Tell King George, Charles We’ll Pay No Taxes!
Rally, Mohawks! Bring your axes,
And tell King George we’ll pay no taxes!
A few years ago, as I was driving through Ipswich, Massachusetts, I saw one of those historical markers that so abound in the northeast and, having an interest in the town, I naturally stopped to read it. Placed a few years ago near the Choate Bridge, the sign read:
“23 August 1689. Citizens of Ipswich led by Rev. John Wise denounced the levy of taxes by the arbitrary government of Sir Edmund Andros and from their protest sprung the American Revolution of 1689.”
The sign appeared to explain the town’s advertising billing itself as “The birthplace of the American Revolution,” but surely there was a mistake. For, as we all know, no event of particular importance took place in Ipswich during the Revolutionary War.
Lexington has a firm claim on the first shot fired in the Revolution, thanks to H. W. Longfellow; and Salem may well have a claim to first blood. Boston has the committees of correspondence, John Hancock, the Adamses, the tea party, and a score of events leading to and through the revolution. And so does Philadelphia, Trenton, Yorktown, New York, Brooklyn, Valley Forge, and a list of places long enough to fill a good-sized book. But, Ipswich? What could Ipswich possibly claim in connection to the revolution other than the participation of her militiamen from the march of 19 April 1775 onwards?
Then, as I was pondering the place names and events, the date struck me. The American Revolution, we all know, has sufficient precedents going back to the French and Indian War: the protests over the Stamp Act; Benjamin Franklin passing the contents of Governor Hutchinson’s letters to Sam Adams and he, doing what he did best, publishing them and raising a raucous over their content; Joyce Jr. escapades, etc. However, the sign was pretty clear. There could be no mistake. Twice it mentions 1689 as the date of occurrence of an “American Revolution.” That was the time of Governor Andros, not Hutchinson; the time just a few years before the Salem witch trials, long before most of our revolutionary patriots were even born; and yet, it sounded eerily familiar. The issue at hand, just as it would be eighty years later, was taxes levied without consent of the taxed.
I was soon to learn that, indeed, the events in Ipswich played an important part in a continuous struggle over the attainment and preservation of the same liberties that Jefferson so aptly described in the Declaration of Independence. And that this struggle started in East Anglia in the late 16th Century and led, inexorably, to American independence.
Every schoolboy in the country knows that our ancestors left England in fear of persecution and came to America in search of religious freedom. While that may have been true for some isolated individuals, I dare say that every schoolboy in America is wrong.
While earlier settlements, starting in the first years of the 17th Century had been going on, particularly in Virginia and what is now North Carolina, it is the arrival of the Pilgrims and the Puritans that is more often associated with the settling of America. Never mind that, by 1620, the Pilgrims were coming to an existing colony on the Chesapeake Bay (or, perhaps, New York), and only due to a storm, some poor navigation and an impending lack of beer did they land on Plymouth Bay. Never mind that their reason for leaving Leyden had nothing to do with any search for religious freedom, but because: “Of all sorrows most heavily to be borne, was that many of the children…were drawn by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses, getting the reign off their necks and departing from their parents.” In other words, the kids were having a ball in Holland, which many attractions lead many into temptation to this very day, were growing too independent, and did not think that father knew best. If the Pilgrims were in New York today they would probably volunteer to be the first settlers in Mars, or some such other destination, freedom from religious persecution notwithstanding! And, lest we forget, never mind that the first Puritans arrived in 1630, a full 24 years after the establishment of Jamestown, to an existing colony in Massachusetts where John Endicott had already been elected Governor and was preparing to bid them welcome.
However, it is also a fact the Massachusetts Bay Company would bring tens of thousands of new immigrants into a rapidly expanding population in what was the greatest mass migration over the Atlantic until the 19th century, followed by the greatest in-grown demographic explosion ever recorded. The sheer numbers and industry of the northern settlers soon obscured the earlier settlements to the point that we associate their arrival with the beginnings of colonization in English America.
What possessed these many people to cross the Atlantic? Why would they live the safety of familiar places and venture over a perilous journey to an unknown land?
