November 20, 2024 • 50 mins
In 1775, Thomas Gage had recently returned to his home in England when he received a call from the future…
In this episode, you are going to hear a perspective of the American Revolution from the losing side. It’s persuasive. The British fought and died to create safety and civility in parts of the world and then the American’s gave them a waive and a nod and said, “Thanks for teeing this up, we’ll take it from here.” It is fascinating to see how the American Revolution is seen as a fight for liberty or theft, depending on which side of the ocean you are viewing it from.
Start the episode now to join the conversation.
-----
Paul O’Shaughnessy has been a re-enactor with the British 10th Regiment of Foot since 1972, portraying British soldiers and officers of the Boston Garrison, and most recently the much-maligned General Thomas Gage, Governor of the Massachusetts Province for the turbulent year prior to the outbreak of civil war in the Colonies. He can be reached by email at frommage@comcast.net, or by phone at 617.620.8123. He wishes all of His Majesty’s subjects the blessings of Peace and Loyalty to King and Country.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:28):
I'm Tony Dean.
And today we'll be callinghistory to speak with Thomas gage.
He'll be answering our callin 1775 after recently being
relieved from his post in America.
As the American revolution was on lowheat and simmering Thomas gage played
a role as the governor of Massachusettsand commander of north American forces.
(00:49):
When things got out of controlthough, and his suggestions that maybe
could have won the war were ignored.
He was removed of his duties andsent back to England where he
quietly disappeared into society.
But what makes thisconversation interesting?
Is his perspective on what happened?
Gauged didn't hate the colonistafter all they weren't Americans,
(01:10):
they were British citizens.
In fact, when he came to the Americancolonies, he married one of the colonists
Margaret who may have trickled someinformation to the sons of Liberty,
giving the Americans a little bit of anadvantage, but whether she did or she
didn't Thomas gage, wasn't trying tostand in the way of Liberty or freedom.
He was simply tryingto follow English law.
(01:32):
England was not a typical monarchy.
Like the French.
It was a constitutional monarchy withlaws and civility england had spent so
many years creating a government wherethe people had a voice and after giving
so much of their treasure and bloodfighting to create the British system.
The Americans gave them a wave and anod and said, thanks for teeing this up.
(01:54):
We'll take it from here.
After all, this was a British territory.
Was this a fight for Liberty?
Or was the American cause a theft of land.
You'll have to listen and decide yourself.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellowhistory, lovers in Hancock haters.
Everywhere I give you Thomas gage.
Hello.
Is that you?
General Gage.
(02:15):
Yes, it is.
I,
Sir, I am so excited tospeak with you today.
My name is Tony Dean and I'm talking toyou from the future in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding inyour hand, it's called a smartphone.
It allows us to speak as if you and I weresitting in the same room with one another.
And it also allows me to.
to share a record of our conversationwith people around the world.
(02:37):
And I think that is really importantbased on some of the things that
you had to deal with when you weredealing with the colonists and
spending your time in America.
I was hoping I could ask you somequestions, but before I do, I understand
this is a very strange introduction.
Can I answer any questionsyou may have first?
I would love a glimpse into my future,but I think that would not be good.
(02:58):
. I believe that these are matters.
Best left to the almighty, and I shouldremain ignorant of my immediate future.
I am, however, most happy toprovide you with an insight as to
the recent events in North America.
And there are so manyof those recent events.
I guess the first question that Iwanted to ask you is when you first
(03:21):
came to the colonies, what wasyour impression of that area of the
colonist, of what was happening there?
Well, at that time, you mustrecall that I arrived in America
during what is what they referto as the French and Indian War.
It was raging at the time, the SevenYears War in Europe between France and
(03:45):
the United Kingdom of England and Scotlandhad ballooned into a larger conflagration.
And the aims of the British governmentbecame to drive the French from North
America and hold them at bay in Europe.
This strategy was pursuedquite vigorously, and it was
(04:06):
at that time that I arrived.
In North America as part of a contingentthat was meant to drive into the
hinterland to the west of the colonies.
And we participated in what wascalled the Braddock Expedition,
which ended in, complete disasterand great many casualties.
(04:26):
My impression of the Yankees, as theycalled themselves, was mixed among
them, they had some very uprightand brave individuals and, but also
they depended so thoroughly uponmilitias, which came and went and
came that it was difficult sometimesto really operate as a regular army.
(04:49):
As the war went on, there was greatpatriotism amongst these people.
The French had been their enemiesand their Indian allies for years.
And with victory, however, all ofthe issues between The government
in London and these various coloniallegislatures started to come to the fore.
(05:12):
And I found them to be anargumentative and difficult people.
I married one.
I married Margaret Kemble from New Jersey.
So, of course, I had great affection forthe the Kembles and all of their friends
and the many loyal and good families.
In America, but in and amongst them,there were some most difficult people.
(05:35):
I'll just call it that and Iwon't use any stronger language.
well, that's you being very polite,but I will tell you this, several
hundred years later, we are still verydifficult and very argumentative people.
So some things have not changed.
I would expect nothing but.
Did you find your wife that you married?
So she was a colonist, you met her here.
(05:57):
Did you find her to be that way?
Was she argumentativeand difficult as well?
Oh, a bit.
Yes, they're all Americans.
And so, all of them have a heightenedsense of their own rights and their
own capabilities and their own coursethrough life and their trajectories
(06:17):
in her case, I found it to becharming and delightful a strong
woman, a beautiful and strong woman.
In others, it was less appealing.
I will say that and I believe that itall came down to a sense of entitlement.
That these Americans often hadand , an absence of their true
(06:40):
role as subjects of his majesty.
, inside of the British political system.
When you talk about, , entitlementand their role, I guess I want
to ask you, what is their role?
What, or what should their role be?
Ah, well, it is it's a difficult question.
It's touchy as they like to say.
(07:00):
And one must understand that.
In the United Kingdom, we havereached what I consider to be
the pinnacle of human freedom.
We are living on a planet in a worldthat is ruled by large measure, by
absolute monarchs, dictators warlords.
(07:22):
Here, there and everywhere, butin England, Scotland after a great
deal of strife, we have achieveda higher form of government.
We actually have the beginnings of arepresentative parliament and the role of
the king And of parliament is to preserveand expand the liberties of its citizens.
(07:46):
But with that comes a responsibility.
One must submit to the actsand the will of parliament.
Even his majesty agrees and he does.
But these Americans, they see themselves.
above and beyond that.
They see them, their legislatures asequals to that of the British Parliament.
(08:07):
And down that road, Isense there is mayhem.
They have responsibilities, butthey do not live up to them.
It is perhaps the word is submission,which is something that they don't
like, but one must both exercise one'sliberty, but exercise it responsibly
and in submission to the law.
(08:28):
Otherwise, you have anarchy and you havecivil strife, which can lead evermore
to that one thing we wish to avoidand which I find, we find ourselves
in once again, it seems, a civil war.
When you talk about submission tothe law, and then you meet people
like Samuel Adams, you just haveto be pulling your hair out, seeing
(08:51):
how somebody like that operates.
Well, yes the difficulty there is thatthey see the law very selectively.
Every one of them considers himself alawyer, but they pick and they choose.
We have politicians of that stripethat pick and choose from every book
they can find only picking the thingsthat they wish to expostulate upon.
(09:14):
But these Americans andparticularly, yes, Mr.
Adams, and there are a couple of them.
There's their cousins, I believe.
There's John and there's Samuel.
Samuel, reduced.
The population of Boston and theenvirons of Boston into gang warfare,
into criminal activity mobs in thestreets, and there was bloodshed.
