Saturday, April 5, 1774. A growing rift.

Benjamin Franklin wrote an open letter to Lord North.

To Lord North.

Smyrna Coffee-House, April 5. [1774]My Lord,

All your small Politicians, who are very numerous in the English Nation, from the patriotic Barber to the patriotic Peer, when big with their Schemes for the Good of poor Old England, imagine they have a Right to give Advice to the Minister, and condemn Administration if they do not adopt their Plan. I, my Lord, who have no mean Opinion of my Abilities, which is justified by the Attention that is paid to me when I harangue at the Smyrna and Old Slaughter’s, am willing to contribute my Mite to the public Welfare; and have a Proposal to make to your Lordship, which I flatter myself will be approved of by the Ministry, and if carried into Execution, will quiet all the Disturbances in America, procure a decent Revenue from our Colonies, make our royal Master (at least there) a King de facto, as well as de jure; and finally, as it may be managed, procure a round Sum towards discharging the national Debt.

My Scheme is, without Delay to introduce into North America a Government absolutely and entirely Military. The Opposition which some People suspect would be made by the Colonies, is a mere Bugbear: The Sight of a few Regiments of bold Britons, appearing with Ensigns displayed, and in all the Pomp of War, a Specimen of which may be seen every Summer at the Grand Review on Wimbledon Common, with that great Commander G——l G——e at their Head, accompanied with a Detachment from the Artillery, and Half a Dozen short Sixes,2 would so intimidate the Americans, that the General might march through the whole Continent of North America, and would have little else to do but to accept of the Submission of the several Towns as he passed. But as the Honour would be too great for one Man to reduce to absolute Subjection so great an Extent of Territory, I would propose that a separate Command be given to L——d G—— G——e, who by his animated Speeches in the House, and coinciding so entirely with your Lordship’s Opinion on the proper Methods for humbling America, deserves a Share in the Fame of such a grand Exploit. Let him have one half of the Army under his Direction, and march from New York to South Carolina. No one can object to the Nomination, as his Military Prowess is upon Record.3 The Regiments that are in America, with those who are about to embark, will be amply sufficient, without being at the Expence of sending more Troops.4 Those who served in America the last War, know that the Colonists are a dastardly Set of Poltroons; and though they are descended from British Ancestors, they are degenerated to such a Degree, that one born in Britain is equal to twenty Americans. The Yankey Doodles have a Phrase when they are not in a Humour for fighting, which is become proverbial, I don’t feel bould To-day. When they make this Declaration, there is no prevailing on them to attack the Enemy or defend themselves. If contrary to Expectation they should attempt an Opposition, procure Intelligence when it happens not to be their fighting Day, attack them and they will fly like Sheep pursued by a Wolf. When all North America have thus bent their Neck to the Yoke designed for them, I would propose that the Method made use of by the Planters in the West Indies may be adopted, who appoint what they call a Negro Driver, who is chosen from among the Slaves. It is observed that the little Authority that is given him over his Fellow Slaves, attaches him to his Master’s Interest, and his Cruelty would be without Bounds were he not restrained; but the Master is certain, that the utmost Exertion of Strength will be exacted by this cruel Task-Master for the Proprietor’s Emolument. Let all the Colonists be enrolled in the Militia, subject of course to Martial Law. Appoint a certain Number of Officers from among the conquered People, with good Pay, and other Military Emoluments; they will secure their Obedience in the District where they command. Let no other Courts be allowed through the whole Continent but Courts Martial. An Inhabitant, who disobeys an Order, may by a Court Martial be sentenced to receive from One Hundred to a Thousand Lashes in a frosty Morning, according to the Nature of his Offence. Where Punishment is thus secure, this Advantage will accrue, that there will not be the same Necessity of hanging up so many poor Devils as in this free Country; by which Means the Service of many an able Man is lost to the Community. I humbly propose that the General and Commander in Chief be vested with the Power, and called by the Name of the King’s Viceroy of all North America. This will serve to impress the Americans with greater Respect for the first Magistrate, and have a Tendency to secure their Submission. All Orders issuing from this supreme Authority to have the Force of Laws. After this happy Change of Government, how easy to collect what Taxes you please in North America. When the Colonists are drained of their last Shilling, suppose they should be sold to the best Bidder. As they lie convenient for France or Spain, it may be reasonably expected one of those little Powers would be a Purchaser. I think Spain is to be preferred, as their Power hath more of the Ready5 than France. I will venture a Conjecture, that the Ministry might get at least Two Millions for the Soil, and the People upon it. With such a Sum what glorious Things might he not achieve! Suppose it should be applied towards the Payment of one hundredth Part of the National Debt, I [it?] would give him an Opportunity of drawing down upon him the Blessing of the Poor by making him to take off the Halfpenny Duty on Porter. Considering the probable Stability of the present Ministry, this Honour may be reserved for your Lordship.

My Lord, excuse the Crudity of these indigested Hints, which your Wisdom is so capable of improving; and believe me, with infinite Respect, Your Lordship’s Most obedient Humble Servant,

A Friend To Military Government.

On the same day, women gathered in Wilmington, North Carolina, and burned tea in protest.  The date isn't particularly clear, however, and could have occured as early as March 25.

Thomas Gage, who is best remembered for commanding English forces against Colonial rebels in the early part of the American Revolution, was commissioned as Vice Admiral of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay on this day.

5 April, 1774

George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland king defender of the Faith. To our beloved the honble Thomas Gage Esquire Lieutenant General of our Forces and our Captain General and Governor in Chief of our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America Greeting.

