Hamelton the rivality that forged a nation. Several of his books have been selections of the history book club, and the book of the month club and almost a miracle of the american victory and the war of independence was an awardwinning book as well. He had a 40year teaching career at the university of west georgia in carrollton before retiring in 2004 to focus more on writing books which is why hes been very prolific over the past few years. You can learn more about him and his books by visiting johnferling. Com can. Please join me in welcoming john ferling to the atlanta history center. [applause] thank you kate, and thank you for coming out this evening on this gorgeous atlanta spring night. Coming inside, actually, on this night to hear me talk. I want to talk tonight about my new book, whirlwind, and let me tell you first ors how i happened to first, how i happened to come up with the title, whirlwind. I used the i chose the title because it was a word that was used by both Abigail Adams and john adams to describe the events that were swirling around them during the revolution. In the fall of 1775 first year of the war, during the siege of boston camp diseases spread from the armies around boston out to the communities outside of boston including braintree where abigail was living and caused an ap demick an epidemic, lots of civilian casualties. Abigail lost her mother, and she lost a family servant that had been with her for many years. And in despair she wrote to her husband john who was down in philadelphia with the Continental Congress and said was unleashing this whirlwind really worth it . And about six months later in the last battles in congress over whether or not to declare independence john adams wrote back to abigail, and he said it requires a great deal of courage and fortitude to ride in this whirl wind. So whirlwind. So it seemed to me asboth john and abigail thought of the American Revolution and everything that was going on around them as a whirl wind that might be a good title for the book. So thats what i chose whirlwind the American Revolution and the war that won it. When john adams was an old man he wrote to Thomas Jefferson who was an old man and adams said in his letter, who shall write the history of the American Revolution . Who shall ever be able to write it . And jefferson responded to adams by saying nobody except maybe in its external facts. So its quite a challenge to write a book on the American Revolution of john adams and if john adams and Thomas Jefferson didnt think anybody could write a book on it. [laughter] but, in fact i think they put their finger on the problem that faces all historians. We werent there when the events took place. Not all of the documents have survived. We cant talk to people who were active in the American Revolution. But nevertheless, a great deal of material has survived from the revolution; the papers of most of the founders, there are newspapers, some of the participants were interviewed by newspapermen in the aftermath of the revolution. So theres a lot of documentation. And while we, like any historian writing about any event there probably are going to be some gaps. I think we make a pretty good stab at the American Revolution. Let me begin by saying that no one expected the American Revolution to occur. Officials in london didnt expect it, and the colonists didnt expect it. In 1763, what we think of as the french and indian war, came to an end. Great britain was victorious. It defeated france it defeated spain, it won control of the continent all the way out to the mississippi river. It was a glorious victory by britain. And i think many people in colonial america in 1763 probably felt like a minister in boston who wrote that he looked forward to an era of our quiet enjoyment of our liberties til time shall be no more. So no one expected revolution in 1763. And about a decade later as late as 1772 no one seemed to expect a revolution either. Samuel adams reputation had plummeted by 1772. He was having a difficult time getting elected to any position in boston or finding anyone who would listen to him. Thomas hutchinson the last royal governor of massachusetts wrote back to london in 1772 and said samuel adams is finished. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, lord north was steering a course to avoid trouble with america. He didnt really have a solution to the problems except not doing anything that would stir up trouble. And he had succeeded since he came to power early in 1770 in not stirring trouble. So he didnt expect anything to happen. In 1772 joseph galloways Political Party a very conservative party that had dominated pennsylvania politics for a long time, had was still in control. George washington was investing in all kinds of business opportunities. Not the sort of thing that one might be inclined to do if they thought a war was only a couple of years away. And Benjamin Franklin was living in london and trying his best to stay in london and perhaps getting a position in the British Government. But tax these looks are deceiving sometimes, and in 1772 where people thought there was not going to be any revolution, we know that they were on the cusp of a revolution. Things really got started in the mid 1760s when the British Government adopted a set of new colonial policies, policies that involved two things. One involved taxation by parliament of the american colonists for the first time. These were taxes raised to support a british army that for the first time had been left in america during peacetime. I dont think the colonists objected to taxes