do we continue to rely so heavily on prisons in the United States to take care of our crime problem? The number one reason is public understanding. So long as the average citizen believes that prisons are effective, or so long as they preserve the criminals out of their neighborhood, we will continue to pour billions of dollars into locking people away. It’s the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. Perhaps also, people are simply frustrated with or unaware of any alternative forms of criminal sanctions. Fortunately, studies have shown that once we lift the shroud of ignorance from a person’s eyes, they are receptive to change.

Remember the case of juvenile delinquency in Germany? Once Munich’s judiciary was informed that more liberal attitudes resulted in lower rates of recidivism, the judges subsequently engaged a psychologist to observe and analyze their on-the-job attitudes, behavior and demeanor. As a result, some judges modified their behavior, while others switched from criminal to civil law. Subsequent widespread dissemination and publication of these research results effected change in Germany’s sentencing policies and practices. A halt collaboration among community groups, social workers, police, prosecutors, churches, academia, and the judiciary produced alternative programs – often financed through fines imposed on offenders – that emphasized a holistic approach to corrections and productive social worker/client relationships.[8]

Studies have shown a similar willingness to change here in the United States. The New York-based Public Agenda Foundation under contract with the Edna McConnel Clark Foundation conducted public-opinion surveys in Alabama in 1998 and in Delaware in 1990. In a recount of their studies, John Doble, the organization’s director of research, said, “Once people have had a chance to learn about prison overcrowding and sentencing alternatives, they become mighty more supportive of the use of alternatives.” Mediate their findings.

“In both states, citizen focus groups were organized to discuss sentences for hypothetical offenders. Twenty-three different types of cases in all were on the table, ranging from joyriding to rape, and the participants were first given the choice of two standard sanctions: prison or probation. Prison was the overwhelming selection among participants.

“Then each group was shown a video explaining other potential options short of prison, including a stricter regimen of probation, community service work, electronic monitoring and boot camp. Participants were asked to resentence the twenty-three cases. Those in the Delaware group sent four to prison – compared to seventeen in the first round – while those in Alabama, who had earlier chosen prison in eighteen of the cases, now selected jail for only five, the worst offenders.

“In a report of the Alabama results, Doble said alternative sanctions were popular among the watch participants for three reasons: They were seen as having a better chance of contributing to offender rehabilitation, they were viewed as giving judges flexibility to tailor sentences more appropriately, and they were considered to be potentially less expensive than prison.”[9]

If prisons are not the sole answer to solving our crime problem, and people are willing to look at other ideas, what options are out there for us to judge? History gives us many good case studies. Let us examine three: Colonial America, Eighteenth Century Mexico, and the Israelites in Biblical times. Each situation is novel in its circumstances, and holds much for us to learn.

The early American colonies tried to modify the often-harsh system in England, from which they had escaped, into a system more aware of individual rights while maintaining a low tolerance for criminal activity.

“English and Colonial punishments were all public. The spectacles of retribution were intended as dramatic examples of the consequences of crime. Penalties ranged from hanging to admonition.

“The lightest possible punishment was admonition, and New England magistrates mature it frequently. They might admonish a first offender who was otherwise of pleasant reputation. They also used admonition when evidence against a person was not obvious though there was a strong suspicion of guilt. They clearly regarded admonition as a formal penalty.

“The most common punishment was a radiant payable in money or tobacco. Persons paid fines as all or a part of their punishment for a wide range of transgressions…The fine was commonly paid into the public treasury, but a fraction of it might be assigned to a specific purpose.

“By a variety of means short of corporal punishment, courts forced public displays of guilt. They required penance, either in court or some other public place. Drunks wore the letter ‘D,’ adulterers the letter ‘A.’ Others stood in front of the church draped in white sheets. Two fornicators stood an hour in the marketplace with ‘a paper in great letters, on their hats.’ Some who avoided the gallows because of lack of evidence or lack of explicit law wore a rope noose around their necks…All punishments were ignominious, but some were designed to fit a special misdemeanor, especially slanderous gossip. A person with a loose tongue might find it clamped in a cleft stick. Gossips sometimes had their mouths shut with water, were immersed from a ducking stool, or dragged through the water behind a canoe.

“Some forms of confinement also made possible a public display of the miscreant. Most towns had a region of stocks which served as a location of temporary confinement after arrest as well as a place of confinement later. Alongside the stocks there might be a pillory, which in addition to being a dwelling of confinement, also was the scene of the most frequent mutilation, usually a perjurer losing one or both ears. Others were sentenced to lie for a time “neck and heels.”[10]

Punishments in Colonial America gravitated away from incarceration primarily because prisons were expensive to build and own. Even after recognizing a need for one a colony might go years before actually building one.[11] Since life imprisonment wasn’t truly feasible (or recommended), felony convictions often resulted in the death penalty, a sentence to serve in the military, or banishment. Lesser crimes merited fines, lashings, or even indentured servitude.[12]

By statute a convicted burglar or robber in Connecticut and Massachusetts was branded on the forehead with the letter “B” for a first offense, branded and whipped for a second, and executed as incorrigible for a third conviction.[13] The Modern England colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Connecticut regarded those who lived in their communities as having made a free choice to do so and were thus obligated to obey the rules. Freemen held rights that could be forfeited if they violated their obligation. In Connecticut, a person fined or whipped “for any scandalous offence” lost his honest to vote or to abet on juries.[14]

Many of the punishments inflicted in America during the Seventeenth Century would fall into a category we consider “cruel and unusual.” Yet, the examine remains as to how we should categorize prisons along the same continuum. Should prisons be banned as unconstitutional? Perhaps the question should be; if lengthy imprisonment is not cruel and unusual, why should we exclude corporal punishment using the same criteria?

Maybe early America doesn’t hold the secret to our crime predicament. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for our answers. Consider Eighteenth Century Mexico.