We confiding very much in your fidelity care and circumspection in this behalf do by these presents which are to continue during our pleasure only, ordain, constitute and depute you the said Thomas Gage Esquire our Captain General and Governor in Chief aforesaid, our Vice Admiral Commissary and Deputy in the office of Vice Admiralty in our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforesaid and Territories thereon depending in the room of Thomas Hutchinson Esqr and in the Maritime parts of the same and thereto adjoining whatsoever with power of taking and receiving all and every of the Fees, profits, advantages, emoluments Commodities and appurtenances whatsoever due and belonging to the said office of Vice Admiral, Commissary and Deputy in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories dependant thereon and maritime partsof the same and adjoining to them whatsoever according to the Ordinances and Statutes of our high Court of Admiralty of England and We do hereby commit and grant unto you the aforesaid Thomas Gage Esquire our power and authority in and throughout our Province of Massa Bay in America aforementioned and Territories thereof and maritime parts whatsoever adjacent thereto and also throughout all and every the Sea shores, public streams, Ports, fresh waters, Rivers, Creeks and Arms as well of the sea as of the Rivers and Coasts whatsoever of our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories dependant thereon & maritime parts whatsoever of the same and thereto adjacent as well within liberties and franchises as without to take cognizance of and proceed in all causes Civil & Maritime and in Complaints, Contracts, offences or suspected offences, Crimes, pleas, debts, Exchanges, accounts, Charter parties, agreements, Suits, trespasses, injuries, extortions and demands and businesses Civil and Maritime whatsoever commenced or to be commenced between Merchants or between owners and proprietors of Ships and other Vessels and Merchants or others whomsoever with such owners and proprietors of Ships and all other Vessels whatsoever employed or used within the maritime Jurisdiction of our Vice Admiralty of our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforementioned and Territories depending on the same or between any other persons whomsoever had, made began or contracted for any matter, thing, cause or business whatsoever done or to be done within our maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid, together with all and singular the incidents, emergencies, dependencies annexed and connexed causes whatsoever wheresoever or howsoever and such Causes, Complaints, Contracts and other the premises abovesaid or any of them which may happen to arise be contracted had or done to hear and determine according to the Rights Statutes, Laws Ordinances and Customs anciently observed and moreoverin all and singular complaints, contracts, agreements, causes and businesses civil and maritime to be performed beyond the Sea or contracted there howsoever arising happening and also in all and singular other Causes and matters which in any matter whatsoever touch or any way concern or anciently have & do or ought to belong unto the Maritime Jurisdiction of our aforesaid Vice Admiralty in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereon depending and Maritime parts thereof and to the same adjoining whatsoever and generally in all and singular other Causes, Suits, Crimes, offences, Excesses, injuries, complaints, misdemeanors or suspected misdemeanors Trespasses, regratings, forestallings and Maritime businesses whatsoever throughout the places aforesaid within the maritime Jurisdiction of our Vice Admiralty of our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforesaid and Territories thereon depending by Sea or water or the Banks or Shores of the same howsoever done, committed, perpetrated or happening And also to enquire by the Oath of honest and lawful Men of our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories dependant thereon & maritime parts of the same and adjoining to them whatsoever dwelling hath within liberties and franchises and without as well of all and singular such matters and things which of right and by the Statutes Laws and Ordinances and customs anciently observed were wont and ought to be enquired after as of Wreck of the Sea and of all and singular the Goods and Chattels of whatsoever Traitors Pirates, manslayers and Felons howsoever offending within the Maritime Jurisdiction of our Vice Admiralty of our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforementioned and Territories thereunto belonging and of the Goods, Chattels and debts of all and singular their maintainers, accessaries, counsellors, abettors or assistants whomsoever And also of the Goods, debts and Chattels of whatsoever person or persons, felons of themselves by what meansor howsoever coming to their death within our aforesaid Maritime Jurisdiction wheresoever any such Goods, debts & Chattels or any parcel thereof by Sea, Water or Land in our said Province of Massa Bay in America and Territories thereon dependant and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent whatsoever as well within liberties and franchises as without have been or shall be found forfeited or to be forfeited or in being And moreover as well of the Goods, debts and Chattels of whatsoever other Traitors, felons & manslayers wheresoever offending and of the Goods, debts and Chattels of their maintainers, accessaries, Councellors abettors or assistants as of the Goods, debts and Chattels of all fugitives, persons convicted attainted, condemned, outlawed or howsoever put or to be put in exigent for Treason Felony, Manslaughter or Murder or any other offence or crime whatsoever And also concerning Goods waving flotson Jetson Lagon shares and treasure found or to be found deodands and of the Goods of all others whatsoever taken or to be taken as derelict or by chance found or to be found or howsoever done or to be done and of all other casualties as well in upon or by the Sea and Shores Creeks or Coasts of the Sea or Maritime parts as in upon or by all fresh waters, ports, public streams Rivers or Creeks or places overflown whatsoever within the ebbing and flowing of the Sea or high water or upon the shores or Banks of any of the same within our maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid howsoever whensoever or by what means soever arising happening or proceeding or wheresoever such Goods debts and Chattels or other the premises or any parcel thereof may or shall happen to be met with or found within our maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid And also concerning Anchorage, lastage and ballast of Ships and of Fishes Royal namely Sturgeons, Whales, porpusses, dolphins, Riggs and Crampusses & generally of all other Fishes whatsoever which are of a great or very large bulk or fatness anciently byright or custom or any way appertaining or belonging to us and to ask require levy take collect receive and obtain and to the use of us and the office of our high admiral of Great Britain aforesaid for the time being to keep and preserve the said Wreck of the Sea and the Goods, debts and chattels and all and singular other the premises together with all and all manner of fines, mulcts, issues, forfeitures, amerciaments, ransoms and recognizances whatsoever forfeited or to be forfeited and pecuniary punishments for Trespasses crimes injuries, extortions, contempts and other misdemeanors whatsoever howsoever imposed or inflicted or to be imposed or inflicted for any matter cause or thing whatsoever in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjoining in any Court of our Admiralty there held or to be held presented or to be presented assessed brought forfeited or adjudged and also all amerciaments, issues, fines, perquisites, mulcts and pecuniary punishments whatsoever and forfeitures of all manner of Recognizances before you or your Lieutenant, deputy or deputies in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent whatsoever happening or imposed or to be imposed or inflicted or by any means assessed presented, forfeited or adjudged or howsoever by reason of the premises due or to be due in that behalf to us or our Heirs and successors. And further to take all manner of Recognizances, cautions, obligations and stipulations as well to our use as at the instance of any parties for agreements or debts and other causes whatsoever and to put the same in execution and to cause and command them to be executed And also to Arrest and cause and command to be arrested according to the Civil and maritime Laws and ancient custom of our said Court all Ships, persons, things Goods Wares & Merchandizes for the premises and every ofthem and for other causes whatsoever concerning the same wheresoever they shall be met with or found throughout our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts thereof and thereto adjoining as well within the liberties and franchises as without and likewise for all other agreements, causes or debts howsoever contracted or arising so that the Goods or the persons of the Debtors may be found within our Jurisdiction aforesaid and to hear examine, discuss and finally determine the same with their emergencies dependances incidents annexed and connexed causes and businesses whatsoever together with all other causes civil and maritime and complaints contracts and all and every the respective premises whatsoever above expressed according to the Laws and customs aforesaid and by all other lawful ways means and methods according to the best of your skill and knowledge and to compel all manner of persons in that behalf as the case shall require to appear and to answer with power of using any temporal correction and of inflicting any other penalty or mulct according to the Laws and customs aforesaid and to do and minister Justice according to the right order and course of the Law summarily and plainly looking only into the truth of the fact And to fine correct punish chastize and reform & imprison and cause and command to be imprisoned in any Goals being within our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforesaid and Territories thereunto belonging the parties guilty and the contemners of the Law and Jurisdiction of our Admiralty aforesaid and violaters, usurpers, delinquents and contumacious absenters Masters of Ships, Mariners, Rowers, fishermen, Shipwrights and other workmen and artificers whatsoever exercising any kind of maritime affairs according to the rights, Statutes, Laws or Ordinances and customs anciently observed and to deliver and absolutely discharge and cause and command to be discharged whatsoever persons imprisoned in such caseswho are to be delivered And to preserve and cause to be preserved the public streams, Ports, Rivers, fresh waters and Creeks whatsoever within our maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid in what place soever they be in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent whatsoever as well for the preservation of our Navy Royal and of the Fleets and Vessels of our Kingdoms and dominions aforesaid as of whatsoever fishes increasing in the Rivers and places aforesaid. And also to keep and cause to be executed and kept in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts thereof and thereto adjacent whatsoever the rights Statutes Laws Ordinances and customs anciently observed, and to exercise expedite and execute all and singular other things in the premises and every of them as they by right & according to the Laws and Statutes ordinances and customs aforesaid should be done. And moreover to reform Nets too close and other unlawful Engines or instruments whatsoever for the catching of Fishes wheresoever by Sea or public streams Ports, Rivers Fresh Waters or Creeks whatsoever throughout our Province of Massachusetts Bay in America aforesd and Territories dependant thereon and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent used or exercised by Water within our maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid wheresoever and to punish and correct the exercisers and occupiers thereof according to the Statutes Laws ordinances and customs aforesaid and to pronounce, promulge and interpose all manner of Sentences and Decrees and to put the same in execution with Cognizance and jurisdiction of whatsoever other causes civil and maritime which relate to the Sea or which any manner of ways respect or concern the Sea or passage over the same or Naval or Maritime voyages or our said maritime Jurisdiction or the places or limits of our said Admiralty and cognizance aforementioned and allother things done or to be done with power also to proceed in the same according to the Statutes Laws Ordinances and customs aforesaid anciently used as well of meer office mixt or promoted as at the instance of any party as the case shall require and seem convenient and likewise with cognizance and decision of Wreck of the Sea great or small and of the death drowning and view of Seas, bodies of all persons howsoever killed or murdered or which shall happen to be killed drowned or murdered or by any other means come to their death in the Sea or public streams Ports fresh waters or Creeks whatsoever within the flowing of the Sea and high water mark throughout our aforesaid Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent or elsewhere within our Maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid together with the cognizance of Mayhem in the aforesaid places within our Maritime Jurisdiction aforesaid and flowing of the Sea and water there happening with power also of punishing all delinquents in that kind according to the exigencies of the Law and customs aforesaid And to do exercise, expedite and execute all and singular other things which in and about the premises only shall be necessary or thought meet according to the Rights Statutes Laws, Ordinances and customs aforesaid with power of deputing and surrogating in your place for the premises one or more deputy or deputies as often as you shall think fit and also with power from time to time of naming appointing ordaining assigning making and constituting whatsoever other necessary fit and convenient officers and Ministers under you for the said office and execution thereof in our said Province of Massachusetts Bay in America and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjacent whatsoever (saving always the right of our high Court of Admiralty of England and also of the Judge and Registrar of the said Court from whom or either of them it is not our intentionin any thing to derogate by these presents and saving to every one who shall be wronged or aggrieved by any definitive Sence or interlocutory decree which shall be given in the high admiralty Court of our Province of Massachusetts Bay aforesaid and Territories thereunto belonging the right of appealing to our aforesaid high Court of Admiralty of England). Provided nevertheless and under this express condition that if you the aforesaid Thomas Gage Esquire our Captain General and Governor in Chief aforesaid shall not yearly (to wit) at the end of every year between the Feasts of Saint Michael the Archangel and all Saints duly certify and cause to be effectually certified (if you shall be thereunto required) to us and our Lieutenant official principal and Commissary General and special & Judge and President of the high Court of our Admiralty of England aforesaid all that which from time to time by virtue of these presents you shall do execute collect or receive in the premises or any of them together with your full & faithful account thereupon to be made in an authentic form and sealed with the Seal of our Office remaining in your custody that from thence and after default therein these our Letters Patent of the office of Vice Admiral aforesaid as above granted shall be null and void and of no force or effect. Further We do in our name command all and singular our Governors, Justices, Mayors Sheriffs Captains Marshals, Bailiffs keepers of all our Jails and Prisons Constables and all other our officers & faithful and liege Subjects whatsoever and every of them as well within liberties & franchises as without that in and about the execution of the premises and every of them they be aiding, favouring, assisting, submissive and yield obedience in all things as is fitting to you the aforesaid Thomas Gage Esqr our Captain General and Governor in chief of our Province of the Massachusetts Bay in America aforesaid and your deputy whomsoever and to all other officers (by you appointedor to be appointed of our said Vice Admiralty in our Province of Massa Bay in America aforesaid and Territories thereunto belonging and maritime parts of the same and thereto adjoining under pain of the Law and the peril which will fall thereon. Given at London in the high Court of our Admiralty of England aforesaid under the Great Seal thereof the fifth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy four and of our Reign the fourteenth.