(09:37):
There were tarrings and featheringsand royal officials that were simply
doing their jobs who were drivenout of their houses, their domiciles
burned, bricks through the window,and all of their possessions dragged
into the street and destroyed.
, so when I'm speaking of submissionI'm simply saying that one must remain
(09:57):
inside the boundaries of the law.
And when you leave that behind, , thereis, there's no way back there.
You've, you now have pulled up anchorand are drifting free in the winds
and the results are rarely satisfying.
And I fear that these Americanswill go from one crisis to the next.
(10:18):
I can only hope that this rebellion thatwe find ourselves in will burn itself out.
And that that this madness will cease,and that they will come to their
senses, and they may be forced to cometo their senses by our force of arms.
But eventually, I am hopeful that , asHis Majesty says, that , we, we have great
kindness towards our American brethren,but they must, In fact, understand the
(10:44):
relationship between the governmentand its authority and their own.
And they must submit
.Let me understand that relationship a little bit better because it appears,
and again, I'm just speaking from whatI hear from what Americans say, because
I love to hear your point of view.
What you're saying makes a lot of senseto me, but it appears to me that when
(11:07):
the British look at the people of theworld, , that there's a hierarchy.
And so the King is at the top,his majesty is at the very top.
And then below that.
I don't know British militarymaybe wealthy people.
And then where are thecolonists in that hierarchy?
well, I would rework it a bit for you.
(11:29):
I would put His Majesty, yes, nominallyat the very top, but also the Parliament.
Equal you recalled it in Englishhistory, we've had absolute monarchs,
but George our king is not such.
He is a constitutional monarchand believes deeply in the
(11:50):
constitutional role of the monarchy.
So that parliament is in fact thelawmaking body of the land of everywhere
that, that we call England, if youwish, or English possessions and British
possessions and the military reports tohis majesty, but follows the directives
(12:10):
of his ministers and of parliament.
And the people are yes, I would notcall them subservient, but they are
subjects of his majesty and they,but parliament is elected by them.
And I understand, and I willadmit that the elections of the
various members of parliament.
(12:31):
Are not completely democratic.
There are the rottenburrows here and there.
And of course we have a house ofLords that must pass a judgment on
new legislation and acts, and theyare hereditary as well as a religious
and such, there are Lords spiritualand landowning Lords, hereditary.
(12:53):
The people of England are subject tothese laws, so they would be next in line.
The colonies, I do not personally seethem as unequal to our own people.
They have all of the same rights,and should have all of the same
rights, and they have their ownlegislatures for their own local rules.
(13:16):
But someone must be in charge.
And that, in my mind, is theBritish Parliament, and it is in
the mind of the King the same way.
The Americans, those that arerebelling, and there are many of
those, but there are many who remainloyal, simply will not accept that.
They do not believe that the actsof Parliament can reach across
(13:38):
the ocean And rule over theirlives, but someone must do it.
Otherwise they are independent,which I realized many of them wish
to be now, that, that is a paththat I believe leads to further
, warfare, strife, and calamity.
I agree with you that someone must bein charge because if somebody is not
(13:58):
in charge, it is just nonstop chaos.
There's no question about that.
I guess.
What I'm wondering is if the colonistsdon't want the English parliament or
the king to be in charge of them, shouldthey have the right, being across the
ocean on an entirely different land,should they have the right to make
their own government and be independent?
(14:21):
I think not, I believe that the colonistsare they are distracted in many regards.
I believe that , this is actually aconspiracy and a plot by a minority
to drag away these colonies, whichthe British government and the
(14:44):
British nation have invested enormousblood, treasure and toil into.
And for this small minority tosimply decide on their own that
they want it all, they want to takeit all away, is simply improper.
Yes, if this was of overwhelmingopinion in the streets and amongst
(15:07):
every man, woman, and child inthe colonies, then perhaps yes.
But I do believe that this is a,Conspiracy and a plot by ill designing
men who wish to essentially line theirpockets with the riches of America.
After the land has been conqueredand after the civilization has been
(15:32):
established along the coast , itis simply, it's simply wrong.
Would you, for example, acquiesce toyour neighbor simply taking over your
house because it's attached to hisand he likes it and he wants it all?
No, you would not.
You would fight back.
And that is precisely what the Britishgovernment is doing at this time.
(15:53):
Do you think maybe when you look backat some of the taxes that the colonists
had argued about over the years,say for example, like the Stamp Act
and, , then there was what they callthe Intolerable Acts, which I think
the English call the coercive acts.
Yeah.
Do you think that perhapsthose were not levy properly?
(16:14):
And if they had been maybe explainedor sold or maybe built up a little bit
slower that maybe the reaction from thecolonists wouldn't have been so strong.
I must agree with you there.
I do believe that there were momentswhere another course could have
been taken, another path chosen.
(16:35):
The Americans are a proud people andtheir legislatures I may not agree,
but their legislatures feel that theyare on an equal billing and an equal
par with the parliament in London.
And I do believe that there are.
A number of ministers in Londonwho simply do not understand this.
(16:59):
And I believe that my predecessorin Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson,
even argued these points back toparliament, but wasn't ignored.
And.
And in my case I argued that therewere basically two paths here,
either acquiescence or conquest.
That the middle groundwas never going to work.
(17:21):
So, I do believe that therewere missteps along the way.
That the government could have donebetter to either early on acquiesce,
find a peaceful solution or earlyon arrive in overwhelming force and
simply and simply squash and destroythese revolutionary and rebellious
(17:46):
tendencies before they got going.
Once things had gotten out of hand, wehad insufficient force to deal with them.
And the rest, as theysay, has been history.
We are now engaged in a much moresevere conflict with these united,
as they call themselves colonies.
(18:08):
And and it's a much more serious issue.
, I do recall writing back to Whitehall ifyou think to send 10, 000 men, send 20,
if you think to , spend a million pounds.
Spend two, you will save bothblood and treasure in the end.
Now, I wrote that after things hadbecome very severe in New England.
(18:28):
But going back earlier, yes, I wouldagree that there were moments when I
wish that perhaps some ministers fromWhitehall had taken ship and come over
here to negotiate one on one with thesepeople and perhaps find a better solution.
The war that is now underway willbe costly, expensive , in blood,
(18:49):
treasure, men, material, and everything.
I feel I, I am notoptimistic for the future.
Let's talk about the possiblemissteps . I'd like to hear maybe
an example of if something was goingto be handled different earlier what
would have possibly made a difference?
And then if that was not goingto be the answer, I'd like to
(19:11):
hear the other side of that.
If we were going to use overwhelmingforce, , you're saying if you're
going to send 10, send 20,but what did you really need?
What did you want?
So can you give meexamples of both of those?
Well, of course, recall that I Was untilI became the governor of Massachusetts.
I was purely a military man.
And so I had the luxury ofseeing these things from afar.
(19:35):
But although quite up close,but still with some separation.
I believe that our difficultiesdate back to the era in the late
previous decade with the StampAct and the various taxations that
were created by active parliament.
(19:56):
And the trouble for the local peoplewas what they considered to be the
overriding of their local legislatures.
A smarter path at the time, and thisis in the fullness of hindsight, might
have been to approach each of thecolonial legislatures individually
with a request And with some mechanismby which the taxes, which were very
(20:22):
fair and which were very necessary.
Could have been promulgated throughcolonial legislation and might have been
much more accepting accepted, I shouldsay, in the colonies for the matter of
being locally created at the request ofParliament, but locally created, locally
(20:44):
collected, and locally administered.