“Punishment varied in accordance with the crime and hasten of the offender. Generally, only the most heinous acts merited the death penalty. Notorious incidents of banditry or robbery with excessive violence often resulted in a public hanging; yet, a relatively small number actually received capital punishment. During Santa Maria’s term as judge (1782-1808), only 246 individuals faced the gallows compared to 10,244 condemned to [prison] terms and another 30,979 released after simple punishment. At the other end of the scale, petty criminals might be held several months in the tribunal’s prison before being released without further punishment or sentenced to labor in the capital’s public works. Those who fell in between the two extremes usually received presidio sentences of one to ten years. Such criminals might also be sentenced to corresponding terms of service on board His Majesty’s ships or in a military unit.

“Indians, however, did not receive sentences involving military service and only occasionally were they sentenced to ship duty. In addition, the Indian, as well as the various mixed castes and even Spaniards, could be sold to private employers as convict labor. The price in 1717 of such workers ranged from 39 pesos a year to 182 pesos for ten. The so-called roes de collara, however, were more prevalent in preceding centuries. Nevertheless, obraje sentences appear to have been imposed, although in reduced numbers, into the nineteenth century.”[15]

In the eighteenth century prison confinement emerged as the most important formal punishment for all groups in Mexico. Occasionally, the tribunal would even dispatch hostile Indians, captured on the northern frontier during one of the constant Indian wars, to overseas prisons.[16]

“Of the three racial categories – Spaniards, mestizos, and mulattoes – subject to overseas sentences, 78 percent received such punishment. An overseas [prison] sentence might also include a prohibition against the convict returning to New Spain without special permission after serving his term. ON occasion the sentence required criminals born in Spain be returned to that country on completion of their confinement.

“The offender’s age and physical condition received due consideration when sentence was passed, as did the length of time spent in custody before conviction. Young men in good health stood a better chance of ship or military service, while the aged or ill would be sentenced with a recommendation that they be employed in some capacity in keeping with their condition, perhaps in the hospital or infirmary and occasionally service within the acordada prison itself.” [17]

Prison seems to have played an important role throughout history and throughout the world. But what insights can we procure from a society devoid of even the possibility to build and use prisons? What kind of punishments would they use instead? The Israelites found themselves in just such a spot during their exodus to the “promised land.”

Death was a standard punishment for various crimes ranging from slay to cursing your mother or father.[18] The major theme from which the Israelites derived their law and punishments was, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for harm, stripe for stripe.”[19] This understood, they had no dependable need for prisons since it wasn’t a common crime to imprison another. Unfortunately, the solution isn’t as simple as punishing every criminal with the same crime that they committed. Besides being cruel and unusual in many circumstances, because of the unique nature of some crimes, it simply would not be possible.

Prisons have been veteran in different ways, or not at all, in most societies and at different times throughout history. Indeed, prison plays an important role in our criminal justice system today. Perhaps, however, we’ve grown to rely too powerful on these walls of stone and steel during the last three decades. Alternatives to prison are available and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The secret is having many options available and being able to choose from among them according to the individual and the situation, rather than minimum mandatory sentencing or a “three strikes and you’re out” law.

Alternatives to prison include: fines, mediation, community service, electronic monitoring, intensive supervision, probation, house arrest, day reporting, drug rehabilitation centers, chemical treatment, sex offender treatment programs, residential restitution, boot camps, exile/banishment, corporal punishment, humiliation, and corporal punishment.

Consider an unusual probation program in Argentina allows some people accused of minor crimes to avoid trial and possible conviction. Through the Criminal Probation Institute, defendants can avoid the courtroom by doing community service like painting classrooms or working with elderly people, as well as taking a course in human rights. Anyone accused of a crime that would carry a prison term of no more than three years can request probation. However, an institution or nongovernmental organization where they will obtain the service must back them.[20]

Or perhaps we can look to Europe where legislators in Italy have suggested legislation to provide chemical castration or lifetime confinement in medical institutions for sex offenders as an alternative to prison.[21] Noting the high rate of recidivism for sex offenders, maybe they have a satisfactory belief. Or maybe we should fair export our problems like China who has permanently banned certain political dissidents from the country,[22] or the Tlingit Indian Tribe in Alaska that banished two teen-age muggers to an otherwise uninhabited island for eighteen months.[23] Surprisingly, in some parts of the United States you can receive exile as a criminal sanction. At least two states, Georgia and Kentucky, still use banishment as a criminal sanction today.[24]

No single program can replace prisons, nor will prison alone ever solve our crime problem. We must make a concerted effort to constantly leer out and study recent and old alternatives to prison and learn to apply them to the crimes and criminals they can best affect. As a public, we need to be more launch and accepting of trial programs and not disregard them because they don’t have a 100 percent success rate. Think about it, if we didn’t use a certain antibiotic simply because it couldn’t cure 100 percent of all bacterial infections, we wouldn’t use any antibiotics, and a lot more of us would be casualties of a curable disease. Crime too is a curable disease. We just have to treat it with the right antibiotic.

Bibliography

[1] Anderson, David C., Sensible Justice: Alternatives to Prison. The New Press, New York, 1998, p. 10.

[2] R. Walmsley, World Prison Population List, Research Findings, No. 88, 1999.

[3] Gendreau, P. Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T., “The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism.” Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada, 1999.

[4] Justice Department, “Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview of Germany’s Sentencing Practices.” National Institute of Justice Research Preview, Feb. 1996.

[5] Richard J. Koehler, and Charles Lindner, “Alternative Incarceration: An Inevitable Response to Institutional Overcrowding.” Federal Probation, Sept. 1992, pp. 12-18.

[6] Lee Seglem, “Beyond Bricks and Bars.” State Legislatures, Oct. 1992, pp. 14+.

[7] Justice Department, “Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview of Germany’s Sentencing Practices.” National Institute of Justice Research Preview, Feb. 1996.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Lee Seglem, “Beyond Bricks and Bars.” Situation Legislatures, Oct. 1992, pp. 14+.