GODF: LEE FARRANT Registrar

Apparently the concept of short paragraphs was largely unknown in 1774.

Wednesday, March 30, 1774. Inquiry.

Ordered, That all the Lords who have been present this day, be appointed a Committee to inquire into the several Proceedings in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, in opposition to the sovereignty of his Majesty, in his Parliament of Great Britain, over that Province; and also what has passed in this House relative thereto, from the 1st of January, 1764.

Ordered, That the several Papers laid before this House relating to Disturbances in the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, be referred to the said Committee; and the said Committee is hereby empowered to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.

Their Lordships, or any five of them, to meet to-morrow, in the Prince' s lodgings, near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

The Lords present, who formed the Committee, were:

The Duke of Gloucester; Lord Apsley, Lord High Chancellor; Earl of Gower, Lord President; Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain.

Dukes: Beafort, Ancaster, Chandos, Montagu.

Earls: Suffolk, Denbigh, Westmoreland, Stanford, Sandwich, Doncaster, Rochford, Abercorn, Loudon, March, Marchmont, Stair, Roseberry, Dartmouth, Macclesfield, Waldegrave, Asburnham, Bucks, Hardwicke, Fauconberg, Ilchester, Northington, Spencer, Hillsborough.

Viscounts: Montague, Townshend, Falmouth.

Hon: Frederick Cornwallis, Archbishop of Canterbury; Richard Terrick, Bishop of London; Edmund Keene, Bishop of Ely; Sir William Asburnham, Bart˙, Bishop of Chichester; John Hume, Bishop of Salisbury; John Green, Bishop of Lincoln; Charles Moss, Bishop of St˙ Davids; Edmund Law, Bishop of Carlisle; John Hinchcliffe, Bishop of Peterborough; William Markham, Bishop of Chester.

Lords: Abergavenny, Willoughby, Br˙, Cathcart, Cadogan, King, Godolphin, Montfort, Edgcumbe, Sandys, Bruce, Walpole, Mansfield, Lyttelton, Wycombe, Scarsdale, Boston, Pelham, Camden, Sundridge.

Last prior edition:

Friday, March 25, 1774. The Boston Port Act passes the House of Lords.

1770s, 1774, American Revolution, Boston Port Act, Boston Tea Party, Intolerable Acts, United Kingdom

Friday, March 25, 1774. The Boston Port Act passes the House of Lords.