A case could be made that some fled persecution. However, contrary to present-day fairytales, religious persecution was not generally visited upon the general public. Some dissenting ministers, in particular, were removed from their parishes and forfeited their revenues if their preaching did not conform to the church’s policy. In other words, the state was simply not willing to provide for the sustenance of dissenting clergy and, these ministers being apparently unable to engage in any other trade; they were left with migration or starvation as their sole remaining options. But in 1642, the New Model Army ended the reign of Charles I. A Puritan Parliament placed a Puritan leader, Oliver Cromwell, as Lord Protector of the realm, proceeded to cut-off the deposed king’s head, and sent every opposing faction into hiding or exile. And yet, the Puritans kept on coming to Massachusetts. Thus were are led to believe, as it were, that our ancestors successfully waged a civil war, destroyed the established polity, engaged in regicide and the bloody persecution of every opponent, and then merrily jumped on ships to brave the crossing of the Atlantic fearing persecution from themselves. I think not.
I fancy that their motives laid elsewhere and, paraphrasing JFK, that what caused them to embark in their perilous journey was not what England was doing to them, but what they could not do to England. Brownists, Independentists and nonconformists of every color, our ancestors were disgusted with the way things had turned out in England and were determined to start from scratch building a “New” England at home or, for that matter, anywhere else. Their talk of universal voting rights extending to every freeman in the kingdom and of the illegitimacy of any taxes levied without representation of the taxed. Their notion of the common property of grazing lands and of government by elected representatives of the freemen. Their radical ideas about the separation of Church and State and the independence of local parishes led by pastors answerable only to the flock were surely as alien and sounded just as dangerous to Cromwell as they had to Charles I.
Most of the Puritans were yeomen, and most came from East Anglia. They were but one generation removed from serfdom and, after having acquired a measure of property and liberty, both physical and spiritual, during the Reformation, they were seeing their rights disappear due to Charles I’s extreme views on Royal Prerogative. The extravagance of the king’s court and his imposition of taxes without Parliament’s authority led to sometimes-violent reactions from all classes. Large and small freeholders were victims of illegal taxation imposed on their holdings, and the small ones could well see their return to life as tenants of the nobility or landed gentry. As there was no distinction between Church and State, conformist priests were busy preaching resignation, while non-conformist priests were busy condemning covertly and overtly the King’s policies. A spirit of opposition, then, to the Established Church began to take shape. Nowhere in England was this spirit of hostility to the Established Church more prevalent than in East Anglia, and the region became an early nursery of dissenters and a consistent supporter of clandestine congregations.
And so came our ancestors to America: a land without the pervasive “corruption” that so alarmed the Pilgrims and other Puritans. In America they would establish a “New” England, and build their Church into a “New Jerusalem.” They started without delay: as soon as they landed, the Pilgrims established their own Compact, constituting themselves into a “civil body politick” without so much as a courtesy reference to the King’s sovereignty beyond the requisite salutation. And further went the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay, establishing the first democratic system of government in the Americas: “Our civil Government is mixt: the freemen choose the magistrate every year…and at four courts in the year 3 out of each town (there being eight in all) do assist the magistrates in making laws, imposing taxes, and disposing of lands: our Juries are chosen by the freemen of everye town. Our Churches are governed by Pastors, Teachers, ruling Elders and Deacons, yet the power lyes in the whole Congregation and not in the Presbytery further than for order and precedence.”
In the process, they set some precedents that to this day make the fabric of our nation and that help define the American concept of Liberty: “…the other kind of liberty I call civil or federal (sic). This liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just and honest. This liberty you are to stand for with the hazard (not only of your good but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof.”
And defend it they did. From that moment on, the story of the Puritans in America is one of a permanent tug-of-war between Royal Prerogative and the colony’s freedoms. While nominally under the King’s jurisdiction, they in fact thumbed their noses at any attempt to impose royal authority this side of the Atlantic, and the example spread:
- In 1631, barely one year after the landing of the Winthrop fleet, Watertown refused to pay their part in a tax assessed to build a palisade inland from the Charles River, because they were not represented in the body that imposed the tax.
- In 1653, New Amsterdam refused to pay taxes arbitrarily levied by Stuyvesant, the Dutch Governor.
- In 1667, after the English took possession of the Dutch colonies, Governor Lovelace imposed a tax for the common defense. Eight villages remonstrated. Southold, Southampton and Easthampton consented, provided that they have the privileges of New England towns. Huntington replied: “we do not have the rights of Englishmen.” Jamaica declared it a “disenfranchisement, contrary to the laws of the English Nation.”
- In 1676, in Virginia, conflict between the prerogative and popular rights lead to the Great Rebellion led by Nathaniel Bacon. English troops (regulars) were introduced to quell the rebellion, and twenty-two people were hanged.
- In 1678, Massachusetts denied the authority of Parliament, they “not being represented in Parliament.”