I don't know if thelegislatures would have.
in this regard, it may have been afool's errand, but I believe that an
attempt should have been made to find adifferent way because I will admit that
(21:05):
While I may see the British Parliamentas supreme and something to which one
must submit that was not universallythe case in everyone's opinion.
And so one has to work very often,as in the military, one has to
work with what one has ratherthan what one wishes it would be.
(21:26):
started down a difficult path in thelatter part of the previous decade with a
number of the earlier acts of Parliament,all of which then most of which were
then withdrawn, which provided it simply.
To the radicals, to the people whofelt that this was an opportunity
to create mayhem and to glean power.
(21:49):
Oh that tasted of blood.
They felt that they had won something.
And from that moment on itwas very difficult to To to
negotiate with them in good faithbecause they always wanted more.
So I believe early on , a morerespectful, Environment might've been
established in which the coloniallegislatures were far more involved.
(22:12):
But then later I would say as we gotinto the middle of last year in 1774,
as the Massachusetts in particular andits neighboring colonies were descending
into civil unrest and rebellion by thenit was either some broad acquiescence.
(22:33):
That would have undermined the argumentof the radicals, or, as I said, some
very heavy, sharp military blow tohave brought everyone to their senses.
I do not know, for I am only soclairvoyant, but I'm not sure which
of these two paths might have beenmore successful, but the middle path
(22:56):
of standing by our legislatures,standing by our principles, but at
the same time having insufficientforce , to enforce these things,
that has led to the present dilemma.
So being a military man if you could havehad it your way and no longer, was it a
situation you do what you can with whatyou have, you have exactly what you need.
(23:16):
How many troops would you have asked for?
Oh, , twenty five thousand.
It would have required a mobilizationacross the United Kingdom.
It would have been exceedingly expensive.
But it , it would have beeninexpensive compared to what I fear.
Is going to happen overthe next several years.
Yeah, it probably would have been lessexpensive because , it is one of those
(23:39):
things where, you know, it seems like ifyou do something halfway, Sometimes you
have to do it three or four or five or 10times, where if you'd just done it once
and just dealt with it, then it was over.
precisely.
Yes, that is mine.
And I believe me I have greataffection for the American people.
And I would have only resortedto that in the exigency of.
(24:01):
Of actual rebellion, but that's just it.
The, these people have chosen extralegal and rebellious paths on their own,
they were not forced down that road.
It is their own radicals who theyhave followed down that road.
It would be only in those circumstancesthat I would advocate for a military
(24:24):
response, but my very point is, if onechooses a military force, And a military
response, it must be overwhelmingleaving something half done is simply
not a path to success in these matters.
So either head this off bycompromise early or finish the
(24:44):
job with overwhelming force.
When you look at the rabblerousers, , I bring up Sam Adams again.
He seems like he isdefinitely one of them.
Yes
I'm guessing that you would probablylist John Hancock in that place as well.
Yes, very much so.
And Hancock, John Hancock, was, werealize now, was very much behind
(25:04):
the the events that led to thedestruction of East India Company T in
the harbor in Boston, and a number ofthe subsequent crises that occurred.
And so yes I consider themall when I look at them.
Yes, very much a partof the radical class.
What is their crime inthe eyes of the English?
(25:27):
Is there crime against the King?
Is it against God?
Is it against what is their crime?
Well, the quick answer wouldbe yes but, In truth, it is
not even against his majesty.
It is against the law.
Their crime is that they have createdextra legal congresses and have acted
(25:50):
outside of any legislative control.
They have the very act of destroyingthe tea, although I am sure that Mr.
Hancock while pulling the strings in thebackground has made sure that his fingers
are nowhere near the the actual crime andhis hands are very clean I would expect.
(26:14):
He's clever that way.
Their crimes are.
Are absolutely outrageous.
. They have simply taken themselvescompletely outside of the legal
framework that ensures public safetyand harmony within the society.
Down their path comesanarchy and mob rule.
(26:35):
There is such a thingas too much democracy.
You can, if you ask every singleidiot in the street what they
think, you will get 10, 000 answers.
And again, I go back to the idea that onemust have a leader, a responsible leader,
one that is appropriate and who isable to act in accordance with the
(26:59):
law and for the benefit of people.
These people care nothing for that.
I believe that they are operatingoutside of the law for their own benefit.
They wrap it in their cause of libertyand such, but it is, Absolutely, I feel
(27:21):
a sham and a a shield that they employ.
They are acting in, in a seditiousmanner and they are plotting against and
to overthrow the correct and rightfulgovernment of, first of all, Massachusetts
and now the other colonies too.
As you think about the rabblerousers, , the people that are
(27:43):
the biggest problems we had a warhere not too long ago in our time.
And we took our government tooka deck of cards and said, these
are the most important peoplebased on the value of those cards.
So they said, the ace ofspades is this person.
And then, King of spades is this person.
So if you were going to list thosepeople, who's the biggest problem, who
are the top three or four people with
Oh, I believe it would certainlybe John Hancock Samuel Adams.
(28:07):
Gentleman John Adams, who is a much morecivilized gentleman, but still filled with
these rebellious and seditious concepts.
And now there's a new player,apparently, there is a gentleman
I use the word loosely Washington,who has taken command of their
rebellious army outside of Boston.
(28:30):
At present you may know that , theBritish army is in fact besieged by
these rebels in Boston, and they areholding on very valiantly against
them, but this is open warfare.
These people , they are engaged in civilwar and we have dealt with that before.
We've dealt with it in manyparts of the United Kingdom.
(28:53):
And this will be dealt with also,but I would put those for Ohio my
list, and there are several otherringleaders that are part of what they
are calling their continental Congress.
But if.
If one could round up and shipoff these ringleaders, I believe
the entire enterprise wouldcool down quite substantially.
(29:16):
the gosh, what an interesting thoughtif you could round them up looking,
okay, I want you to imagine for a secondthat these people that we're talking
about the biggest problem, people, theHancock, the Adams boys, all right,
if they were in England and they weredoing what they're doing right now.
, and they were caught in England.
(29:38):
What would their consequence be?
It would be treason.
They, would it be death?
It could be.
That would be the judgment of a jury.
It would be done properly.
They could be hanged for treason.
More possibly they wouldbe incarcerated or exiled.
We we have gotten past thepoint where we used to draw
on quarter people for treason.
(30:00):
I think it's still on the books.
We could do it, but I believethat we would be far more humane.
But They would be subject to the moststringent of lawful prosecutions.
And yes, a death couldbe in there for them.
, I would have to defer to a jury.
They are British citizens andthey would deserve a jury trial.
(30:22):
The same as any other, but personally,I think that some of them they very well
may get that treatment if they were found.
If they were doing this inEngland, in Scotland, Ireland
there would be severe punishment.
However, I would point out that if theywere doing this, for example, in France,
, we wouldn't even know their names.
(30:42):
They would have been taken outlong ago and simply murdered.
And that is the difference betweenthe way that the rest of Europe these
days seems to be run and the Britishentity on the, in the British Isles.
We are increasingly resortingto much more civilized ways
(31:03):
of dealing with our problems.
And the great irony here is thatas we have made this progress
towards what I consider to be highcivilization the Americans feel that
they're running ahead of us now.
And they like children who havejust gotten into a playground
and they've run ahead.
(31:24):
And our simple point is no, stay with yourparents and all will be well and safe.
You'll get yourself hurt.
And but they don't see it that way.
And but there are again, several ofthese people, particularly individuals
like Samuel Adams are in my opinion,simply ill designing men bent on
(31:45):
rebellion and aggrandizement of power,
Wouldn't matter where you put them.
What country you dropped themin, they'd be creating problems.