The House of Commons sent the Boston Port Act to the House of Lords, which passed it.

Last Prior Edition:

March 21, 1774

1770s, 1774, American Revolution, Boston Massachusetts, Boston Port Act, Boston Tea Party, Intolerable Acts, Massachusetts, United Kingdom

March 21, 1774

Lex Anteinternet: Friday, March 18, 1774. Lord North goofs.: Lord Frederick North introduced the Boston Port Act to the House of Commons.  The proposed act stated: Parliament of Great Britain Anno Deci...

On this day the Port Act passed, closing, in time delayed fashion, the Port of Boston.

Last Prior Edition:

Friday, March 18, 1774. Lord North goofs.

Friday, March 18, 1774. Lord North goofs.

Lord Frederick North introduced the Boston Port Act to the House of Commons.  The proposed act stated:

Parliament of Great Britain

Anno Decimo Quarto Georgii III. Regis.

An Act to discontinue in such Manner, and for such Time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, at the Town and within the Harbour of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.

Whereas dangerous commotions and insurrections have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, by divers ill-affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty's Government, and to the utter destruction of the public peace, and good order of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections certain valuable cargoes of teas, being the property of the East India Company, and on board certain vessels lying within the bay or harbour of Boston, were seized and destroyed: and whereas in the present condition of the said town and harbour, the commerce of his Majesty's subjects cannot be safely carried on there, nor the Customs payable to his Majesty duly collected; and it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty's Customs should be forthwith removed from the said town; may it please you Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advise and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the first day of June, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever, to lade or put, or cause or procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of the shore of the bay, commonly called the Harbour of Boston, between a certain headland or point, called Nahant Point, on the eastern side of the entrance into the said bay, and a certain headland or point called Alderton Point, on the western side of the entrance into the said bay, or in or upon any island, creek, landing place, bank, or other place, within the said bay, or headlands, into any ship, vessel, lighter, boat, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise, whatsoever, to be transported or carried into any other country, province, or place, whatsoever, or into any other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England; or to take up, discharge, or lay on land, or cause or procure to be taken up, discharged, or laid on land, within the said town, or in or upon any of the places aforesaid, out of any boat, lighter, ship, vessel, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise, whatsoever, to be brought from any other country, province, or place, or any other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, upon the pain of forfeiture of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, and of the said boat, lighter, ship, vessel, or other bottom, into which the same shall be put, or out of which the same shall be taken, and of the guns, ammunition, tackle, furniture, and stores, in or belonging to the same; and if any such goods, wares, or merchandise, shall within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or boat, to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, or other part of said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, or be laden or taken into such barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or out of any ship or vessel coming and arriving from any other country or province, or other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, such barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or boat, shall be forfeited and lost.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any wharfinger, or keeper of any wharf, crane, or quay, or their servants, or any of them, shall take up or land, or knowingly suffer to be taken up or landed, or shall ship off, or suffer to be waterborne, at or from any of the aforesaid wharfs, cranes, or quays, any such goods, wares, or merchandise; in every such case, all and every such wharfinger, and keeper of such wharf, crane, or quay, and every person whatsoever who shall be assisting, or otherwise concerned in the shipping or in the loading or putting on board any boat or other vessel, for that purpose, or in the unshipping such goods, wares, and merchandise, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come after the loading, shipping or unshipping thereof, shall forfeit and lose treble the value thereof, to be computed at the highest price which such sort of goods, wares, and merchandise, shall bear at the place where such offence shall be committed, at the time when the same shall be so committed, together with the vessel and boats, and all the horses, cattle and carriages, whatsoever made use of in the shipping, unshipping, landing, removing, carriage, or conveyance of any of the aforesaid goods, wares, and merchandise.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any ship or vessel shall be moored or lie at anchor, or be seen hovering within the said bay, described and bounded as aforesaid, or within one league from the said bay so described, or the said headlands, or any of the islands lying between or within the same, it shall and may be lawful for any Admiral, Chief Commander, or commissioned officer, of his Majesty's fleet or ships of war, or for any officer of his Majesty's customs, to compel such ship or vessel to depart to some other port or harbour, or to such station as the said officer shall appoint, and to use such force for that purpose as shall be found necessary: and if such ship or vessel shall not depart accordingly, within six hours after notice for that purpose given by such person as aforesaid, such ship or vessel, together with all the goods laden on board thereon, and all the guns, ammunition, tackle and furniture, shall he forfeited and lost, whether bulk shall have been broken or not.

Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any military or other stores for his Majesty's use, or to the ships or vessels whereon the same shall be laden, which shall be commissioned by, and in the immediate pay of, his Majesty, his heirs and successors: nor to any fuel or victual brought coastways from any part of the Continent of America, for the necessary use and sustenance of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston: provided the vessel wherein the same are to be carried, shall be duly furnished with a cocket and let-pass, after having been duly searched by the proper officers of his Majesty's customs at Marblehead, in the port of Salem, in the said Province of Massachusetts Bay; and the same officer of his Majesty's Customs be also put on board the said vessel, who is hereby authorized to go on board, and proceed with the said vessel, together with a sufficient number of persons, properly armed, for his defence, to the said town or harbour of Boston; nor to any ships or vessels which may happen to be within the said harbour of Boston, on or before the the first day of June, 1774, and may have either laden or taken on board, or be there with intent to load or take on board, or to land or discharge any goods, wares, and merchandise, provided the said ships and vessels do depart the said harbour within fourteen days after the first day of June, 1774.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all seizures, penalties, and forfeitures, inflicted by this Act, shall be made and prosecuted by any Admiral, Chief Commander, or commissioned officer, of his Majesty's fleet, or ships of war, or by the officers of his Majesty's Customs, or some of them, or by some other person deputed or authorized, by warrant from the Lord High Treasurer, or the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, for the time being, and by no other person whatsoever; and if any such officer, or other person authorized as aforesaid, shall directly or indirectly, take or receive any bribe or reward, or connive at such lading or unlading, or shall make or commence any collusive seizure, information, or agreement, for that purpose, or shall do any other act whatsoever, whereby the goods, wares, or merchandise, prohibited as aforesaid, shall be suffered to pass either inwards or outwards, or whereby the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this Act may be evaded, every such offender shall forfeit the sum of five hundred pounds for every such offence, and shall become incapable of any office or employment, civil or military; and every person who shall give, offer, or promise, any such bribe or reward, or shall contract, agree, or treat with, any person, so authorized as aforesaid, to commit any such offence, shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this Act shall and may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, and be divided, paid, and applied, in like manner, as other penalties and forfeitures inflicted by any Act or Acts of Parliament, relating to the trade or revenues of the British Colonies, or Plantations in America, are directed to be prosecuted, sued for, or recovered, divided, paid and applied, by two several Acts of Parliament, the one passed in the fourth year of his present Majesty, intituled "An Act for granting certain Duties in the British Colonies and Plantations in America; for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an Act, passed in the sixth year of the Reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, An Act for the better securing and encouraging trade of his Majesty's Sugar Colonies in America; for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said Act, towards defraying the expense of defending, protecting, and securing, the said Colonies and Plantations; for explaining an Act made in the twenty-fifth year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An Act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland Trades, and for the better securing the Plantation Trade; and for altering and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this Kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to, and from, the said Colonies and Plantations, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain;" the other passed in the eighth year of his present Majesty's Reign, intituled, "An Act for the more easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by the Acts of Parliament, relating to the trade or revenues of the British Colonies and Plantations in America."