- Between 1678 and 1680, the Quakers in Western New Jersey refused to pay taxes enacted by the Duke of York on vessels ascending the Delaware, because “by this we are assessed without law and excluded from our right of consent to taxes.”
- In 1684, in Exeter, NH, after the council ordered a tax, the farmers drove off the Sheriff with clubs while their wives stood by with buckets of scalding water to prevent any attachment of property. And at Hampton, the Sheriff was beaten, his sword stolen, and he was then seated on a horse with a rope around his head and driven out of town. Live Free or Die!
It is then with plenty of precedent that we arrive at the end of the 17th Century. Governor Leverett, a former captain of Horse under Cromwell, had an ill-disguised dislike of royalty, and he seems to have represented the feelings of the colony well.
The sturdy independence of Massachusetts was taking shape and as ships were built, goods were sent to many foreign ports, and the navigation laws routinely ignored. In 1666, the General Court simply “neglected” to reply to a letter from the King. It should come as no surprise, then, that King and court would equally resent their unruly subjects across the Atlantic, and that they should favor policies with the purpose of undermining their independence. A perfect occasion presented itself in the form of the claim of Sir Ferdinando Gorges’ to Maine. This claim was based on a charter granted to his grandfather of the same name in 1639. The elder Ferdinando had sponsored some settlements there, but Massachusetts annexed these between 1652 and 1658 by the settlements’ choice. In 1675, the Attorney general of England determined that Gorges had a good title to the Province and also confirmed another claim of Robert Mason’s to New Hampshire. Thus, on 10 June 1676, Edward Randolph, a special envoy from the King, arrived in Massachusetts with a letter from Charles II acquainting the magistrates of Massachusetts of the claims of Gorges and Mason. The fact that Randolph was a relative of Robert Mason must have sent a clear message to the colony. The letter listed the “wrongs and usurpations” of Massachusetts, and demanded that agents be sent over to answer the charges.
Randolph was not too well received by some. In a report he published of his two months of observations in New England, he wrote: “Among the Magistrates some are good men and well affected to his Majesty, and would be well satisfied to have his Majesty’s authority in a better manner established; but the major part are of different principles, having been in the government from the time they established themselves into a Commonwealth.” He particularly disliked Gov. Leverett, Deputy Gov. Symonds, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Tyng, Major Clarke and Major Hathorne, as sturdy and uncompromising colonials, too inclined to be advocates of liberty and independence (!).
Agents were sent to England, but it was not easy to allay Charles II’s displeasure. For good measure, he ordered that an oath of allegiance to the King be taken at once and, to ensure that the Navigation Laws were observed, he appointed Randolph himself as Collector of the Port of Boston. However, in a pattern that would become familiar, Randolph’s efforts to enforce the tax met with resistance and no small measure of personal abuse. He wrote to the King of the disloyal sentiments prevalent in Massachusetts, recommended a writ of quo warranto against the Charter, and left for England within two years of his arrival. Once in England, he bitterly attacked the colonists, reiterated his advice against the Charter and expressed his view that a Governor General ought to be appointed by the King. He then returned to Boston with enlarged powers, bringing a letter from the King upbraiding the colonists for their “many misdeeds.” In this letter, Charles II recalled the independent spirit manifest in the Colony from its beginnings and blamed them, among other things, for the shelter afforded the regicide judges, their evasion of the Navigation Laws and, quite naturally, of hindering his own efforts. He then declared his intention to annul the Charter. The tone and explicit threat contained in the letter alarmed the colonists into sending representatives to England to plead their case. The General Court chose Joseph Dudley and John Richards to be such agents. The laws were revised, naval officers were appointed and the promise was made that, this time, the Navigation Laws would be enforced, cross my heart and hope to die. The agents were also instructed to expose the injustice of the claims of Mason and Gorges but, in spite of the general humble tone of the instructions, the agents were instructed to consent to nothing that would infringe upon the liberties and privileges granted by the Charter.
Meanwhile, Mason had presented a letter to the General Court, and the Court then ordained that a copy be sent to the magistrates Essex County, and that all landholders there convene at Ipswich or Newbury as soon as possible. The meeting took place in Ipswich on the second Wednesday in February, 1680/81. Not surprisingly, the landholders declared that they had held their lands for fifty years, and had lately defended it against the Indians at the cost of twelve lives and several hundred pounds. They also pointed out that Robert Mason had never spent a penny, and pleaded that the claim be vented in a Massachusetts court and not in England. Perhaps more interestingly, the “Inhabitants of Glocester, alias Cape Ann, and other places adjacent,” presented a letter to the General Court where they claimed rightful title to their lands upon grant of the General Court, under the Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and their purchase from the natives. There were signers from Gloucester, Rowley, Newbury, Ipswich and other towns.