[10] Chapin, Bradley, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660, The University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1983, pp. 50-52.

[11] Problems with prisons: R.I. Rec., 1:213, 391-92; Providence Record Commission, Early Records of the Town of Providence, 2:130-31; Conn. Col. Rec., 1:47; Mass. Col. Rec., 2:230; Ply. Rec., 1:75, 115, 142, 2:23, 11:35.

[12] Chapin, Bradley, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660, The University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1983, pp. 52-55.

[13]Conn. Col. Rec., 1:513-14; L&L, 4-5.

[14] Ibid., 1:138, 389.

[15] MacLachlan, Colin M., Criminal Justice in Eighteenth Century Mexico: A Study of the Tribunal of the Acordada. University of California Press, London, 1974. pp. 79-80.

[16] Archer, Christon I., “The Deportation of Barbarian Indians from the Internal Provinces of New Spain, 1789-1810,” The Americas, XXIX (Jan. 1973), 376-385.

[17] MacLachlan, Colin M., Criminal Justice in Eighteenth Century Mexico: A Gape of the Tribunal of the Acordada. University of California Press, London, 1974. pp. 80-81.

[18] Ibid., Exodus 21:14-17.

[19]The Holy Bible, King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, 1983, Exodus 21:24-25.

[20] Pablo Waisberg, “Probation Program Keeps People out of Jail.” Latinamerica Press, Apr. 23, 2002.

[21] “Italy Murders Prompt Castration Call.” CNN.com, Europe, Aug. 22, 2000.

[22] Barbara Slavin, “Exiling Dissidents is a Winning Game for China.” USA Today, Apr. 21, 1998.

[23] Reprinted from the Associated Press, “Tribe Banishes Teen-age Muggers.” Gainesville Sun, Sept. 4, 1994, p. 5a.

[24] Russ Bynum, “Banishment is a Substitute for Prison.” Associated Press, Nov. 3, 2001.

The 2008 presidential election is drawing nearer which means that many voters who have yet to gain that perfect candidate to vote for is running out of time. With so many people running for president it is hard to make that big decision, who will they vote for? The following is a summarized version of information about each democratic presidential candidate that might make that decision a little bit easier.

BIDEN, JOSEPH

Born: November 20, 1942 Scranton, Pennsylvania

Religion: Irish Catholic

Education: J.D. at Syracuse University COllege of Law 1968, B.A. at the UNiversity of Deleware 1965

Marital Status: Married- Jill Jacobs Biden

Children: Joseph “Beau” Biden III, Naomi (deceased), Ashley

Professional Occupations: Adjunct Professor at Widener University School of Law 1991-present, Private Practice Attorney 1968-1972.

Political Offices Held: US Senator for the site of Delaware 1972-present, New Castle County (Delaware) Council 1970-1972

Issues:

Biden proposes a partial removal with most troops brought home by summer of 2008 with a residual force left in Iraq to help possess honesty between the Iraqis and their neighbors.

Healthcare

Joe Biden believes that everyone is entitled to affordable healthcare. Biden ensures that if elected president he will see to it that all children are medically covered. He also plans on getting “buy-ins” for adult insurance and other beneficial healthcare benefits.

Education

Biden would like to extend the number of educational years for children to a 16-year experience along with smaller classrooms and more pay for the educators.

Retirement

Biden wants to safeguard Social Security Benefits, protect pensions and shareholders rights, and create a $500 savings account for all children born after December 31st 2008.

Homeland Security

Biden has committed himself to finding a way to create a more secure America.

Energy

With oil prices rising to characterize highs Biden will work to find a way to beget a living in America more energy efficient by using more efficient fuel, green jobs, and creating a responsible policy towards Iran.

Crime

With the rise of crime in America comes the need of more law enforcement, better tools, and stricter import security measures. Biden is ready to see these things accomplished.

Climate Change

Biden urges for the use of green materials along with the US to get more interested in the climate jam.

Darfur

Biden believes sending immediate heavy support to Darfur and setting a deadline for Khartorum to accept the full United Nation Peace Keeping force and if declined enforce a No-Fly-Zone over Sudan plus other actions.

Fire Fighters

Biden feels especially strong about supporting the firefighters because of three occasions in his life and wants to increase support for the FIRE Act, increase SAFER grants, fire fighter safety, and the communications problems.

Fiscal Responsibility

Biden wishes to restore a fine and more responsible budget.

Foreign Relations

Biden wishes to rebuild America’s standing with the world.

Employment

Biden believes in the rights of occupational organization and defends overtime. He also wants to increase minimum wage, workplace safety, and retirement benefits.

Women’s Rights

Biden believes in equality in the workplace as well as in the home. He strongly feels the need to discontinuance the violence against American women and supports letting women choose what to do with unwanted pregnancies.

Discrimination

Biden wants to raze the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell rule and also wants stronger punishment for hate crimes. He believes in equal work for equal pay and will strive to create a discrimination free country.

Online Nation

Biden wants to increase the speed of high accelerate internet and acquire it more affordable for the lower income families.

Veterans Rights

Biden wants to improve healthcare for veterans, reform the handling of disability claims, and manufacture a way to make job and education placements easier for veterans.

Website: www.joebiden.com

CLINTON, HILLARY

Born: October 26, 1947 Park Ridge, Illinois

Religion: Methodist

Education: J.D. Yale Law School 1973, B.A. Wellesley College 1969

Marital Status: Married- Bill Clinton

Children: Chlesea

Professional Occupations: Attorney at Rose Law Firm from 1976 to 1992, member of Faculty at the University of Arkansas Law School in 1975, counsel in the House of Judiciary Committee in 1974, and Co-Founder of the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Political Offices Held: US Senator New York 2001-Present, First Lady of United States 1993-2001, First Lady of Arkansas 1979-1981 & 1983-1993

Issues:

Hillary’s goal to strengthen middle class is to make healthcare more affordable, reduce cost of energy, make access to high-quality child care easier, and make higher education more affordable. Also she plans to find a way to avoid foreclosures along with gaining protection from predatory lenders. Another way to succor the middle class is to raise minimum wage, create better jobs with better pay, balance the federal budget, and provide a greater retirement security.