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every charter party bill of loading, and other contract, for consigning, shipping, or carrying any goods, wares, and merchandise, whatsoever, to or from the said town of Boston, or any part of the bay or harbour thereof, described as aforesaid, which have been made or entered into, or which shall be made or entered into, so long as this Act shall remain in full force, relating to any ship which shall arrive at the said town or harbour, after the first day of June, 1774, shall be, and the same an hereby declared to be, utterly void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That whenever it shall be made to appear to his Majesty, in his Privy Council, that peace and obedience to the laws shall be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade of Great Britain may be safely carried on there, and his Majesty's customs duly collected, and his Majesty, in his Privy Council, shall adjudge the same to be true, it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, by Proclamation, or Order of Council, to assign and appoint the extent, bounds and limits, of the port or harbour of Boston, and of every creek or haven within the same, or in the islands within the precinct thereof; and also to assign and appoint such and so many open places, quays, and wharfs, within the said harbour, creeks, havens, and islands, for the landing, discharging, lading, and shipping of goods, as his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, shall judge necessary and expedient; and also to appoint such and so many officers of the Customs therein, as his Majesty shall think fit; after which it shall be lawful for any person or persons to lade or put off from, or to discharge and land upon, such wharfs, quays, and places, so appointed, within the said harbour, and none other, any goods, wares, and merchandise, whatsoever.

Provided always, That if any goods, wares or merchandise, shall be laden or put off from, or discharged or landed upon, any other place than the quays, wharfs, or places, so to be appointed, the same, together with the ships, boats, and other vessels employed therein, and the horses, or other cattle and carriages used to convey the same, and the person or persons concerned or assisting therein, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come, shall suffer all the forfeitures and penalties imposed by this or any other Act on the illegal shipping or landing of goods.

Provided also, And it is hereby declared and enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such port, harbour, creeks, quays, wharfs, places, or officers, in the said town of Boston, or in the said bay or islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty, that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston, to the United Company of merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, for the damages sustained by the said Company, bv the destruction of their goods sent to the said town of Boston, on board certain ships or vessels, as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified to his Majesty, in Council, by the Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, of the said Province, that reasonable satisfaction hath been made to the officers of his Majesty's Revenue and others, who suffered by the riots and insurrections above mentioned, in the months of November and December, in the year 1773, and in the month of January, in the year 1774.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any action or suit shall be commenced, either in Great Britain or America, against any person or persons, for any thing done in pursuance of this Act of Parliament, the defendant or defendants, in such action or suits, may plead the general issue, and give the said Act, and the special matter in evidence, at any trial to be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance and by the authority of this Act; and if it shall appear so to have been done, the jury shall find for the defendant or defendants; and if the plaintiff shall be nonsuited, or discontinue his action, after the defendant or defendants shall have appeared; or if judgment shall be given upon any verdict or demurrer against the plaintiff, the defendant or defendants shall recover treble costs, and have the like remedy for the same as defendents have in other cases by law.

It would pass on the 25th, and help propel the Colonies into war against the United Kingdom. 

Last prior edition:

Thursday, March 17, 1774The Lyme Tea Party

Thursday, March 17, 1774The Lyme Tea Party

Boston 1775: The Lyme Tea Party: Yesterday I suggested that when young people in Lyme, Connecticut , celebrated Independence Day in 1805 by toasting “The Tea Party,” they d...

 

Blog Mirror: This Day in History: Aitken's Bible

 

This Day in History: Aitken's Bible

And also, given a comment, the myth that "most" of the founders were Deists:

The Myth of the Founders' Deism (Chapter One of Did America Have a Christian Founding?

Monday, August 30, 1943. Hornets

CV-12, the second aircraft carrier of World War Two to be named the USS Hornet, was launched.

CV-12 being launched.

CV-8, the USS Hornet that had been in the Doolittle Raid, was sunk in October, 1942.

CV-12 was the eighth U.S. Navy ship to bear that name, the first being a merchant sloop acquired by the infant U.S. Navy in 1775 and captured by the Royal Navy during the Revolution.  A second USS Hornet, also a sloop, was acquired in the Mediterranean during the First Barbary War, but served for only a year.

CV-8 was named in honor of a sloop of war commissioned in 1805.  She's served in the War of 1812, but had been lost due to a material failure at sea in 1829, going down with all hands.

The foundering of CV-8's namesake.

The fourth was a schooner acquired in 1814 that mostly served the Navy by running messages.

The fifth ship to bear that name was a captured and renamed Confederate steam ship.  Its career with the US Navy was brief, and she then went on to a brief career with filibusters, being renamed Cuba.

The Red Army captured Sokolovskym Yelna, and Taganrog.

In his second act of heroism, Lt. Kenneth Walsh, would push his deeds over the top as a Marine Corp aviator and win the Medal of Honor.  His citation reads:

For extraordinary heroism and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty as a pilot in Marine Fighting Squadron 124 in aerial combat against enemy Japanese forces in the Solomon Islands area. Determined to thwart the enemy's attempt to bomb Allied ground forces and shipping at Vella Lavella on 15 August 1943, 1st Lt. Walsh repeatedly dived his plane into an enemy formation outnumbering his own division 6 to 1 and, although his plane was hit numerous times, shot down 2 Japanese dive bombers and 1 fighter. After developing engine trouble on 30 August during a vital escort mission, 1st Lt. Walsh landed his mechanically disabled plane at Munda, quickly replaced it with another, and proceeded to rejoin his flight over Kahili. Separated from his escort group when he encountered approximately 50 Japanese Zeros, he unhesitatingly attacked, striking with relentless fury in his lone battle against a powerful force. He destroyed 4 hostile fighters before cannon shellfire forced him to make a dead-stick landing off Vella Lavella where he was later picked up. His valiant leadership and his daring skill as a flier served as a source of confidence and inspiration to his fellow pilots and reflect the highest credit upon the U.S. Naval Service.

Lt. Walsh had joined the Marine Corps in 1933 and retired in 1962, flying again in action during the Korean War.  He died at age 81 in 1998. 

The Lackawanna Limited wreck occurred when a Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad passenger train, the New York-Buffalo Lackawanna Limited collided with a freight train. Twenty-seven people were killed in the collision, and about twice that number injured, many from steam that poured into the railroad cars.

“Zelenskyy was all rumpled and not wearing a suit, very disrespectful.”