The matter was no joke. Should Mason’s claim be accepted, every man’s title to his land would be in question and they all would be at the mercy of a new landlord, paying rent for the field they and their fathers had cleared and for the houses they had built and defended at great cost. At this point, Thomas Lovell, one of the Selectmen, had a personal meeting with Mason after which he recommended that Mason’s demands be recognized. There was an immediate call to a Town Meeting, from the records of which we read that: “The town generally voted to lay the sd. Thomas Lovell asyd & exclud him from being a Selectman and Capt. John Appleton was chosen to be a Selectman his room for the rest of the year.” Given the feelings of the town, it should then come as no surprise that while there are some records that preparations were made to present the claims of Mason to a County Court in Essex Co., no positive record exists that the case was ever called for trial.
At the same time, in Boston, Randolph was drawing Articles of high Misdemeanor against “Thomas Danforth, Daniel Gookin, Mr. Saltonstsall, Samuel Novell, Mr. Richards, Mr. Davy, Mr. Gidney, Mr. Appleton, magistrates, and against John Fisher,” and fourteen other deputies. The charges were “to refuse to admit the royal letters patent erecting the office of elector, refusal to repeal laws contrary to the laws of England, continuing to coin money,” etc. In this case, Randolph specified eight magistrates, including the Deputy Governor and fifteen deputies, as “factious and seditious.”
Finally, a decree of the Court of Chancery dated 21 June 1864 ended the arguments by vacating the Charter of Massachusetts. The institutions of the colony, civil and religious, erected upon that Charter, were no more. As far as English law was concerned, the whole of those territories were what they had been before James I’s grant to Roswell and his associates: a property of the king of England by virtue of its discovery by the Cabots.
When news reached the colony, the General Court decreed the 12th of March as a day of solemn humiliation, and a request was sent for the towns to express their minds as to giving up the Charter. The record of the meeting in Ipswich speaks for itself:
“1685: Feb. 11th … It was also voted that all those that are desirous to retaine the privileges granted in the Charter & confermed by his Royall Majesty now reigning should manifest the same by holding up their hands, which vote was unanimous in the affirmative. None when tried appeared in the Negative.” Other towns voted along the same lines.
In 1664, an appeal to arms had been proposed when the Charter seemed endangered, but the Colonies were not now in good shape. The King Phillip’s war had left a depleted treasury and fresh memories of loss. And the colonists could expect no help from England, where the Constitutional party was on the run and Charles II was submitting the towns to his pleasure. They then took a different course of action and voted upon sending the king “an humble petition” to secure an abatement of some of his measures. Charles II died before reaching any decision on the fate of the Colonies. He was succeeded on 6 February 1684/5 by his brother, James II. James II’s accession to the throne was greeted less warmly then the demise of Charles I, but in a far less somber mood than the Restoration. On 24 July, a new petition was adopted, where the colonists implored pardon for their faults and a “gracious continuance of their liberties according to the Charter.” James II was as accommodating as his brother Charles II had been and, nothing being thereby accomplished, the General court was dissolved and members were appointed to the Council of Eighteen that replaced it. Gov. Simon Bradstreet, Nathaniel Saltonstall and Dudley Bradstreet declined membership in the new body. There was soon evidence of popular discontent. The charges vary from “refusing to observe the publique fast appointed by the President of the Councill” to “speaking treasonable words.” Topsfield, Rowley and Ipswich were soon recognized as hostile to the new government, as they went from non-observance of fast days, to refusing to pay taxes, in the levying of which they had no voice.