Affordable Healthcare

Hillary has three terms that sum up what she plans for healthcare’s future; affordable, available, and edifying.

Ending War in Iraq

The Iraq War is a hot topic for all presidential candidates and Hillary’s views on the topic is to bring the troops home immediately after she becomes president all the while securing stability within the Iraqi Government.

Fighting Global Warming

Global Warming is a concern for all Americans and it is time for an efficient system to help fight against it. Hillary has an extensive view to nick electric consumption and make America more energy efficient.

Supporting Veterans

Hillary plans to enact the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century and create a more affordable and better quality healthcare system for the veterans. She will ensure that all veterans receive the full benefits they deserve and expand the Helmets to Hardhats Program that places veterans in employment. She will give them additional opportunities to serve and reduce homelessness for the veterans.

Restoring America’s Standing in the World

Hillary plans to restore America’s standing in the world.

Women’s Rights

One word sums up what she will do for the women; equality.

Government Reform

Hillary plans to restore America’s confidence in the US Government.

Strengthening Democracy

Hillary plans to create a paper trail for all votes, make Election Day a national holiday, create a same day registration, minimize long lines at the polls, find impartial officials to administer elections, and allow the D.A. to prosecute against anyone distributing false information to the public.

Immigration

Hillary plans to secure the borders and ensure that employers are following the laws against hiring undocumented workers.

Website: www.hillaryclinton.com

DODD, CHRISTOPHER

Born: May 27, 1944 Willimantic, Connecticut

Religion: Catholic

Education: B.A. in English Literature at Providence College 1966, J.D. at University of Louisville 1972

Marital Status: Married- Jackie Dodd

Children: Grace, Christina

Professional Occupations: US Army 1969-1975, Attorney in New London Connecticut 1972-1974, Peace Corps Volunteer Dominican Republic 1966-1968

Political Offices Held: US Senator in Connecticut 1981-Present, US Representative Connecticut 1975-1981

Issues:

Bringing home troops in a timely safe manner is what Dodd will strive to achieve if elected president. He plans on bringing them home starting within 120 days of taking office and using all the funding available to make it a safe trot home. He wants all troops home by April 30th 2008. He also plans direct negotiations with the Middle Eastern Countries and convene a regional summit.

Restoring Constitution

Dodd introduced the Restoring the Constitution Act which would bring the US back on track by restoring the Habeas Corpus.

Energy

Dodd has a understanding that would compose America a leader on climate change and help to bring energy costs down for everyone. With his Corporate Carbon Tax it will help make a better fuel efficient economy for everyone.

National Service

Dodd believes that when serving the country people feel a better sense of community which will help to make it through the challenges that the US is facing in this new century.

Education

Dodd believes that we need to give our children the best education now because they are our future and there will be hard challenges facing them later on in life and we need them to have the opportunity to grow their minds from Pre-K to College.

Healthcare

An affordable quality healthcare coverage for people of all walks of life.

Veterans’ Rights

As a person who has served in the National Guard and Army Reserve Dodd realizes the need for better support and care for our veterans is a top priority and if elected will see that the system will be overhauled to better meet the needs of the veterans.

Senior Citizens

Dodd realizes the importance of a regain retirement with quality healthcare, secure pensions, and a strong social security which he will strive to achieve once he becomes President.

Labor and Economics

Dodd wants to bring the workers and their employers together which will work to back all the parties involved.

Revitalizing Rural America

Dodd will work hard to see that rural families are helped in overcoming challenges they face in rural life because he knows that America’s best hope lies in rural America.

Supporting First Responders

Dodd knows the importance of the feeling safe and secure and his plans to help support the First Responders will give them better tools to complete their jobs, better recruitment, and better preparedness.

Website: www.chrisdodd.com

EDWARDS, JOHN

Born: June 10, 1953 Seneca, South Carolina

Religion: Methodist

Education: B.A. at North Carolina State University 1974, J.D. with Honors at University of North Carolina

Marital Status: Married-Elizabeth

Children: Catherine, Emma Claire, Jack, Wade

Professional Occupations: Director at the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina School of Law from 2004-2006, Partner at Edwards and Kirby 1993-1998, Partner at Tharrington Smith & Hargrove 1984-1992, Associate at Tharrington Smith & Hargrove 1981-1983, Associate at Dearborn & Ewing 1978-1981, Law Clerk at the office of Judge Franklin T. Dupree Jr. of the US District Court for the Eastern District 1977-1978

Political Offices Held: US Senator from North Carolina 1998-2005

Issues:

Edwards believes in quality preschool programs for all children, better pay for the educators, and a top quality school system for all schools.

Healthcare

Edwards plans for the families without insurance to pay less on their medical bills and the families that do have insurance to pay less and come by more choices along with employers paying less to insure their workers with quality insurance.

Ending Poverty

Edwards plans to extinguish poverty by 2036 by creating a working society, raising minimum wage, and protecting people from abusive financial products.

Rural America

Edwards believes by increasing a new energy economy with wind farms and other natural energy stations it will help farmers create a new form of farming and raise profits. He also plans on creating fairness for farmers and bag a way to bridge the gap where broadband does not reach.

Tax Reform

Edwards has a plan for a “rep ahead” tax credit for families that make over $75,000 a year, a triple earned income for single people, and a plan to cut the marriage penalty.

Restoring Democracy

Edwards plans to strengthen the voice of everyday citizens to help bring back the confidence that has been diminishing in today’s society.

Food Safety

Edwards plans to have country of origins information on all imported foods and to step up the inspection of food imported into the states.