George Washington as Commander of the Continental Army, in the same style of uniform as he wore at the Second Continental Congress in 1775.  Shocking.

Eh?

Did I hear that right?

Are Americans suddenly criticizing the dress of somebody appearing at a public function?

Oh yes, they are, and some are truly verklempt, or appearing to be.  Consider Newsmax's Benny Johnson:

This ungrateful piece of sh*t does not have the decency to wear a suit to the White House -- no respect the country that is funding his survival.

Track suit wearing eastern european con-man mafia.

Our leaders fell for it. They have disgraced us all. What an incredible insult.

Oh my. An American criticizing somebody for how they dress.  It's almost impossible to imagine.

I'm stunned.

I've commented on the decline on the dressing standard here quite a few times.  And I do generally think that appearing in front of Congress, and being at Congress, should require formal dress.  

And not just there, I'd note.

I don't know that I think that required of a man whose living under siege and who is a wartime leader of a country whose capital is within rocket range of what was thought, up until a few months ago, to potentially have the first or second most powerful military on earth.

Indeed, any rational observer of American dress has to know that Americans, generally, dress like slobs.  Quite a few dress like children all the time.  People toddle around in public markets dressed like their mothers just got them up for an early morning trip to the store in their pj's.  People board planes in jammies.  Some men wear knee pants all the time, even during the winter, choosing to affect a dashing infantile presentation in the worst weather.

And more than that, people appear at official functions poorly dressed all the time.

When I was first practicing law, as I noted here before, I didn't really have to tell witnesses how to dress in court.  A while later, however, I'd get asked, and when asked I'd use the Protestant term "Sunday Best", even though I'm not a Protestant, as everyone knew what that meant.  Later, however, I found that was no longer the case and I started to get lucky if people had a clean shirt.

The summer before last I tried a case in Denver in which a downtown Denver jury came in extremely informal clothing.  Shorts, t-shirts, etc.  Only the lawyers, the court staff, and the judge dressed up to the old standard.  A couple of decades ago, this would not have occurred.

Just recently I attended a multiple day contested case hearing in which the lawyers were no longer wearing ties, something that would be a defacto breach of the old official standard that applied to us when we were first practicing.  And I mean the latter.  Ties were part of the official rules for male lawyers up until the time I started practicing, and they basically remain that for courtroom attire.

No, not me, I wore jacket and tie every day.

The panel hearing the matter wore formal clothes, however.  Most of the lawyers, most of the time, did not.  Not that they'd gone full informal, they were still wearing dress shirts and jackets, but no ties.

This is becoming increasingly common.

During the recent January 6 hearings, many of the witnesses fell well below what we would have regarded as the old standard.  Not so low as the rioters, however, who were largely dressed down to the American standard.

I'd include in that dressing down, I'd note, the MAGA trucker's hat.  

I'm not a trucker's cap fan, for the most part, anyhow, with some exceptions.  I will wear real baseball caps from real baseball teams.  Baseball caps, however, are actually not baseball caps, which have longer bills, but an evolution of them that has looked bad from day one.  Thanks to the MAGA cap, now you see guys wearing sports coats and MAGA caps, which looks dumb.

Okay, I suppose we might ask if this is unprecedented?  I truly don't know.

What I can say is that Zelenskyy is a wartime leader. When he was a peacetime leader, he favored dark suits, and was clean-shaven.  Starting with the Russian invasion of his country, and the fighting in his own capital, he began to dress in a quasi military fashion.

He's not the first leader of a democratic country to do that.  I'll omit non-democratic ones, as their leaders affecting military style dress is extremely common.

The best example is Winston Churchill who dressed eclectically frequently.  We like to remember him dressed to the English standard, suit and bowler, but in actuality as he grew older he favored jumpsuits.  In his visits to see FDR he wore them quite frequently, and was photographed by the press wearing them due to their uniqueness.

Churchill, who had started off his professional life as a career British Army officer, but who had official roles with the Admiralty later on, really like to dress in quasi Naval attire, even while Prime Minister, including in official meetings with the heads of foreign states.

Indeed, he truly did.

George Bush, George Bush II, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have all appeared at various times wearing various types of flight jackets, an unmistakenly military item. No, they didn't wear them in Congress, but they wore them.  The two Bush's had both seen military service, as pilots, but President Obama and President Trump never did.

And let's not forget George Washington.

Washington famously appeared in Congress, as a member of the Continental Congress, that assembled to take up the problems with the Mother Country, dressed in the blue uniform of the American Continental militia officers.  

We might regard that as formal wear, but that was the combat uniform of the time.  Our failure to appreciate that is probably due to our inability to read the clothing of the time, but in context, quite frankly, it's shocking.

And it is pretty much what Zalenskyy did earlier this week, save for the fact that he's the besieged president of an embattled country, whereas Washington was implying that maybe the colonies ought to rebel against their established sovereign.

Oh well. The standard is reestablished.  Trumpites, your call is clear.  Off to Brooks Brothers to suit up, literally.

Boston 1775: When and Why Johannes Hofer Wrote about “Nostalgia”

Boston 1775: When and Why Johannes Hofer Wrote about “Nostalgia”: Last month I gave a presentation about the first year of the Continental Army to the interpretive staff at Boston National Historical Park ...

The Military and Alcohol. U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946

Patrons of a bar and grill in Washington D.C. in 1943.  The man on the left is drinking a glass of beer, and it appears the woman is as well.  Also, fwiw, the man on the left is a Technician with a Corporal's grade, which during World War Two was an E3 grade, as opposed to Specialist and Corporals today, which hold an E4 grade.  The man on the right is an officer, so this is frankly likely a posed photograph.  All three people are smoking cigarettes.

Alcohol and the United States Army would make for an interesting small book  in no small part because the United States itself has had a love/hate relationship with alcohol.

Beer can, perhaps, be regarded as the American alcoholic beverage of choice, reflecting both the climate and geography of the nation, as well as the English founding of the country.  While not to put too fine of point on it, the English were armed Germanic immigrants in the 5th Century and some cultural things go way back.  Everywhere north of some line in modern France, if you consider Western Europe, beer is the alcoholic beverage.  South of that, it's wine.  All the Mediterranean people of the ancient world drank wine and in those areas of that region which are not now Islamic, they still do.  North of that line, at some point, they drank beer, although you can easily find beers going back to the ancient Egypt as well, although frankly the Egyptian climate was somewhat different at the time.

In the Medieval world, north of the beer line, beer was a staple.  South of it, wine was.  This isn't necessarily good, but basically the ills associated with any sort of alcohol were lower than those associated with plain water.  I'm not going to go into that, as its a bit more complicated than it might seem, but that's the case.

Before I move on. . . yes, there's hard alcohol and every region of the globe seems to produce some.  Whiskey is a Celtic thing and it goes way back in its own right.  But there are few people and were few people who simply drink hard alcohol routinely in the Western world, and in those regions were it is routinely consumed, it's destructive.  So, with that, we'll move on.