On December 12th, 1686, arrived in Boston the new appointed governor, Sir Edmund Andros, landing with a detachment of 60 redcoats to ensure his safety. Almost immediately, he ordered a tax of a penny on a pound, to afford a revenue. In March, the council abrogated the old method by which the towns had decided the local rates on taxes levied by the General Court. The reaction was what we must by now expect from our forebears. In Taunton, the Town Clerk was bound to answer for a “scandalous, factious and seditious writeing” sent from the town to the Treasurer in answer to the tax warrant. Justice Thomas Leonard was suspended for being present and not preventing the actions of the Town meeting, and the Constables were bound over for not obeying the Treasurer’s warrant. In Ipswich, the Town meeting took place on 23 August 1687. However, the night before there was a meeting of the Selectmen and other leading citizens in the house of John Appleton, Jr., the Town Clerk, where they discussed what action to take at the town meeting the following day. Present were the Selectmen, Lieut. John Andrews, Moderator, Lieut. Thomas Burnam, Mr. John Whipple, Quart. Thomas Kinsman, Serg. Thomas Harte, Mr. John Appleton, Jr. and Nathaniel Treadwell; Rev. William Hubbard, Pastor of Ipswich church and Rev. John Wise, Pastor of the church at Chebacco (now Essex); Constable Thomas French, Nehemiah Jewett, William Goodhue, Jr., William Howlett, Simon Stace and some fourteen others. After Constable French read the warrant, they all agreed that this “warrant-act” for raising a revenue, abridged their rights as Englishmen, and “did Discourse & Conclude yt it was not ye town’s Dutie any wayes to Assist yt ill Methode of Raising mony wtout a Generall Assembly, wch was apparently intended by above said Sr Edmund Andros & his Councill.”
Needless to say, the next day the town meeting was held and, after much discourse against the warrant, the town refused to choose a commissioner. To add insult to injury, delegates from Ipswich were sent to meetings in neighboring towns to promote opposition to the act. This last action seems to have been the most obnoxious to the Council when formal proceedings began against the refractory towns. Warrants of arrest were issued against the Constable, Moderator and Clerk of Ipswich, though not against the other “Disaffected & evil Desposed persons within ye sd town as yet unknown who … met and assembled together att Ipswich aforesaid Did in a most factious & Seditious & Contemptuous manner then & there vote & agree that they were not willing nor would Choose a Commissioner as by a Warrant from Jno. Usher Esq. His Majesties Treasurer…the sd Jno. Appleton as Clerk of ye said Town put into writing and published Contrary to and in high Contempt of his majesties Laws & Government here established…” The following day, a warrant for the arrest of Rev. John Wise and of William Howlett was issued because they “Did particularly Excite and Stir up his Majesties Subjects to Refractoryness and Disobedience.”
The special grievance against Ipswich was not just that the town refused to elect a Tax Commissioner, but the drawing of the results of that meeting into a document that was then published and used as an incentive to similar action in other towns. This is especially made clear in the Council documents related to the arraignment of the Ipswich men, which states that these men were “committed for refusing to pay their rates…and making and publishing factious and seditious votes and writeings.” From later depositions, we gather that many of these men did not quietly submit to pressure and had complaints of their own. John Wise declared that “Mr. West, the Deputy Secretary declared to some of us that we were a factious People & had no Previlege left us. The Govrnr Sr Ed Andros said to some of us By way of Ridicule, Whether we though if Jac & Tom should tell the king wt moneyes he must have for ye use of his Govmt Implying that ye People of the Countree were but a parcell of Ignorant Jack & Toms.” Rev. Wise replied to these officials with a familiar claim to Revolutionary War historians: that, as Englishmen, the colonists had privileges according to Magna Charta. This claim would form part of nearly every petition forwarded to the courts by imprisoned town officers and leading men of the towns of Essex County. Particularly harsh treatment was reserved for Maj. Samuel Appleton, whose refusal to admit any wrongdoing earned him a long stay at the stone jail of Boston. “In dark and damp quarters, treated as a common felon, the old veteran of King Philip’s war suffered every indignity for conscience sake, and made his protests against the usurpation.” By October of 1687, Connecticut had given up her Charter, and Plymouth had surrendered as well. All seemed lost.
However, on April 4th, 1689, a ship arrived in Boston bringing news of the Prince of Orange’s landing in England. By April 18th, the citizens of Boston were summoned by the drum’s beat. The mob seized Governor Andros and Randolph and hauled them to the same jail they had used to house opponents of their rule. The militia marched up King’s Street escorting Governor Bradstreet and Deputy Governor Danforth, replaced in their positions under the old Charter. This done, a declaration believed to have been composed by Cotton Mather was read. This “Declaration of Gentlemen, Merchants and Inhabitants of Boston and the Country Adjacent” charged Governor Andros with malicious oppression of the people, with extortionate fees for probate and “what laws they made it was as impossible for us to know, as dangerous for us to break; but we shall leave the men of Ipswich and Plimouth (among others) to tell the story of the kindness which has been shown them on this account.” The declaration continued “Accordingly, we have been treated with multiplied contradictions to Magna Charta, the rights of which we laid claims unto. Persons who did but peacefully object against the raising of Taxes without an Assembly have for it been fined, some twenty, some thirty, and others fifty pounds.”