Ending War in Iraq

Edwards plans for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops while at the same time train Iraqi security forces to better stabilize their country.

Homeland Security

Edwards plan is to protect the first responders with better equipment and health benefits. He also wants to tighten the border security and protect vulnerable targets such as US landmarks.

Energy

Edwards plans to reduce pollution by making America more energy efficient.

Support for Veterans

Edwards believes all veterans should have quality healthcare and the means to be educated and be placed in a great job.

LGBT Rights

Edwards believes in equal rights for everyone and that it should not exclude same sex marriages.

Women’s Rights

Edwards believes that equal rights go for equal pay for women workers and will fight for the equal rights of everybody.

Senior Citizen Rights

Edwards plans to protect the seniors by protecting their pensions, improve nursing homes, and giving better healthcare.

Website: www.johnedwards.com

GRAVEL, MIKE

Born: May 13, 1930 Springfield, Massachusetts

Religion: Catholic

Education: B.S. in Economics at Columbia University, 4 Honorary Degrees in Law and Public Affairs

Marital Status: Married- Whitney Stewart Gravel

Children: Martin, Lynn

Professional Occupations: Founder of the Democracy Foundation 2001, Real Estate Developer in Alaska throughout the 80s, US Army 1951-1954

Political Offices Held: US Senator Alaska House of Representatives 1965-1966, Alaska State Representative 1963-1966

Issues:

The National Initiative will be used to give us “citizens the power to put measures on national ballots.”

Ending the War in Iraq

Gravel has a plan that would have all US troops withdrawn from Iraq in as little as 120 days.

Iran and Syria

Gravel believes a more diplomatic touch is needed for the situation with Iran and Syria.

Global Warming

Gravel wants to prick carbon emissions by taxing at the source and to work to destroy the dependency of oil in the world.

Fair Tax

Gravel plans for a Progressive Fair Tax which would eliminate the IRS and income tax and replace it with a national sales tax and to compensate for taxes on necessities there would be a monthly rebate check for all citizens.

Healthcare

Gravel plans for a universal healthcare for everyone that would be paid for by a part of his proposed retail sales tax.

Women’s Reproductive Rights

Gravel believes that a woman should have the right to make the difficult decision to have an abortion.

Immigration

Gravel supports protecting our borders and advocates a guest worker program to assist illegal immigrants already here to become legal citizens.

LGBT Rights

Gravel supports equal rights and believes that same sex marriages should be allowed.

Social Security

Gravel wants to establish sincere money instead of borrowed money into the Social Security Trust Fund.

Education

Gravel wants to see a re-ordering of the national budget to provide more money to the education of our young.

Veterans Rights

Gravel will see veterans receive their tubby funding for their important issues such as post traumatic stress disorder.

Drugs

Simply put Gravel plans to initiate treating addiction as a public health pickle.

Net Neutrality

Gravel is in assist of a free and open internet with unlimited employ to all sites.

Website: www.gravel2008.us/

KUCINICH, DENNIS

Born: October 8, 1946 Cleveland, Ohio

Religion: Roman Catholic

Education: Bachelors of Arts and a Masters in Speech Communications at Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio 1974

Martial Status: Married- Elizabeth Harper Kucinich

Children: No

Professional Occupations: Consultant for the Publicly Owned Electric Systems 1979-Present, President of the Marketing and Communications Firm 1985-1995, Teacher of Communications and Political Science at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland State University 1991-1994, Professor of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University 1982-1992, Communications Entrepreneur for Software and Public Relations 1982-1992

Political Offices Held: US Representative of Ohio 1997-Present, Ohio State Senator 1994-1996, Mayor of Cleveland 1977-1979, Cleveland City Council 1970-1975 and 1981-1982, Clerk of Courts of the Cleveland Municipal Court 1976-1977

Issues:

Kucinich believes that America will find more strength in peace times. Instead of trying to “bully” the rest of the world around he wants to use America’s “unrivaled power” to lead.

Healthcare

Kucinich is the sole person running for president that has created a plan for a not-for-Profit healthcare system. He realizes that most reasons people are non-insured or underinsured is the fact that people just can’t afford it. He plans to fix that problem while in office.

Middle Class

Kucinich believes the best thing for the middle class families is affordable healthcare, better wages, better educational access, and retirement security.

Restoring Democracy

Kucinich realizes that corrupt campaign financing and problematic electronic voting have affected America’s confidence in the voting system he plans to compose America’s trust in Democracy.

Environment

Kucinich will immediately put the US in the forefront in solving the problems of Global Warming and fetch ways to make America more fuel efficient.

End Poverty

Kucinich understands the problems that evolve around people living in poverty and that if we take away poverty other problems will soon follow in its footsteps.

Saving Capitalism

Kucinich plans to instill fairness in global trade and big business as well as instill ethics and accountability.

Website:www.dennis4president.com

OBAMA, BARACK

Born: August 4, 1961 Hawaii

Religion: Protestant

Education: Columbia University 1983, Harvard Law 1991

Martial Status: Married- Michelle

Children: Malia, Sasha

Professional Occupations: Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School 1993-2004, Attorney at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland 1993-2004

Political Offices Held: US Senator Illinios 2005-Present, Illinios Residence Senator 1997-2004

Issues:

Obama wants to take weapons out of the hands of the terrorists along with stopping nuclear threats and preventing an Avian Flu Pandemic.

Ending War in Iraq

Obama’s belief is to bring home one or two brigades each month and have all troops out of Iraq by the waste of 2008.

Healthcare

Obama plans to lower the cost of quality healthcare and strengthen public health as a whole.

Fighting Poverty

Obama believes that transition jobs are a step in the right direction to help people gain skills they need to move up the career ladder. He wants to raise the minimum wage and help support the lower-income families.

Environment

Make America more energy efficient to help slit pollution. He also plans to invest in a Digital Bright Grid to help bring our energy into the 21st Century.