In the early Colonial era there was no big temperance movement of a wide societal basis.  Indeed, one of the oddities of history is that religious denominations that today argue against alcohol and which trace their origin to the Puritans, and not all make that trace, don't reflect back what the Puritans believed at all.  The Puritans were against a lot of things, to be sure, but they were fans of beer (and [marital] sex), so people remember them inaccurately.  But one did start to arise in North America by the mid 1700s in the form of Native American groups who urged it given the devastation that alcohol was causing in their cultures.  Indeed, they'd organized a temperance organization as early as 1737.  Coupled with this the popularity of gin in the early Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom, which was a gross booze which could be manufactured cheaply, caused the movement to come about there as well.  

The early United States, however, was simply awash with alcohol and this, over time, gave force to the temperance movement, and by the mid 19th Century it was growing strong.

Issuing an alcohol ration is a strong military tradition in many armies, but reflecting the unique history of alcohol in the US, the tradition is much weaker in the U.S.  The American Navy, following the tradition of the Royal Navy, issued a Rum Ration, with Rum simply being any available hard alcohol, but in 1862 it abolished it.  In 1914, during the era in which Prohibition was coming on strong, the Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels completely banned alcohol in ships, meaning that the U.S. Navy went into World War One escort duties dry.  

The Army had an alcohol ration very early on.  Starting in 1775 Congress authorized soldiers an alcohol ration, and the ration was whiskey, in part reflecting a disruption of alcohol constituents that had been imported.  The is ration continued until 1832.  There was a separate spirts ration for military surveyors that continued on until the 1840s, but then it was also discontinued.

Since that time I don't know that there's ever been an alcohol ration in any branch of the military.  Indeed, the British discontinued their famous naval rum ration in the 1970s, so its likely disappeared or much less what it was everywhere.  The problem of obtaining clean water isn't what it once was, and its never been as big of problem in North America.  From the 1830s on soldiers could buy beer at post suttlers stores, but they were restricted in the amount they could buy.  I can't recall the restriction, but it was far below the amount you could drink and get drunk, which no doubt was the goal.  Of course, off base you could buy as much of anything as you might wish to, which is partially why saloons were a feature of every location with a frontier post.  Indeed, it was noted in the 19th Century that one of the problems of not having something like an Enlisted Man's Club, such as was later done, is that off post saloons were real dens of vice of all sorts.  Apparently this wasn't enough to motivate a change, but it was noted.  No alcohol ration was provided at any point through Prohibition.

This brings us to World War Two and this interesting item below, by Gary Gillman, a Toronto based beer blogger with an excellent blog entitled Beer, Et Seq.

U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946 (Part I)

U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946 (Part II)

U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946 (Part III)

I frankly don't know what was done beer wise from our point of entering the Second World War up through the end of the Vietnam War.  What is clear is that beer seems to have been provided on at least an ad hoc basis and therefore was a type of ration, even if on a somewhat informal basis.  Cigarettes had become one too, which had not been the case in World War One. The though likely was that you simply couldn't have that many people in uniform and not address such things, least they be addressed by the men themselves, which of course they also did.  Beer seems to have been provided on some basis in the Korean War and the Vietnam War as well, but not since then.  Indeed, recent wars in Islamic countries have been "dry", so to speak.

Anyhow, and interesting look at the US actually undertaking to brew beer during World War Two for servicemen's consumption.

Blog Mirror: Boston 1775: How I Zoomed My Summer Vacation

Boston 1775: How I Zoomed My Summer Vacation: It’s the part of August in New England when the sky is overcast, the air has a chill, and hurricanes sometimes pass by. Back when I was gr...

Cooking Tech. How things have changed in the kitchen over the past two. . . or maybe three, centuries.

We've been taking a look at cooking and stoves here recently, getting back to more of the roots of this blog and its purpose.  

Frankly, we'd been remiss in doing that.  It's one of those areas that we should have explored, and in fact we did a little, but we didn't know, what we didn't know.  Or at least we didn't know it very well.

Back on August 8, 2009 (yes, this blog has been around that long, and actually as there's a prior variant of it, even longer than that), I posted an item here entitled The Speed of Cooking.  I'm resetting it out here:

The Speed of Cooking

I received an unexpected and surprising of how much things have changed even in my own lifetime this week, and in the kitchen at that.

Last week I happened to have to go to Safeway to buy some odds and ends, one of which was breakfast cereal. I'm bad about buying the same kinds again and again, so I decided to add some variety. It's been fall like here, so I decided to go with hot cereals for a change.

But not only did I decide to go with hot cereals, but I bought Cream of the West and Irish Oatmeal. That is, I did not buy instant Cream of Wheat, instant Oatmeal or quick oats.

Cream of the West is like old fashioned Cream of Wheat, except its whole wheat. Frankly, the taste is identical to "regular" Cream of Wheat. Irish Oatmeal, however, is really porridge, and it has to be cooked. It actually has to be cooked and allowed to stand, so it isn't speedy.

Anyhow, my kids have never had "regular" Cream of Wheat. They like "instant" Cream of Wheat, which has an odd texture and taste in my view. Sort of wall paper paste like. Anyhow, my son cooked some Cream of the West the first day I did, with us both using the microwave instructions.

He hated it. He's so acclimated to the pasty instant kind, he finds the cooked kind really bad.

Both kids found the porridge appalling. They're only familiar with instant oatmeal, and they porridge was not met with favor at all. I really liked it. It's a lot more favorable than even cooked oatmeal.

Anyhow, the point of all of this is that all this quick instant stuff is really recent, but we're really used to it. During the school year my wife makes sure the kids have a good breakfast every day, which she gets up and cooks for them. But it never really sank in for me how much our everyday cooking has benefited from "instant" and pre made. Even a thing like pancakes provides an example. My whole life if a person wanted pancakes, they had the benefit of mixes out of a box. More recently, for camping, there's a pre measured deal in a plastic bottle that I use, as you need only add water. A century ago, I suppose, you made the pancakes truly from scratch, which I'll bet hardly anyone does now.

A revolution in the kitchen.

Early posts here, as you can see, tended to be short.

Now, since that time I've also posted a major thread here on the revolution in the home, that became a revolution in the workplace, in the form of the advance of domestic machery;  That thread, which Iv'e linked into numerous others, is here:

Women in the Workplace: It was Maytag that took Rosie the Riveter out of the domestic arena, not World War Two

Post have grown in length, as you can also see.

Anyhow, given all of this, the ways that cooking has changed over what really amounts to a relatively short time frame should have occured to me.  And it sort of did, as I noted in this "Maytag" entry:

Today we have gas and electric stoves everywhere. But up to at least 1920, most people had wood or coal burning stoves for cooking.  They didn't heat the same way.  Cooking with a wood stove is slow.  It takes hours to cook anything with a wood stove, and those who typically cooked with them didn't cook with the same variety, or methods, we do now.  Boiling, the fastest method of food preparation, was popular.  People boiled everything.  Where we'd now roast a roast in the oven, a cook of that era would just as frequently boil it.  People boiled vegetables into oblivion.  My mother, who had learned to cook from her mother, who had learned how to cook in this era, used the boiling into oblivion method of cooking. She hated potatoes for this reason (I love them) but she'd invariable boil them into unrecognizable starch lumps.