They would, very likely they arefortunate to have created their problems
inside of a British ruled territory.
As I said, if they didn't inRussia or Germany or France,
(32:05):
they would've simply disappeared.
I see.
You're making the Frenchsound like they're barbarians.
Well, I fought with them for many years.
They they have many traits of civilizationand they are very high military.
scientists but, they're their love oftheir monarch and their, the absolute
(32:25):
nature of his rule, I believe is tothe denigration of their country.
And they may someday do somethingabout that, but it won't be soon.
Let's talk about monarchs for a minute.
Because the monarchs in England, thispart has always confused me a little bit.
The monarchs in England, itis not uncommon for a man to
(32:46):
be king, and then that role ofleadership to be passed to his son.
Is that correct?
Oh, very much so.
It is a hereditary title.
Absolutely.
In a government like that,where it is not merit based.
It appears from a distance that a lotof times you don't end up with the most
(33:08):
qualified person and in fact, from myunderstanding of reading about you in
history, it seems like you had a lot ofdisputes with the way or disagreements
with the way that the English governmentwas handling things over in the colonies.
Maybe that they were evenignoring your requests.
(33:28):
Ah, yes.
Well, that is true.
However, I would say that it is the roleof a military man to propose, but then
it is and I did on many occasions, rightback to Lord Barrington, the secretary
at war with suggestions for strategytroop movements, things of that nature.
(33:51):
But again, there is anappropriate and proper hierarchy.
And in such things, , you willalways be given situations where
you may not appreciate or like theparticular decisions that are made.
You simply must live with them.
And in regards to the monarch, yes, it isa hereditary title, no doubt about that.
(34:13):
But one of the critical thingsthat one must realize is that the
king is not an absolute monarch.
. He lives within the law and he actuallydoes operates at the behest and
through Parliament and his ministers.
So this softens the individualrule of a single man.
For example, if the Frenchking Is mad or savage.
(34:36):
Well, there you are.
There's nothing to be done about it.
Short of some sort of revolution.
In our instance, we can live through theseepisodes , because we have had good and
bad monarchs in our history but as theyhave become more constitutional, . And
as power has been distributed throughoutthe government and throughout Parliament,
(35:00):
House of Lords, and the ministers, thenthe effect of any one man is thus, I
won't say diminished, but softened.
I hope that answers the question.
It does.
It does.
The King right now, isit King George the third?
Is that right?
That is correct.
Very
So I want to challenge what you just saidand understanding that I may be wrong.
(35:20):
So King George, let's say he meetswith parliament and he says, all right,
that's it, these colonists, if we don't.
Rip the bandaid off and just completelygo all in and make a huge mark.
We're going to be messingaround with this for decades.
So we're going to send75, 000 troops right now.
(35:41):
We're going to find the rabble rousers.
We're going to bury them 10 feetunderground and we're going to end
this thing over the next 30 days.
All right.
And so, yeah, sounds good.
Right?
It does.
So.
Then, one of the people in Parliamentcome up, stand up, and says, King
(36:01):
George, , or Your Highness, you are mad.
You have always been mad,and your ideas are terrible.
What happens to him?
Nothing.
He actually is able to say such things.
Now, it may not be politic for him to doso, but he is protected in that regard.
(36:22):
As long as he does not advocate forrebellion for removal of his majesty
illegally if he wishes to simply say thatthe judgment of his majesty is impaired
or that it is not correct or that weare not getting good advice, that is
where you must say things in parliament.
Thank you very much.
And there may be consequences,political consequences, but there
(36:45):
would be no legal consequences.
Where in French, they would chophis body into pieces and spread them
on, each on a different continent,
I would expect so, yes.
Okay.
So, when you're talking aboutparliament, are these all elected
officials or are these people appointed?
It's a blend.
They are, in theory, inthe House of Commons.
(37:07):
They are all elected, but some arefrom very small boroughs that are
with a very small number of voters,all of whom are in the pocket, if you
wish, of the Member of Parliament.
Typically, he may be oneof the major landowners.
The House of Lords.
(37:28):
Is a hereditary, largely hereditarybody of the nobility, the minor to major
nobility, Viscounts, Barons and othervarious Lords, all of them typically
large landowners, but all of them servantsof the monarch, some of the military,
some of them commercial or industrial.
(37:49):
And then there are.
Lords spiritual from the establishedchurch , so it's a blend.
And so not universally elected thereare members of parliament who are
very popularly elected from partsof London and many of the cities.
And then of coursethere are the ministers.
Who work in their roles under thetutelage of his majesty but again within
(38:16):
the rules and the acts of parliament.
So it's complex and we callit the British constitution.
None of it's written downexcept for the acts and the laws
themselves, but the body of it is anachievement and it works quite well.
At least it works betterthan dictatorship.
And we have struggled very hard to gethere over hundreds and hundreds of years.
(38:39):
And so the reason I speak pridefullyof this and rail against those who
would tear this edifice down is thatit has taken so long and cost so much
blood to build that I would like it to
it just seems like from what you'redescribing, , the Americans are just
completely ignoring all the work thathas come before this to get to the
point where they had the opportunityto speak loudly and have freedom.
(39:04):
Well, yes, that's just it.
It is quite impressive that theyshould they are beneficiaries of this
system, and yet they do not respect it.
There are members of Parliamentwho speak highly of the Americans,
and I respect their opinions.
They tend to be of the Whig persuasion, as are many members of my family.
(39:25):
I even myself would claim to be on theliberal side of many of these things
and many of these issues but it ismy point again, and I'm beginning to
repeat myself perhaps a bit here, isthat There are limits to these things.
There is a responsibility.
You may not like the government.
You may not agree with the government.
(39:46):
You may say savage things about thegovernment, and you have that right,
but you also must respect the lawsand the acts of that government.
Yeah, makes sense.
So where does your wifefall on all of this?
And I wonder also if when you ended upfalling in love with somebody from the
colonies, I'm wondering if that kind ofpulled you to that side a little bit.
(40:08):
It did a bit.
I have great sympathies, as I havesaid for many Americans, and this has
been terribly distressful, Margaret.
She has many friends that Now that weare departed from America I suspect it
will be a long time before we are back.
And she has many friends andfamily who are stranded now in some
(40:30):
of these colonies and are undersome great distress from the mob.
So it is a difficult situation.
I, I admire many of the Americanswhile despising many of them.
The ones that you despise, if youcould go back and redo what you had
done, would you have had them executed?
No, I think that would be uncivilized, butI might drop them down a very deep hole.
(40:55):
But let them live
With a loaf of bread.
yes, exactly
that's fantastic.
Your wife.
So you're back in England now.
How long have you been back in England
Oh a month.
Yeah we took ship in in Ibelieve September, and it took
several weeks to come across.
And your wife did shedid come with you back
Yes and the children, yes.
(41:15):
So, your wife, is thisher first time in England?
No, we have we have actuallyvisited several times.
Most recently was in 73.
We went across briefly to meet family andto introduce her to members of my family,
as well as a number of the children.
So, and also to do some business.
(41:36):
We then returned and you might recallthat I was the I've been the Commander
in Chief, or at least I was at thetime, of land forces in North America.
I returned to England and thenwas appointed Governor, replacing
Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts,and thus returned instead of New
(41:58):
York, where my residence and our.
Command was instead of their returningto Boston and and establishing
and new house and such in Boston.
Is Boston the hub of the entireAmerican, I mean, we call it revolution.
You've said civil war several times.
I suppose depending on whichside you're looking at it.
(42:19):
Is just how you would name it.
But whatever you would callit, is Boston the hub of that?
It is very much thehub , of these troubles.