Energy

Obama has a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 along with strengthening America’s oil and energy independence.

Technology and Innovation for a New Generation

Obama plans for an start internet that will benefit everybody.

Senior Citizens

Obama wants to protect our senior community by giving them retirement security, better healthcare, and help to prevent poverty.

Improving Schools

Obama wants to expand early childhood education, give larger salaries to the educators, and increase federal college aid.

Homeland Security

Obama has plans to keep track of spent nuclear fuel, give better protection from radioactive releases, and secure our chemical plants.

Immigration and Border Issues

Obama plans to secure our borders, improve the immigration system, and honor our immigrant troops.

Veterans’ Rights

Obama wants to put a roof over the heads of every homeless musty and ease the transition of unusual veterans into society after defending our country.

End Corruption in Washington

Obama plans to lead an open government to attend end corruption to help regain the confidence of everyday US citizens.

Strengthening Community and Family

Obama wants to support low-income families, protect people from mortgage fraud, and encourage low-income workers move up the employment ladder.

Website:www.barackobama.com

RICHARDSON, BILL

Born: November 15, 1947 Pasadena, California

Religion: Roman Catholic

Education: B.A. at Tufts University 1970, M.A. at Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Marital Status: Married- Barbara Falvin Richardson

Children: No

Professional Occupations: Richardson Trade Group 1978-1982

Political Offices Held: Governor of New Mexico 2003-Present, US Secretary of Energy 1998-2001, US Ambassador to the United Nations 1997-1998, US Representative of New Mexico 1983-1997, Staffer in the Senate of Foreign Relations Committee 1976-1978, Legislative Management Officer in the Congressional Relations for the State Department 1974-1976

Issues:

Richardson plans a removal of all troops as expeditiously and safely as it can be done and plans a diplomatic surge in hopes of restoring diplomacy into today’s world.

Energy

Richardson has a thought that will cut oil demands by 50% by the year 2020 and encourage the manufacturing of the 100 mpg vehicle. He wants America to lead by example and restore America’s standings in the world without breaking the bank in America.

Healthcare

Covering every American with affordable quality healthcare is what Richardson plans when elected President. He has come up with a plan for advance refund as tax credit which is based on the person’s income. He also plans to eliminate high interest rates for medical expenses and give attend to prevention and to living a healthier lifestyle.

Jobs and Economy

Richardson plans to restore discipline to the U.S. Government and invest more in Technology and Innovation to bring America more fully into the 21st century.

Civil Liberties

Richardson is all for expanding Equal Rights and better protection for the Native Americans. His plan is for every vote in an election to be counted and he believes that internet should be free and open.

Defense

Richardson plans to withdraw all troops, leaving none slack. He plans to reform the military and expand the number of Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operation community.

Education

Richardson knows the value of a good education. He plans to provide access to quality pre-k programs for all children. He also realizes that the teachers play an important role so therefore he plans to raise the salary for the educators.

Environment

Richardson’s concept is Restore Clean Water Act a program that will help get water cleaner than it has been in a long time. He plans to enforce the Endangered Species Act and assist the states with coarse recycling communities to help bewitch better care of our world.

Support for First Responders

Among the many things that Richardson plans to do to back support the First Responders is establish a National Fire Fighters’ Survivors Fund for the families of fire fighters killed on duty.

Foreign Policies

The most necessary thing to do when the new president takes office is to restore the alliances with other nations. Richardson plans to encourage respect and appreciation for our country’s allies and strengthen efforts to help reduce greenhouse gas admissions.

Richardson plans to secure our borders by hiring and training as many patrol guards as needed to patrol the entire border and will also create a reasonable path to help the people already here become legal citizens. His plan is to crack down on illegal workers by cracking down on the employers that hire them by creating a national ID system.

LGBT Rights

Richardson believes in equal rights for all people in the United States and will fight for them.

Women’s Rights

Richardson believes in equal rights in all ways including equal pay for women as well as giving women business owners their fair share in government grants and other funds.

Support for Our Veterans

Richardson plans to create a “Heroes Health Card” that is to be given to every feeble so that no matter where they go they will receive quality healthcare that they need. He also plans to offer tax cuts for veterans and take care of military families by offering a one year disability insurance for those who have to finish their jobs to take care of an injured soldier.

Website:www.billrichardson.com

This is just a summarized list of issues and information about the Democratic Presidential Candidates for more information please manufacture sure and check out each individuals’ website.

After 16 years of marriage, Steve and Kate never had a lot of extra money. It was a struggle at times, but the couple and their two children lived in a modest home in Collinsville, Ill., and they were getting by. Like clockwork, Steve gave Kate $338 to make the monthly house payment.

Until February 1, 1995. That was the day Kate dropped the kids off at school, drove to a mall parking lot, climbed into the back seat of her Oldsmobile and killed herself with a .357 magnum revolver. Later that day, sheriff’s deputies arrived at the house to enlighten an eviction recognize because Kate hadn’t made a house payment in 17 months.

Steve, then 45, was a refinery worker. Kate, 40, was a volunteer teacher and a gambling addict. Steve knew his wife liked a little gambling action. He knew she would drop a few dollars on lottery tickets, and then there were Kate’s twice-weekly bingo outings and occasional trips to the racetrack. But Steve believed it was the gaming tables and jangling slot machines aboard the Casino Queen, a riverboat casino in nearby East St. Louis, that was Kate’s fatal attraction. (To protect his children, Steve asked the media not to disclose the family’s identity.)

It wasn’t until after Kate’s suicide that Steve learned the depths of his wife’s addiction. Barely $800 remained of their $8,000 savings. A $5,000 tax refund had disappeared and most of the family’s bills had gone unpaid. Kate had even pawned her wedding rings. “She was a master of disguise,” Steve told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I was never aware of this until the day she committed suicide. My life went from a bed of roses to black nightmare in 30 minutes.”