Before night, eighty-six years to the day before the Lexington Alarm, the revolution had succeeded and the Andros government was no longer. Articles of impeachment were immediately drawn against Andros, Dudley and Randolph, the first of which was that “Mr. John Wise, Minister, John Andrews, Sen., Robt. Kinsman, Wm. Goodhue, Junr., Tho. French. These prove their damage for their being unwilling for Sir Edmund Andros rayseing money on the people without the consent of the people, but Improved Contrary to Magna Charta.”
That this was, indeed, a successful revolution seems to have been clear in the minds of its contemporaries. Within months of the uprising, in June of 1689, Nathaniel Byfield’s published “An Account of the Late Revolution in New England, together with the Declaration of the Gentlemen, Merchants and Inhabitants of Boston, and the Country Adjacent, April 18: 1869.”
It is important to note that these events took place after news of the arrival of William of Orange in England, but before his victory there. Had the Prince of Orange failed at his attempt to wrestle the crown from James II, New England would have, in fact, seceded from England. Faced with a fait accompli, and lacking either the will or the resources to reestablish the crown’s stranglehold in New England, William of Orange accepted the restoration of the Charter and left the colonists pretty much to themselves in exchange for a nominal recognition of his suzerainty.
A brief period of relative calm in these issues ensued, a period marked by the Salem witch trials and the Indian wars spanning from 1690 to 1745, but as soon as calm was restored to the Province, attempts were made to reassert the king’s right to taxation, and the grandchildren of our heroes raised with equal determination and finished their forebears work. But as we hail the men who fought for American Independence in the 1700’s, we must not forget their grandparents, who planted those ideas in their young minds. As Rufus Choate put it in his oration on the 200th anniversary of the town of Ipswich in 1834, “These men…may justly claim a distinguished rank among the patriots of America. You, their townsmen, their children, may well be proud of them. Prouder still, but more grateful than proud, that a full town-meeting of the free-men of Ipswich adopted, unanimously, that declaration of right, and refused to collect or pay the tax, which would have made them slaves. The principle of that vote was precisely the same on which Hampden resisted an imposition of Charles I, and on which Samuel Adams and John Hancock and resisted the Stamp Act, the principle that if any power but the people can tax the people, there is an end of liberty.”
Bailyn, Bernard, “The Peopling of British North America,” The University of Wisconsin, 1985
Banks, Charles Edward, “The Winthrop Fleet of 1630,” Boston, 1930 Reprinted Baltimore, 1994
Boorstin, Daniel, “The Americans: The Colonial Experience,” Vintage Books, 1958
Bradford, William, “Of Plymouth Plantation,” A. Knopf, New York, 1993
Breen, T.H., “Puritans and Adventurers,” Oxford University Press, 1980
Bruun, Erik & Crosby, Jay, editors, “Our Nation’s Archive, The History of the United States in Documents,” New York, 1999
Davis, David Brion & Mintz, Steve, “The Boisterous Sea of Liberty,” Oxford University
Dow, George Francis, “Everyday Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 1935, reprinted New York, 1988
Fischer, David Hackett, “Albion’s Seed, Four British Folkways in America,” Oxford University Press, 1989
Fleming, Thomas, “Liberty! The American Revolution,” Viking Penguin, 1997
Forbes, Esther, “Paul Revere and the World He Lived In,” Book of the Month Club, Inc, New York 1983with a foreword by Daniel J. Boorstin
Heimert, Alan & Delbanco, Andrew, “The Puritans in America, A Narrative Anthology,” Harvard University Press, 1985
Mcmanus, Edgar J., “Law and Liberty in Early New England,” The University of Massachusetts Press, 1993
Tagney, Rinald N., “The World Turned Upside Down,” Essex County History, 1989
Waters, Thomas Franklin, “Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” The Ipswich Historical Society, Ipswich, Mass., 1905
Wolf, Stephanie Grauman, “As Various as Their Land,” Harper Perennial, 1994
Among the signers of the many petitions and declarations were the following ancestor’s of the author: John Osgood of Andover, and Robert Kinsman, Nathaniel Treadwell, William Goodhue George Wainwright and Moses Pengry of Ipswich. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren, to a man, would participate in the American Revolution, with most marching on the Alarm of 19th April 1775. Others, with similar results among their progeny included Samuel Appleton, Thomas Knowlton, Daniel Epps, Thomas Burnam, Francis Wainwright, John Appleton, John Wipple, Dudley Bradstreet, Christopher Osgood and Nathaniel Saltonstall