so much. They wanted to open the west. They were probably willing to be taxed by their own rulers to get the money to do what was necessary to open the west, but they didnt Want Parliament where they were not represented to raise taxes. And secondly, the british began to regulate or attempted to regulate colonial trade. Actually british laws regulating american trade have been on the books for about a hundred years but had seldom been enforced, in part because the british didnt have the bureaucracy to enforce the trade laws, but also because britain was at war so much of the time, and they needed the colonists help in those wars that they thought it was inexpedient to try to regulate those laws. As early as the early 1740s they began considering regulating the laws. This was when Robert Walpol was the Prime Minister. But walpol shied away from it. And, in fact he made the remark i will leave it for some successor who may have more courage than i have and is less a friend of commerce than i am to attempt it. And sooner or later, that successor came along, and that successor was, in fact, George Grindle who became the head of the British Ministry in 1764. Grindle was regarded as a financial genius; good with coping with details. And, in fact, as one observer put it at time, he will do can very well he will do very well facing the economic problems that england faces unless he thrusts his hand into some fire. And the fire that grindle thrust his hand into i think was taxation. And even more so in my estimation trade regulation. And the result was with the stamp act in 1765 the protest in the colonies began. And the protest included pamphlets attacking parliamentary taxation, resolves that were passed by colonial assemblies boycotts by the colonies and riots in the streets in most of the major American Cities. Some people, some intuitive people like john adams i think understood that something really important was happening. Many years later looking back on the stamp act, john adams said, the child, independence was born in 1765. But he at that point was looking back from many years down the road when he knew that independence had, in fact, occurred. But even more telling i think in 1765 in his diary adams proved to be a pretty good judge of things, and he noted in his diary, people even to the lowest ranks are more attentive to their liberties or inquisitive about them, more determined to defend them. So adams realized that something crucial was going on with the stamp act and the american protest against it. Well with independence in was independence inevitable . I dont think it was and i think that there were possibly four instances when, four ways in which independence might have been prevented by Great Britain. Let me mention two of them now and then ill come back to the others in other contexts later on. Granvilles ministry had fallen and the key figure in the ministry by late 1765 when word of the stamp act protests reached london was the duke of cumberland. He was the child of george ii, but he wasnt the eldest son. The eldest son became george iii who would be the british monarch during the revolution. The duke of cumberland instead became a military man. And back in the 1740s, he had crushed a scottish rebellion and crushed it with such ruthlessness that he was called the butcher by his contemporaries. And the word was that the duke of cumberland had wished to resort to force to suppress the american insurgency in 1765 and 1766. And he may just have been able to carry the ministry with him in that regard. But on the day that the ministry was to meet to take up the issue of how to respond to the americans, the duke of cumberland who was only in his mid 40s dropped dead of a heart attack. And with the duke of cumberland out of the way people began others began to rethink things, and the idea of using force was not chosen. But i think if the british had used force in 1765 or 1766, they might have suppressed the colonial protests. And the American Revolution might not have occurred at all or if it did, it would have occurred with some subsequent generation. The colonists, i think were disunited. They people from one colony did not know colonists from other colonies. They looked to Great Britain rather than to other colonies. And so i think the idea of the colonies being able to mount any kind of resistance to British Force was almost unthinkable in 1765 or 66. We dont know what would have happened because it didnt work out that way. But i think had force been used then the revolution and independence might have been avoided. Soon there were other voices calling for other options, and one of the voices was that of william pitt, the in effect, the Winston Churchill of Great Britain in the late 18th century, the great hero of the seven years war what we think of as the french and indian war. And william pitt and his follower edmund burke had the same idea. Their idea was to bind america to england through trade. About 40 of all British Imports came from america about 40 of all british exports went to the colonies in america and both burke and pitt felt that simply by maintaining trade britain could get all of the revenue that it needed independence would never be, would never come up again in the colonies. So that was their option rather than using force. And i think had they, had they been listened to, they were always in the Minority Party many parliament. Had they been listened to and had britain chosen that course rather than additional taxation, i think independence might never have come about. The british didnt listen, they did repeal the