Untold millions of Americans view lotteries and casinos as their personal ticket to financial freedom. Legalized gambling is one of today’s most contentious political and moral issues. Opponents say it takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. Advocates lisp it’s merely a voluntary tax, maybe even a civic responsibility. After all, they say, nobody forces Joe Bluecollar to spend his lunch money on lottery tickets. Or lose his paycheck aboard a landlocked riverboat casino on a cruise to bankruptcy.

Through the Years
Gambling is as ancient as life itself. Some forms of lotteries date assist to Caesar. One hundred years before Christ, the Hun Dynasty in China created keno, and lottery funds were used for defense and to finance the construction of the Great Wall of China.

Although its popularity, and legality, has cycled over the years, gambling has always been one of America’s most guilty pleasures. According to Roger Dunstan, in a study he prepared for the California Research Bureau, all 13 original colonies promoted lotteries to help finance the American Revolution. Ben Franklin, John Hancock and George Washington sponsored lotteries to finance their pet public work projects. Lottery profits helped establish some of the nation’s most prestigious universities, including Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Princeton.

In 1769, the Crown discouraged lotteries in the colonies, but at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress favorite the original “Big Game,” a $10 million bonanza intended to help finance the war. That project failed, however, because it was too large and tickets couldn’t be sold.

By the 1800’s antigambling forces nearly killed state-sponsored lotteries, citing moral reasons. By 1860, only Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky had authorized lotteries. The games rebounded after the Civil War when Southern states needed money to rebuild. Even during the lottery lull, however, gambling of the unauthorized type–horseracing, card games and other games of chance-continued to flourish. The adventuresome folks who trekked west to during the California Gold Rush brought their marked cards to the mining camps, and San Francisco became the unofficial gambling capital of the United States during the 1850s.

The Great Depression of 1929-1939 led to another boost in legalized gambling as the government tried to simulate the economy. Massachusetts legalized bingo in 1931, and horseracing and pari-mutuel wagering surged. Nevada became the first state to allow casino gambling the same year, but it wasn’t until 1978 that New Jersey followed suit.

There were no government-sponsored lotteries between 1894 and 1964, but Americans still found ways to play the numbers. One of the most popular was the Irish Sweepstakes, which began in 1930 to raise money for hospitals in Ireland. New Hampshire was the only place with a lottery as recently as 1964, but along with the stock market, legalized gambling surged in the 1990s.

In 1998, Americans spent more gambling than they did on recorded music, theme parks, video games, spectator sports and movie tickets combined. Today, 38 states have lotteries, 40 states allow betting on horses and 28 house casinos. Only Utah, Tennessee and Hawaii do not allow gambling of any type, and Tennessee will attempt to join the crowd at the gaming tables when the issue comes to a vote November 5, 2002.

The Valid Winner
What is “legal” gambling? Simple. If the state authorizes it, regulates it, sells it, taxes it and profits from it, it’s legal. If the state doesn’t get a cut, it’s against the law. If the multi-state Powerball lottery were a private enterprise it would be illegal. Good gamblers sometimes win and abominable gamblers usually lose, but the only guaranteed winner is the government. To ensure the dollars keep rolling in, the federal government squashes potential competition by passing laws against them. The gambling industry, once controlled by organized crime and associated with prostitution and alcoholics, is now a major source of state revenue.

The numbers are startling. Sixty-eight percent of all Americans say they have gambled at least once in the past year, and the American Gaming Association estimates that Americans legally wager $60.3 billion annually. Lotteries alone add nearly $40 billion a year to position coffers. Gamers in the 11 states operating “commercial” casinos in 2000 contributed more than $3.3 billion in tax revenue to state and local governments. Hitting the biggest jackpots were Nevada with $707 million and Illinois with $512 million.

(Casinos operated on Indian reservations are not considered commercial casinos. Indian casinos first appeared after a change in federal law in the early 1990s, but since then gambling has evolved into the buffalo of the 21st century. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires that only tribal governments, not individuals, can operate gambling operations. About 200 federally recognized Indian tribes operate 309 gambling facilities in 29 states. In 2000, tribal gaming generated about $10 billion in gross revenues.)

Taxpayers foot the bill for a $400 million a year lottery advertising budget. The mantra of “You can’t win if you don’t choose a ticket” rings a chord with many a player down on his luck. And, of course, “everybody wins” because the state rakes in so much of the profits.

At least one politician used gambling as a plank in his campaign platform. In 1998, Don Siegelman promised to institute a position lottery to boost education funding if he was elected governor of Alabama. He said a lottery would produce $150 million a year for university scholarships, a pre-kindergarten program and to improve the state’s decrepit schools.

Once elected, Siegelman called on college students to be fellow “soldiers in this battle,” and even urged them to promote gambling at their schools and churches. He posed with a class of smiling first graders who were encouraged to shout “Lottery!” instead of “Cheese!” Despite Siegelman’s efforts, a high profile referendum to institute an Alabama state lottery failed.

Columnist Michelle Malkin shakes a stern finger at the states for targeting advertising to an at-risk audience by concentrating their “everyone is a winner” message around the first of each month. Malkin points out that government benefits, payroll and Social Security checks are issued on the first Tuesday of each month. She added that although most lottery revenue is supposed to go to education, a Money magazine report discovered that states with lotteries actually employ a smaller proportion of their budgets on education than states without a lottery.

One-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan also took the government to task.

“In the 1950s,” Buchanan wrote, ” there was a great cry against the ‘numbers racket.’ Petty mobsters were said to be robbing the black poor of their dimes and quarters. Gambling is a vice and an addiction, thundered reformers, and these wicked predators are preying on the urban poor. We cheered. But no sooner had the standing ovation ended than we learned the numbers racket was to be replaced by lotteries run by the government. Government sent the mobsters to jail and then muscled in on their racket.”