Absolutely.
Without the troubles in Boston, the othercolonies would not have proceeded down
this road of sedition and rebellion.
They may still have beenproblematic, there may still
(42:41):
have been political difficulties,but nothing like what we have.
It is very much These Denseans andstiff necked Yankees of Boston that
have created so much of the trouble.
I wonder this is a hard questionto ask you because there's no
way to ask this in a nice way.
, it certainly will sound offensive.
So forgive me if it does,but there are rumors.
(43:03):
That when you go back a little bit,you go back to the battle at Concord
and Lexington and there are rumorsthat the colonists had some information
that was going to happen in advanceand they were prepared and many of
those rumors are that your wife hadpassed some of that information along.
(43:23):
Yes, scurrilous lies spreadby the very same Yankees.
And I can tell you that boththe provincials and the friends
of government had sufficientingress into each other's lives.
Lives plans and domiciles that we knewwhat each other was doing without it
(43:45):
being necessary for someone like Margaret, to provide them this information.
I knew and was informed ofthe assembly of munitions.
Canon and muskets shot powder tents,bts, everything in conquered and equally
they the passing person in the nightcould see and probably had information
(44:11):
of our expedition out to Concord andobviously did before it actually happened.
And, of course, there were theseriders that got out into the night.
There was a man, I believe hisname was Revere, who rode and
managed to get partly to Concord.
Apparently he was captured by severalof our soldiers partway through.
(44:32):
But still the message got out.
So there were many riders.
Routes and paths by which both sidesin this knew about the other's plans.
There was no need, in my opinion,for my wife to have done such a
thing, nor would she have done.
And she finds the entire situationdistressing, but the idea that
(44:53):
she would go against family andgovernment and all that, that she
holds dear is simply a scurrilous liemade up by these very ill designing
men that I have spoken of earlier.
But wouldn't you agree thatthe land that she was born in
that, , we'll call America.
Wouldn't you agreethat, , that is her homeland.
(45:16):
, it's true.
There is her family, but is she,does she not have an allegiance
to her homeland as well?
well, no I would say . Yes.
She does have an allegiance to herhomeland and that is right and proper,
but her homeland is part of the whole.
That is, one can be both a patriot for,in her case, the province of New Jersey
(45:40):
or Massachusetts or New York, take yourpick, and still be a British patriot.
In fact, they are congruent there isevery reason and there are many people.
For whom this is not a challenge.
They do not see any sort of distractionin that idea and in that concept, they're
(46:01):
both proud Americans and proud Englishmenor Scotsman for the matter, or Irishmen.
And they carry on theirlives in harmony with the law.
And for the greater good of all again,it is simply these particular ill
designing, difficult uncompromising men,many of them Yankees but also elsewhere
(46:26):
in the colonies who at every turn,foment trouble, find the worst in every
proposal and . Destroy the worth of thenewspaper the broad side, they've spread
lies about everything that they can,and they have turned a number of heads.
All of it, again, as I said, inthe pursuit of power, they wrap it
(46:49):
in this wonderful word of liberty,but I would ask who on earth
helped to create such liberty.
It was in fact, the British.
System, the British government, theBritish history the great march of
British liberty that brought us to thispoint from Magna Carta down to this day.
(47:10):
And they seem to while they claimto be students of this and admirers
of this great history, they alsotrample on it at the same time.
Mob rule is not liberty.
Yeah, no question about that.
Your wife who am absolutely convincedthat you believe that there is no
(47:31):
way that she passed any secretsalong and that may be true and I
don't know either way, obviously.
Okay.
But I do want to ask this about that.
. If she were passing secrets along,let's just say that she was, which
we have established she's not, butif she was, who does she have contact
with regularly , on the colonist side
(47:52):
that that information couldbe passed to, like, was one of
them I can't remember his name.
Doctor,
Dr.
Church,
Oh, Benjamin Church.
yes yes, well, yes, therewould have been opportunities.
Of course, Dr.
Church has also been veryhelpful in providing information
(48:13):
to myself personally.
And of course I believe thathe's now rather he's still in
Boston, but under the protectionof his majesty's soldiers there.
But yes, there would be possibilities.
Margaret is an independent woman.
She goes about herbusiness during the day.
But indeed there would be fewopportunities for her to mix
(48:36):
particularly with the radical set.
Thank you.
And so that, again, begs thequestion, to whom would she
be giving , this information?
So, on many levels, , thestory simply does not hold up.
And and, there's been no great evidence.
In addition to which, I did notdiscuss many of these items with her.
(48:57):
As I did not discuss them with anyone,very few, only my inner military
circle, the plans going out to, toto Concord were simply were revealed
to Colonel Smith of the 10th Regimentand others only in conversation and in
written order within days of the event.
(49:18):
, I have a rule of not bringing work home.
Okay.
Dr.
Church, Dr.
Benjamin Church.
If you were, this is a man who has thaton both sides, there are strong feelings,
I believe, because on your side of thefence, this man is a Patriot that gave you
information about what was going on Andfrom the colonists side, from the American
(49:41):
side, he is going to be seen as a traitorthat deserve nothing less than death.
Are you the one that turned him?
Isn't it incredible.
How much of a difference perspectivemakes the whole American revolution
is an entirely different event,depending on which side of the
ocean you're looking at it from.
Benjamin Church who betrayed the Americancause and is hated by American Patriots
(50:05):
would have been seen as a loyal Englishmanfrom Thomas gauges side of the pond.
And the reality is he wasboth in the next episode.
We're going to talk a little bitabout George Washington, the sons
of Liberty, as well as the mistakesthat gage would have corrected.
If he could do it all over again,I'm glad you're enjoying the podcast.
(50:25):
And if you haven't yet subscribednow, and we'll see you at the next
episode of the calling historypodcast with part two of Thomas gage.
I'm Tony Dean.
And today we'll be callinghistory to speak with Thomas gage.
He'll be answering our callin 1775 after recently being
relieved from his post in America.
As the American revolution was on lowheat and simmering Thomas gage played
a role as the governor of Massachusettsand commander of north American forces.
(00:49):
When things got out of controlthough, and his suggestions that maybe
could have won the war were ignored.
He was removed of his duties andsent back to England where he
quietly disappeared into society.
But what makes thisconversation interesting?
Is his perspective on what happened?
Gauged didn't hate the colonistafter all they weren't Americans,
(01:10):
they were British citizens.
In fact, when he came to the Americancolonies, he married one of the colonists
Margaret who may have trickled someinformation to the sons of Liberty,
giving the Americans a little bit of anadvantage, but whether she did or she
didn't Thomas gage, wasn't trying tostand in the way of Liberty or freedom.
He was simply tryingto follow English law.
(01:32):
England was not a typical monarchy.
Like the French.
It was a constitutional monarchy withlaws and civility england had spent so
many years creating a government wherethe people had a voice and after giving
so much of their treasure and bloodfighting to create the British system.
The Americans gave them a wave and anod and said, thanks for teeing this up.
(01:54):
We'll take it from here.
After all, this was a British territory.
Was this a fight for Liberty?
Or was the American cause a theft of land.
You'll have to listen and decide yourself.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellowhistory, lovers in Hancock haters.
Everywhere I give you Thomas gage.
Hello.
Is that you?
General Gage.
(02:15):
Yes, it is.
I,
Sir, I am so excited tospeak with you today.
My name is Tony Dean and I'm talking toyou from the future in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding inyour hand, it's called a smartphone.
It allows us to speak as if you and I weresitting in the same room with one another.
And it also allows me to.
to share a record of our conversationwith people around the world.