stamp act but they followed it with something called the declare story act in which parliament declared that it did have the right not only to tax the colonies, but to make laws in all cases whatsoever for america. And this put the two on a collision course because the british would never change their policies from this point forward down to and beyond 1776. But even though the stamp act had been repealed, even though this crisis passed, colonists learned some important lessons from what had happened. Those who oppose the stamp act flourished. Samuel adams remember, whose career a few years later some people thought was over, really got his start through the stamp act. And he got elected to the Massachusetts Assembly and to an important position in the Massachusetts Assembly. And james otis, who like samuel adams had resisted and protested against the stamp act rose in the Massachusetts Assembly to become the speaker of the assembly. Even more dramatically perhaps was Patrick Henry in virginia. Henry had only been elected to the Virginia House of burgesses, the Virginia Assembly, a couple of weeks before in april of 1765 and almost immediately after taking his seat, henry proposed a series of resolutions denouncing the stamp act. And henry was catapulted from a newcomer to a leader in the house of burgesses. He thrived and other politicians noticed that, that he was thriving, because of his op is decision to the opposition to the stamp act. One who did note that henry had flourished was Richard Henry lee. Richard henry lee had said in the house had sat in the house of burgesses for about eight years always trying to get ahead and never rising in the house of burgesses. He was so desperate so ambitious, is so desperate to rise that when word of the stamp act reached virginia, Richard Henry lee applied to become the stamp collector in virginia. He didnt get that position, fortunately for him. The man who got the position was round of virginia was run out of virginia. But Richard Henry lee watched what had happened to Patrick Henry, he saw that henry had risen, and all of a sudden Richard Henry lee became a foe of the stamp act. And, in fact he vilified the man who became the stamp collector, the position he wanted saying that that individual had sought to fasten the chains of slavery on my country. In pennsylvania Jost Galloway Joseph galeway was swept from galloway was swept from power. Galloway had been the most important political figure along with Benjamin Franklin in pennsylvania for about 15 years. In fact, galloway and franklin cobbled together a Political Party that they called the Assembly Party and it dominated the legislature in pennsylvania for 15 years with galloway being the speaker of house during all of that time. But galloway supported the stamp act, and for the first time, his Assembly Party lost control of the Pennsylvania Legislature and galloway was chased out as the speaker of the house. In massachusetts 19 assemblymen who supported the stamp act were voted out of office. So politicians were pretty much the same in 1765 as they are today. They noticed what was going on, and many concluded that perhaps the prudent thing perhaps the thing that would advance ones career was to oppose british policy, not to support parliamentary policy. Colonists learned Something Else in the course of the stamp act. Colonists learned that their fellow americans from other colonies in many cases felt the same way that they did. Those in massachusetts who opposed the stamp act discovered that there were virginians who opposed the stamp act and south carolinians and pennsylvanians who opposed the stamp act and thought pretty much as they did. So its the first step, only a childs step. Remember john adams comment that child independence was born but they did take a childs step toward unity. They also learned that there were people in london like pitt and like burke that we saw earlier that they began to call americas friends people who opposed parliamentary policy. And from this point on, they tried to court those individuals in england. In fact, there is even a couple of lines in the declaration of independence later on that appeals still even at that point to those american friends. And the colonists learned Something Else in the stamp act crisis. They learned that Great Britain had backed down. They may have passed the declaratory act, but Great Britain had repealed the stamp act. So protests could gain something. But the british followed the repeal of the stamp act with other taxes. And i think this is the second great mistake that the british made after launching their new colonial policy in the first place. The policies now will drag on and on from 1765 when the stamp act is passed all the way down to the beginning of the war in 775 1775, a decade later. Its a very long time. And during that long period of time when the townsend acts are passed and the tea act is passed and britain sends an army to boston in 1768 to enforce its policies and it for the first time in history dissolves the new York Assembly and wouldnt let it meet because it refused to comply with the parliamentary act and the boston massacre almost inevitably followed in 1770 with that british army in boston. So its a series of crises, a series of things happening. Drip drip, drip year after year. And during each of these crises i think, the colonist as john adams said back in 1765 are thinking about their liberties. Theyre reflecting on their position within the british empire. And some, i think are beginning to think that maybe they would be better off outside of the british