Who Really Plays?
Theoretically, lotteries are intended to raise money for needy states and communities without burdening the less affluent with higher taxes. This strikes to the heart of the controversy. Who really plays and who really pays? Is it apt that the people least able to afford to lose money are the biggest players? Is the engine of the gambling industry really powered by the uneducated, minimum wage masses?

Absolutely, says the National Coalition Against Organized Gambling. It asserts that instead of providing relief, lotteries burden those least able to play, and that African-Americans and the elderly are the most likely to gamble. The Coalition also cites a Detroit study indicating that people with less than $10,000 annual income spend the same amount on lottery tickets as those who score $70,000 or more. The study also reported that high-school dropouts spend more than five times, as a percentage of their income, on the lottery than gamblers with college degrees.

The Coalition also pointed to an Oregon study of lottery players that indicated similar results. Researchers said that if playing weren’t voluntary, lotteries would be a qualified example of the class-conflict theory; how the affluent and well educated exploit the less advantaged working class.

Following the Money
Advocates insist that legalized gambling creates fresh jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue. According to the American Gaming Association, players spent more than $24 billion on casino gambling in 2000, up eight percent from the previous year. Much of the money, proponents point out, is funneled directly back to the host communities. Commercial casinos paid nearly $3.5 billion in taxes in 2000. That same year, those casinos employed about 370,000 people who earned about $11 billion.

But University of Illinois professor John Kindt asks analysts to take a closer look at those numbers. He estimates that for every dollar a spot receives in gambling revenues, it costs the region nearly $3 to fund escalating criminal justice and social welfare programs. Other reports indicate that discretionary spending in communities decreases when the lottery is introduced. They say that every dollar spent on the lottery instead of dinner at a local restaurant is a dollar siphoned from local economy.

East St. Louis, Ill., is a case in point.

A thriving community of 80,000 as recently as 1960, East St. Louis once ranked first in the nation in the sale of horses, mules and hogs. In 1920, it was the largest aluminum-processing center in the world, the nation’s second busiest rail center, and the leading manufacturer of roofing material, baking powder, paint pigment and coal production.

How times have changed. Today, the city’s remaining 31,542 residents (nearly all are African-American) have diminutive to brag about. Wallowing in misery for decades, they live in a bankrupt city with thousands of abandoned homes and businesses. There is no daily newspaper or movie theater. The “All-American City” of 1956 now has one of the worst education records in the plot. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development described East St. Louis as “the most distressed small city in America.”

Those who remain in the city that was once home to tennis spacious Jimmy Connors, Olympian Jackie Joyner-Kersee and jazz legend Miles Davis live in or near crumbling or burned out homes. An understaffed, under trained police force can’t keep pace with the drug dealers, gang bangers and prostitutes lining the otherwise nearly empty streets. In 1990, East St. Louis garnered dubious national fame when it surrendered its city hall to decide a lawsuit for police brutality. It was its only asset of any value. East St. Louis was tabbed the murder capital of America in 1992.

Officials believed that a casino docked on the city’s bleak, undeveloped riverfront was its only hope for salvation. But casino operators had to be coaxed to East St. Louis. Most investors were afraid that potential patrons would take their paychecks elsewhere because of the city’s reputation, crime and lack of services. In 1993, however, five businessmen took a huge gamble and cruised their $45 million Casino Queen into town and docked it on the Mississippi across from the St. Louis Gateway Arch. But gamblers, as they are wont to do, also took a chance and immediately took their chips to the riverboat. They also left them there–investors recovered their initial outlay in six months.

There’s been a steady flow of cash from the riverboat to East St. Louis ever since. Nearly half the city’s annual budget comes from the $9.6 million the Casino Queen generates in tax revenue. “The Casino Queen has greatly impacted the City of East St. Louis,” said Mayor Debra A. Powell. “The revenues generated have helped the city become more financially stable.”

But it takes a selective eye to spot any improvements. Some services, like trash pick up, have improved, but the city still flirts with bankruptcy, the schools are still dilapidated, the unemployment rate still soars and the once busy shops remain shuttered. Vehicle traffic in downtown East St. Louis appears to be limited to gamblers going to and from the riverboat. There’s been little apparent impact on local businesses. A Casino Queen spokesman mentions only a florist and a dry cleaner, both doing business with the riverboat, as direct beneficiaries.

The Retort?
Many believe there’s something distasteful about our cities and states promoting gambling to its citizens. Columnist Austin Abercrombie wrote, “Traditionally, one of the legitimate roles of a republican government is to protect its citizens against harm, ‘to promote the general welfare,’ but state governments seem to be redefining that role one of ‘how do we separate the sucker from his money? ‘”

In June 1999, the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Study Commission issued its final report. It was the first such study performed in more than 20 years and it shined an unwelcome light on the gambling industry.

Among the report’s recommendations:

Remove ATMs and credit machines from gambling areas.

Ban Internet gambling.

Prohibit wagering on collegiate and amateur events.

Post warnings about the dangers of gambling, as well as the odds, prominently in every gaming establishment.

State lotteries should be subject to truth-in-advertising laws.

Each gambling facility must implement procedures to allow gambling addicts to voluntarily ban themselves from the facilities.

Restrict contributions from gambling concerns.

Dr. James Dobson, founder and president of Focus on the Family, was a member of the Gambling Impact Commission. His summary statement of the report is chilling.

“Clearly, gambling is a destroyer that ruins lives and wrecks families,” Dobson wrote. “A mountain of evidence demonstrates a direct link between problem and pathological gambling and divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, bankruptcy, crime and suicide. When other activities, such as smoking, have been shown to be harmful, the hue and cry for regulations to warn and protect the public has been loud and long. Today, the silence of most of our leaders about the risks of gambling is deafening. It is well past time for a Paul Revere to sound the dismay. Gambling is hazardous to your-to our-health!”

Until the Commission’s recommendations and other measures are adopted, gamblers are playing against a stacked deck, and casino owners and the states are holding all the cards.