(02:37):
And I think that is really importantbased on some of the things that
you had to deal with when you weredealing with the colonists and
spending your time in America.
I was hoping I could ask you somequestions, but before I do, I understand
this is a very strange introduction.
Can I answer any questionsyou may have first?
I would love a glimpse into my future,but I think that would not be good.
(02:58):
. I believe that these are matters.
Best left to the almighty, and I shouldremain ignorant of my immediate future.
I am, however, most happy toprovide you with an insight as to
the recent events in North America.
And there are so manyof those recent events.
I guess the first question that Iwanted to ask you is when you first
(03:21):
came to the colonies, what wasyour impression of that area of the
colonist, of what was happening there?
Well, at that time, you mustrecall that I arrived in America
during what is what they referto as the French and Indian War.
It was raging at the time, the SevenYears War in Europe between France and
(03:45):
the United Kingdom of England and Scotlandhad ballooned into a larger conflagration.
And the aims of the British governmentbecame to drive the French from North
America and hold them at bay in Europe.
This strategy was pursuedquite vigorously, and it was
(04:06):
at that time that I arrived.
In North America as part of a contingentthat was meant to drive into the
hinterland to the west of the colonies.
And we participated in what wascalled the Braddock Expedition,
which ended in, complete disasterand great many casualties.
(04:26):
My impression of the Yankees, as theycalled themselves, was mixed among
them, they had some very uprightand brave individuals and, but also
they depended so thoroughly uponmilitias, which came and went and
came that it was difficult sometimesto really operate as a regular army.
(04:49):
As the war went on, there was greatpatriotism amongst these people.
The French had been their enemiesand their Indian allies for years.
And with victory, however, all ofthe issues between The government
in London and these various coloniallegislatures started to come to the fore.
(05:12):
And I found them to be anargumentative and difficult people.
I married one.
I married Margaret Kemble from New Jersey.
So, of course, I had great affection forthe the Kembles and all of their friends
and the many loyal and good families.
In America, but in and amongst them,there were some most difficult people.
(05:35):
I'll just call it that and Iwon't use any stronger language.
well, that's you being very polite,but I will tell you this, several
hundred years later, we are still verydifficult and very argumentative people.
So some things have not changed.
I would expect nothing but.
Did you find your wife that you married?
So she was a colonist, you met her here.
(05:57):
Did you find her to be that way?
Was she argumentativeand difficult as well?
Oh, a bit.
Yes, they're all Americans.
And so, all of them have a heightenedsense of their own rights and their
own capabilities and their own coursethrough life and their trajectories
(06:17):
in her case, I found it to becharming and delightful a strong
woman, a beautiful and strong woman.
In others, it was less appealing.
I will say that and I believe that itall came down to a sense of entitlement.
That these Americans often hadand , an absence of their true
(06:40):
role as subjects of his majesty.
, inside of the British political system.
When you talk about, , entitlementand their role, I guess I want
to ask you, what is their role?
What, or what should their role be?
Ah, well, it is it's a difficult question.
It's touchy as they like to say.
(07:00):
And one must understand that.
In the United Kingdom, we havereached what I consider to be
the pinnacle of human freedom.
We are living on a planet in a worldthat is ruled by large measure, by
absolute monarchs, dictators warlords.
(07:22):
Here, there and everywhere, butin England, Scotland after a great
deal of strife, we have achieveda higher form of government.
We actually have the beginnings of arepresentative parliament and the role of
the king And of parliament is to preserveand expand the liberties of its citizens.
(07:46):
But with that comes a responsibility.
One must submit to the actsand the will of parliament.
Even his majesty agrees and he does.
But these Americans, they see themselves.
above and beyond that.
They see them, their legislatures asequals to that of the British Parliament.
(08:07):
And down that road, Isense there is mayhem.
They have responsibilities, butthey do not live up to them.
It is perhaps the word is submission,which is something that they don't
like, but one must both exercise one'sliberty, but exercise it responsibly
and in submission to the law.
(08:28):
Otherwise, you have anarchy and you havecivil strife, which can lead evermore
to that one thing we wish to avoidand which I find, we find ourselves
in once again, it seems, a civil war.
When you talk about submission tothe law, and then you meet people
like Samuel Adams, you just haveto be pulling your hair out, seeing
(08:51):
how somebody like that operates.
Well, yes the difficulty there is thatthey see the law very selectively.
Every one of them considers himself alawyer, but they pick and they choose.
We have politicians of that stripethat pick and choose from every book
they can find only picking the thingsthat they wish to expostulate upon.
(09:14):
But these Americans andparticularly, yes, Mr.
Adams, and there are a couple of them.
There's their cousins, I believe.
There's John and there's Samuel.
Samuel, reduced.
The population of Boston and theenvirons of Boston into gang warfare,
into criminal activity mobs in thestreets, and there was bloodshed.
(09:37):
There were tarrings and featheringsand royal officials that were simply
doing their jobs who were drivenout of their houses, their domiciles
burned, bricks through the window,and all of their possessions dragged
into the street and destroyed.
, so when I'm speaking of submissionI'm simply saying that one must remain
(09:57):
inside the boundaries of the law.
And when you leave that behind, , thereis, there's no way back there.
You've, you now have pulled up anchorand are drifting free in the winds
and the results are rarely satisfying.
And I fear that these Americanswill go from one crisis to the next.
(10:18):
I can only hope that this rebellion thatwe find ourselves in will burn itself out.
And that that this madness will cease,and that they will come to their
senses, and they may be forced to cometo their senses by our force of arms.
But eventually, I am hopeful that , asHis Majesty says, that , we, we have great
kindness towards our American brethren,but they must, In fact, understand the
(10:44):
relationship between the governmentand its authority and their own.
And they must submit
.Let me understand that relationship a little bit better because it appears,
and again, I'm just speaking from whatI hear from what Americans say, because
I love to hear your point of view.
What you're saying makes a lot of senseto me, but it appears to me that when
(11:07):
the British look at the people of theworld, , that there's a hierarchy.
And so the King is at the top,his majesty is at the very top.
And then below that.
I don't know British militarymaybe wealthy people.
And then where are thecolonists in that hierarchy?
well, I would rework it a bit for you.
(11:29):
I would put His Majesty, yes, nominallyat the very top, but also the Parliament.
Equal you recalled it in Englishhistory, we've had absolute monarchs,
but George our king is not such.
He is a constitutional monarchand believes deeply in the
(11:50):
constitutional role of the monarchy.
So that parliament is in fact thelawmaking body of the land of everywhere
that, that we call England, if youwish, or English possessions and British
possessions and the military reports tohis majesty, but follows the directives
(12:10):
of his ministers and of parliament.
And the people are yes, I would notcall them subservient, but they are
subjects of his majesty and they,but parliament is elected by them.
And I understand, and I willadmit that the elections of the
various members of parliament.
(12:31):
Are not completely democratic.
There are the rottenburrows here and there.
And of course we have a house ofLords that must pass a judgment on
new legislation and acts, and theyare hereditary as well as a religious
and such, there are Lords spiritualand landowning Lords, hereditary.
(12:53):
The people of England are subject tothese laws, so they would be next in line.
The colonies, I do not personally seethem as unequal to our own people.
They have all of the same rights,and should have all of the same
rights, and they have their ownlegislatures for their own local rules.
(13:16):
But someone must be in charge.
And that, in my mind, is theBritish Parliament, and it is in
the mind of the King the same way.
The Americans, those that arerebelling, and there are many of
those, but there are many who remainloyal, simply will not accept that.
They do not believe that the actsof Parliament can reach across
(13:38):
the ocean And rule over theirlives, but someone must do it.