Wood burning stove in Denver.  Typical pre 1920 stove.  Heck, typical pre 1930 stove.  Heck, typical pre 1940 stove.

Turn of century advertisement for stove polish.  Cleaning a wood burning stove would be no treat.

Even something as mundane as toast required more effort than it does not.  Toasters are an electric appliance that most homes have now, but they actually replaced a simple device.

 World War Two era propaganda photograph, trying to depict an inattentive woman letting toast burn, and therefore wasting resources.  Note how complicated this electric toaster is.

You'll still occasionally see old fashioned toasters in sheep and cattle camps, and probably elsewhere. They just hold the bread so that the toast can be toasted over a burner.  Pretty simple, and not much of a labor saving device, right? Well, consider the totality of it.  To toast you had to watch the toast, rather than just slip the bread down into the toaster.

For that matter, everything was relatively labor intensive save for boiling and roasting, which is probably why things tended to be boiled or roasted.

 Man cooking in a cow camp for cowboys.  He's using two cast iron dutch ovens (I still use one routinely) to cook over a fire.  This photo first appeared on this blog in 2009 in a very early entry on cooking changes.

Indeed, if you think of all the electric devices in your kitchen today, it's stunning.  Electric or gas stoves, electric blenders and mixers, microwaves, refrigerators.  Go back just a century and none of this would be in the average home.  And with the exception of canned goods, which dated back well into the 19th Century, nothing came in the form of prepared food either.  For that matter, even packaging was different at that time.  If you wanted steak for five, you went to the butcher, probably that day, and got steak for five.  If you wanted ground beef, you went to the butcher and got the quantity you wanted, and so on.

But nonetheless, it didn't really occur to me that the cast iron stoves of early 20th Century, and late 19th, were an innovation in and of themselves, nor did I really think much about what cooking was like before that.

The recent A Hundred Years Ago thread on igniting a coal stove caused me to ponder this and take a look at what that was somewhat like.

Somebody already has, of course, and in this very interesting Internet article:

Foodways in 1910

I just linked this in recently to another post here.  One of the things that's interesting to me about it, in an odd sort of way, is that its on a website that's sponsored by a woodburning cookstove manufacturer.  Frankly, looking into this pretty much convinces me that I want nothing to do with wood, or coal, burning stoves, but anyway.

It did not occur to me, as part of that cast iron stoves of all types are really a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution.  But of course, they'd have to be.  It's not like average people are going to cast their own stoves.  So how far back do they really go. Well, that article gives us a pretty good look at that, noting:.

Most American homes did not have stoves until well into the 19th century, so cooking was done in an open hearth, using heavy iron pots and pans suspended from iron hooks and bars or placed on three-legged trivets to lift them above the fires. Pots and pans were made mostly of heavy cast iron. Along with long-handled spatulas and spoons, most kitchens featured long-handled gridirons to broil meat and toasting forks to hold slices of bread.

Though some women used Dutch ovens and some had clay ovens built outside, until after the Civil War when stoves with ovens became more common, people ate pancakes more often than bread. Because bread was hard to bake at home, most towns had bakeries. Bread was often the only prepared food that could be bought in town

That's a different type of cooking entirely.

And a different style of eating, for that matter.

Or, for those who use a cast iron frying pan alot, maybe not.

Well, anyhow. . .

Because it isn't all that long ago, it's one that we know a fair amount about, historically, even if we don't think about it much.   And due to reenactors of one kind or another, and historical sites that are accurate, we also can observe ir or even experience it if we wish to.  And thanks to the excellent Townsends series of vlogs about the late 1700s in North America, we can view the topic if we wish to.  Indeed, they've done a comparison and contrast edition of Colonial v. Modern kitchens, which is well worth looking at:

The part of this that's the real shocker, in my view, is the heath.  I.e., fires on bricks right in a house.

It's another one of those things I never would have thought of.

The video mentions smoke, which must have been a constant feature of life before modern stoves.  I've already mentioned the smoke from wood and coal burning stoves, but smoke from a hearth would be right in the house.    Life must have been. . . smokey.

And more than a little dangerous.

Before we move on, on that, we'll have to note cast iron here.  I love cast iron and indeed one of the additional "pages" on this blog is devoted to it.

Cast iron has been around for a long time, of course, but I frankly don't really know how long.  I can find references to it in Asia going way, way back.  At least 2,000 years.  It shows up for the first time in English in 679, but that use didn't refer to a cooking vessel, but a vessel of another type.  By 1170, however, it was showing up in references to cooking vessels.  The Dutch Oven was actually patented in 1708, later than I would have thought, however. At any rate, they've been around for awhile, and in their modern form are highly associated with sand casting, something that was coming in during the 17th Century.

There was obviously cooking in vessels before cast iron, but as this isn't the complete history of cooking from antiquity until the present day.  For the history we're concerned with, cast iron was undoubtedly the default cookware.  Indeed, it's well worth noting that Dutch Ovens were one of the most popular trade items with Indian tribes.  People think of guns, but cast iron was really valuable and rapidly became the Indian cookware of choice once it was available.

Anyhow, the important thing here is up until the Industrial Revolution really took hold, people cooked with fire in ovens and on hearths.  The fuel source was, according to the Townsends, whom I trust to get it right, wood or sometimes charcoal.  That would impact the type of cooking you'd do, of course, but perhaps not quite as much as I imagined as cooking over wood or charcoal does leave you a lot of options.

Cast iron stoves seem to have come in during the 1830s, as industry began to really change the average American's daily life.  It would be a mistake to think, however, that everyone had them overnight. They were expensive and, frankly, wouldn't have fit the way the average person's house had been built at the time.  Still, they may have come in pretty rapidly.  Just imagine what a revolution in cooking and simply life they meant.  No more building fires on the floor, for one thing, and that's a pretty big thing.  A fire that was more reliable, contained, and safe is another.

By 1900 coal was the main fuel for stoves and every family had one.  That was a big change over a period of time of less than a century.  By 1930, however, gas was replacing coal as the fuel for stoves, and no wonder.  It was cleaner and it didn't involve the constant endless cleaning that a coal stove did.  And for the first time some sort of heavy smoke didn't have to be contended with.

It's really gas stoves that brought in modern cooking.  Gas sped up cooking, for one thing, and it sped up the decision making process for meals as well.  Without  having to bank the stove and build the fire, and all of that, cooking, which had been an all day process was reduced down to one that was much less time consuming.  Electric stoves, which started to come in about the same time, accomplished the same thing.  Still, during the 1940s 1/3 of Americans still cooked with coal or wood, probably a partial effect of the Great Depression which slowed the introduction of new technology.  

Now, of course, hardly anyone does.