Book Review: As If an Enemy’s Country by Richard Archer
Author: Richard Archer
Title: As If an Enemy’s Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution
Publication Info: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2010.
Summary/Review:
I read this book 14 years ago and this reread is for a book group discussion. I actually didn’t remember a lot of the details in the book. Actually, there are historical facts in this book that I thought I learned in more recent years, so I guess I actually learned them again.
This work focus on a period in Boston’s history in the lead up to the American Revolution. It starts with resistance to Parliamentary taxation in the early 1760s which in Boston often involved intimidation and violence against government officials and tax agents as well as smuggling. In response, the British government sent troops to “keep the peace” This lead to 18 months of occupation with increasing tension among the soldiers and the populace culminating with soldiers shooting and killing five civilians. After the “massacre” the troops were pulled from Boston and with the concurrent repeal of taxes a period of normalcy followed, although Bostonians were forever changed by the experience.
I like that this book tests a lot of the assumptions of the Revolutionary period. Classifications of people as “patriots” or “loyalists” didn’t exist, although there was a popular party and a court party. Even here, people who ultimately remained loyal to Britain were still involved in non-importation agreements. I also think that Archer is very even-handed in describing the actions and motivations of all the people involved, for example a sympathetic view of the soldiers involved in the massacre which nonetheless doesn’t excuse them of their culpability. He also effectively describes the role of class and race in these events. This includes the actions of violence and intimidation as being dismissed as the acts of the “rabble,” or outsiders such as sailors. Black men serving as drummers for the British troops also raised the racial animus of the colonists.
All in all this is an excellent work that was worth revisiting.
Favorite Passages:
“In short, during the British occupation of Boston, one man in three was a soldier. Redcoats were everywhere, on duty and off. Theirs was not a casual or unobtrusive presence. In the streets, along the ropewalks, in the taverns, directly outside the Town House where the main guard was located, at checkpoints, on the Common, daytime and night, the people of Boston encountered the representatives of British power. They could not be avoided.”
“There was no mistaking that the Sugar Act was a tax bill. The preamble, declaring its intent to raise funds to help pay for troops in North America, made that clear. Up to this time, Parliament had requisitioned money through colonial legislatures, allowing the constitutional voices of those who were to be taxed to be heard. For the first time, the British government (Crown and all) prepared to tax colonists directly, with no pretense of representation. The Sugar Act delineated taxable commodities and outlined measures for eliminating, or at least significantly reducing, smuggling. It was a tax bill, not a trade bill.”
“To supplement their meager incomes, some soldiers took part-time work. Patrick Dines of the 29th, for example, found employment in a wig maker’s shop. Others hustled jobs with rope makers and did a variety of tasks along the waterfront. But such competition depressed wages, reduced opportunities for locals, and deepened the resentment over the occupation.”
“Promoting desertion was another way to undermine the standing army, as colonists recognized almost immediately, and unhappy soldiers were plentiful among the regiments. Despite the sullen greeting they received as they garrisoned Boston, the troops realized that a new life in the countryside might be an improvement over their current condition; at least forty of the regulars deserted within the first two weeks of the occupation. Bostonians and others apparently encouraged and assisted soldiers to flee.”
“Before the captain reached the troops, Henry Knox literally pulled him aside by the coat. ‘For God’s sake take care of your Men for if they fire your life must be answerable,” Knox pleaded. ‘I am sensible of it,’ Preston peevishly replied and then hurried on to take command.
“As Preston concluded the conversation, a white object was thrown in their direction. It might have been a snowball, a chunk of ice, or a piece of white birch cordwood. Whatever its composition, the missile struck the muzzle of Private Montgomery’s musket. Montgomery stepped back, recovered his balance, and discharged his weapon. Many scurried for cover or ducked down. Surprisingly, quite a few remained frozen in place, unable to believe that a shot had been fired. There was a pause, punctuated incredibly by renewed shouts of ‘Fire!'”
“Estimates of the elapsed time between the first and next shots varied, but most observers agreed that there had been sufficient time, somewhere between a few seconds and half a minute, for Preston to have commanded the men to halt. Prompted by the first shot and without any prohibition from Preston, several of the other soldiers then fired at the crowd.”
“In none of these cases can we know with certainty what a soldier was thinking when he fired his weapon. Montgomery most likely had inadvertently pulled the trigger. The impulse of the others is murkier. Perhaps some did believe they were defending their lives or obeying a command, and perhaps a few discharged their weapons immediately after an adjacent comrade had fired. It is just as likely that several of them, without any premeditation, seized the opportunity to vent their frustration and anger at the hostile residents or to attain revenge. Whatever the case, the massacre on King Street was a soldiers’ riot.”
“Five people died and six others were wounded, but the punishment for Preston and the eight soldiers, beyond incarceration until the conclusion of their trials, was two branded thumbs. The citizens of Boston could take pride that there had been a fair and open trial. There had been no vigilante justice, but neither had there been justice. Had the victims been more prominent, such as the wounded merchant Edward Payne, rather than transient or poor, there might have been more of an outcry. As it was, there was some grumbling, an inflammatory broadside that was pulled down off the door of the Town House, and a series of lengthy newspaper articles by Samuel Adams.Most Bostonians settled for returning to a life without soldiers and with fewer duties on commerce.”
Recommended books:
- The Boston Massacre: A Family History by Serena Zabin
- Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick
- The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution by Alfred F. Young
- Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence by Jack Tager
Rating: ****
#AmericanHistory #AmericanRevolution #BookReviews #Books #Boston #ColonialAmerica #Massachusetts