Otherwise they are independent,which I realized many of them wish
to be now, that, that is a paththat I believe leads to further
, warfare, strife, and calamity.
I agree with you that someone must bein charge because if somebody is not
(13:58):
in charge, it is just nonstop chaos.
There's no question about that.
I guess.
What I'm wondering is if the colonistsdon't want the English parliament or
the king to be in charge of them, shouldthey have the right, being across the
ocean on an entirely different land,should they have the right to make
their own government and be independent?
(14:21):
I think not, I believe that the colonistsare they are distracted in many regards.
I believe that , this is actually aconspiracy and a plot by a minority
to drag away these colonies, whichthe British government and the
(14:44):
British nation have invested enormousblood, treasure and toil into.
And for this small minority tosimply decide on their own that
they want it all, they want to takeit all away, is simply improper.
Yes, if this was of overwhelmingopinion in the streets and amongst
(15:07):
every man, woman, and child inthe colonies, then perhaps yes.
But I do believe that this is a,Conspiracy and a plot by ill designing
men who wish to essentially line theirpockets with the riches of America.
After the land has been conqueredand after the civilization has been
(15:32):
established along the coast , itis simply, it's simply wrong.
Would you, for example, acquiesce toyour neighbor simply taking over your
house because it's attached to hisand he likes it and he wants it all?
No, you would not.
You would fight back.
And that is precisely what the Britishgovernment is doing at this time.
(15:53):
Do you think maybe when you look backat some of the taxes that the colonists
had argued about over the years,say for example, like the Stamp Act
and, , then there was what they callthe Intolerable Acts, which I think
the English call the coercive acts.
Yeah.
Do you think that perhapsthose were not levy properly?
(16:14):
And if they had been maybe explainedor sold or maybe built up a little bit
slower that maybe the reaction from thecolonists wouldn't have been so strong.
I must agree with you there.
I do believe that there were momentswhere another course could have
been taken, another path chosen.
(16:35):
The Americans are a proud people andtheir legislatures I may not agree,
but their legislatures feel that theyare on an equal billing and an equal
par with the parliament in London.
And I do believe that there are.
A number of ministers in Londonwho simply do not understand this.
(16:59):
And I believe that my predecessorin Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson,
even argued these points back toparliament, but wasn't ignored.
And.
And in my case I argued that therewere basically two paths here,
either acquiescence or conquest.
That the middle groundwas never going to work.
(17:21):
So, I do believe that therewere missteps along the way.
That the government could have donebetter to either early on acquiesce,
find a peaceful solution or earlyon arrive in overwhelming force and
simply and simply squash and destroythese revolutionary and rebellious
(17:46):
tendencies before they got going.
Once things had gotten out of hand, wehad insufficient force to deal with them.
And the rest, as theysay, has been history.
We are now engaged in a much moresevere conflict with these united,
as they call themselves colonies.
(18:08):
And and it's a much more serious issue.
, I do recall writing back to Whitehall ifyou think to send 10, 000 men, send 20,
if you think to , spend a million pounds.
Spend two, you will save bothblood and treasure in the end.
Now, I wrote that after things hadbecome very severe in New England.
(18:28):
But going back earlier, yes, I wouldagree that there were moments when I
wish that perhaps some ministers fromWhitehall had taken ship and come over
here to negotiate one on one with thesepeople and perhaps find a better solution.
The war that is now underway willbe costly, expensive , in blood,
(18:49):
treasure, men, material, and everything.
I feel I, I am notoptimistic for the future.
Let's talk about the possiblemissteps . I'd like to hear maybe
an example of if something was goingto be handled different earlier what
would have possibly made a difference?
And then if that was not goingto be the answer, I'd like to
(19:11):
hear the other side of that.
If we were going to use overwhelmingforce, , you're saying if you're
going to send 10, send 20,but what did you really need?
What did you want?
So can you give meexamples of both of those?
Well, of course, recall that I Was untilI became the governor of Massachusetts.
I was purely a military man.
And so I had the luxury ofseeing these things from afar.
(19:35):
But although quite up close,but still with some separation.
I believe that our difficultiesdate back to the era in the late
previous decade with the StampAct and the various taxations that
were created by active parliament.
(19:56):
And the trouble for the local peoplewas what they considered to be the
overriding of their local legislatures.
A smarter path at the time, and thisis in the fullness of hindsight, might
have been to approach each of thecolonial legislatures individually
with a request And with some mechanismby which the taxes, which were very
(20:22):
fair and which were very necessary.
Could have been promulgated throughcolonial legislation and might have been
much more accepting accepted, I shouldsay, in the colonies for the matter of
being locally created at the request ofParliament, but locally created, locally
(20:44):
collected, and locally administered.
I don't know if thelegislatures would have.
in this regard, it may have been afool's errand, but I believe that an
attempt should have been made to find adifferent way because I will admit that
(21:05):
While I may see the British Parliamentas supreme and something to which one
must submit that was not universallythe case in everyone's opinion.
And so one has to work very often,as in the military, one has to
work with what one has ratherthan what one wishes it would be.
(21:26):
started down a difficult path in thelatter part of the previous decade with a
number of the earlier acts of Parliament,all of which then most of which were
then withdrawn, which provided it simply.
To the radicals, to the people whofelt that this was an opportunity
to create mayhem and to glean power.
(21:49):
Oh that tasted of blood.
They felt that they had won something.
And from that moment on itwas very difficult to To to
negotiate with them in good faithbecause they always wanted more.
So I believe early on , a morerespectful, Environment might've been
established in which the coloniallegislatures were far more involved.
(22:12):
But then later I would say as we gotinto the middle of last year in 1774,
as the Massachusetts in particular andits neighboring colonies were descending
into civil unrest and rebellion by thenit was either some broad acquiescence.
(22:33):
That would have undermined the argumentof the radicals, or, as I said, some
very heavy, sharp military blow tohave brought everyone to their senses.
I do not know, for I am only soclairvoyant, but I'm not sure which
of these two paths might have beenmore successful, but the middle path
(22:56):
of standing by our legislatures,standing by our principles, but at
the same time having insufficientforce , to enforce these things,
that has led to the present dilemma.
So being a military man if you could havehad it your way and no longer, was it a
situation you do what you can with whatyou have, you have exactly what you need.
(23:16):
How many troops would you have asked for?
Oh, , twenty five thousand.
It would have required a mobilizationacross the United Kingdom.
It would have been exceedingly expensive.
But it , it would have beeninexpensive compared to what I fear.
Is going to happen overthe next several years.
Yeah, it probably would have been lessexpensive because , it is one of those
(23:39):
things where, you know, it seems like ifyou do something halfway, Sometimes you
have to do it three or four or five or 10times, where if you'd just done it once
and just dealt with it, then it was over.
precisely.
Yes, that is mine.
And I believe me I have greataffection for the American people.
And I would have only resortedto that in the exigency of.
(24:01):
Of actual rebellion, but that's just it.
The, these people have chosen extralegal and rebellious paths on their own,
they were not forced down that road.
It is their own radicals who theyhave followed down that road.
It would be only in those circumstancesthat I would advocate for a military
(24:24):
response, but my very point is, if onechooses a military force, And a military
response, it must be overwhelmingleaving something half done is simply
not a path to success in these matters.
So either head this off bycompromise early or finish the
(24:44):
job with overwhelming force.
When you look at the rabblerousers, , I bring up Sam Adams again.
He seems like he isdefinitely one of them.
Yes
I'm guessing that you would probablylist John Hancock in that place as well.
Yes, very much so.
And Hancock, John Hancock, was, werealize now, was very much behind
(25:04):
the the events that led to thedestruction of East India Company T in
the harbor in Boston, and a number ofthe subsequent crises that occurred.
And so yes I consider themall when I look at them.
Yes, very much a partof the radical class.
What is their crime inthe eyes of the English?
(25:27):
Is there crime against the King?
Is it against God?
Is it against what is their crime?
Well, the quick answer wouldbe yes but, In truth, it is
not even against his majesty.
It is against the law.
Their crime is that they have createdextra legal congresses and have acted
(25:50):
outside of any legislative control.
They have the very act of destroyingthe tea, although I am sure that Mr.
Hancock while pulling the strings in thebackground has made sure that his fingers
are nowhere near the the actual crime andhis hands are very clean I would expect.
(26:14):
He's clever that way.
Their crimes are.
Are absolutely outrageous.
. They have simply taken themselvescompletely outside of the legal
framework that ensures public safetyand harmony within the society.
Down their path comesanarchy and mob rule.
(26:35):
There is such a thingas too much democracy.
You can, if you ask every singleidiot in the street what they
think, you will get 10, 000 answers.
And again, I go back to the idea that onemust have a leader, a responsible leader,
one that is appropriate and who isable to act in accordance with the
(26:59):
law and for the benefit of people.
These people care nothing for that.
I believe that they are operatingoutside of the law for their own benefit.
They wrap it in their cause of libertyand such, but it is, Absolutely, I feel
(27:21):
a sham and a a shield that they employ.
They are acting in, in a seditiousmanner and they are plotting against and
to overthrow the correct and rightfulgovernment of, first of all, Massachusetts
and now the other colonies too.
As you think about the rabblerousers, , the people that are
(27:43):
the biggest problems we had a warhere not too long ago in our time.
And we took our government tooka deck of cards and said, these
are the most important peoplebased on the value of those cards.
So they said, the ace ofspades is this person.
And then, King of spades is this person.
So if you were going to list thosepeople, who's the biggest problem, who
are the top three or four people with
Oh, I believe it would certainlybe John Hancock Samuel Adams.
(28:07):
Gentleman John Adams, who is a much morecivilized gentleman, but still filled with
these rebellious and seditious concepts.
And now there's a new player,apparently, there is a gentleman
I use the word loosely Washington,who has taken command of their
rebellious army outside of Boston.
(28:30):
At present you may know that , theBritish army is in fact besieged by
these rebels in Boston, and they areholding on very valiantly against
them, but this is open warfare.
These people , they are engaged in civilwar and we have dealt with that before.
We've dealt with it in manyparts of the United Kingdom.
(28:53):
And this will be dealt with also,but I would put those for Ohio my
list, and there are several otherringleaders that are part of what they
are calling their continental Congress.
But if.
If one could round up and shipoff these ringleaders, I believe
the entire enterprise wouldcool down quite substantially.
(29:16):
the gosh, what an interesting thoughtif you could round them up looking,
okay, I want you to imagine for a secondthat these people that we're talking
about the biggest problem, people, theHancock, the Adams boys, all right,
if they were in England and they weredoing what they're doing right now.
, and they were caught in England.
(29:38):
What would their consequence be?
It would be treason.
They, would it be death?
It could be.
That would be the judgment of a jury.
It would be done properly.
They could be hanged for treason.
More possibly they wouldbe incarcerated or exiled.
We we have gotten past thepoint where we used to draw
on quarter people for treason.
(30:00):
I think it's still on the books.
We could do it, but I believethat we would be far more humane.
But They would be subject to the moststringent of lawful prosecutions.
And yes, a death couldbe in there for them.
, I would have to defer to a jury.
They are British citizens andthey would deserve a jury trial.
(30:22):
The same as any other, but personally,I think that some of them they very well
may get that treatment if they were found.
If they were doing this inEngland, in Scotland, Ireland
there would be severe punishment.
However, I would point out that if theywere doing this, for example, in France,
, we wouldn't even know their names.
(30:42):
They would have been taken outlong ago and simply murdered.
And that is the difference betweenthe way that the rest of Europe these
days seems to be run and the Britishentity on the, in the British Isles.
We are increasingly resortingto much more civilized ways
(31:03):
of dealing with our problems.
And the great irony here is thatas we have made this progress
towards what I consider to be highcivilization the Americans feel that
they're running ahead of us now.
And they like children who havejust gotten into a playground
and they've run ahead.
(31:24):
And our simple point is no, stay with yourparents and all will be well and safe.
You'll get yourself hurt.
And but they don't see it that way.
And but there are again, several ofthese people, particularly individuals
like Samuel Adams are in my opinion,simply ill designing men bent on
(31:45):
rebellion and aggrandizement of power,
Wouldn't matter where you put them.
What country you dropped themin, they'd be creating problems.
They would, very likely they arefortunate to have created their problems
inside of a British ruled territory.
As I said, if they didn't inRussia or Germany or France,
(32:05):
they would've simply disappeared.
I see.
You're making the Frenchsound like they're barbarians.
Well, I fought with them for many years.
They they have many traits of civilizationand they are very high military.
scientists but, they're their love oftheir monarch and their, the absolute
(32:25):
nature of his rule, I believe is tothe denigration of their country.
And they may someday do somethingabout that, but it won't be soon.
Let's talk about monarchs for a minute.
Because the monarchs in England, thispart has always confused me a little bit.
The monarchs in England, itis not uncommon for a man to
(32:46):
be king, and then that role ofleadership to be passed to his son.
Is that correct?
Oh, very much so.
It is a hereditary title.
Absolutely.
In a government like that,where it is not merit based.
It appears from a distance that a lotof times you don't end up with the most
(33:08):
qualified person and in fact, from myunderstanding of reading about you in
history, it seems like you had a lot ofdisputes with the way or disagreements
with the way that the English governmentwas handling things over in the colonies.
Maybe that they were evenignoring your requests.
(33:28):
Ah, yes.
Well, that is true.
However, I would say that it is the roleof a military man to propose, but then
it is and I did on many occasions, rightback to Lord Barrington, the secretary
at war with suggestions for strategytroop movements, things of that nature.
(33:51):
But again, there is anappropriate and proper hierarchy.
And in such things, , you willalways be given situations where
you may not appreciate or like theparticular decisions that are made.
You simply must live with them.
And in regards to the monarch, yes, it isa hereditary title, no doubt about that.
(34:13):
But one of the critical thingsthat one must realize is that the
king is not an absolute monarch.
. He lives within the law and he actuallydoes operates at the behest and
through Parliament and his ministers.
So this softens the individualrule of a single man.
For example, if the Frenchking Is mad or savage.
(34:36):
Well, there you are.
There's nothing to be done about it.
Short of some sort of revolution.
In our instance, we can live through theseepisodes , because we have had good and
bad monarchs in our history but as theyhave become more constitutional, . And
as power has been distributed throughoutthe government and throughout Parliament,
(35:00):
House of Lords, and the ministers, thenthe effect of any one man is thus, I
won't say diminished, but softened.
I hope that answers the question.
It does.
It does.
The King right now, isit King George the third?
Is that right?
That is correct.
Very
So I want to challenge what you just saidand understanding that I may be wrong.
(35:20):
So King George, let's say he meetswith parliament and he says, all right,
that's it, these colonists, if we don't.
Rip the bandaid off and just completelygo all in and make a huge mark.
We're going to be messingaround with this for decades.
So we're going to send75, 000 troops right now.
(35:41):
We're going to find the rabble rousers.
We're going to bury them 10 feetunderground and we're going to end
this thing over the next 30 days.
All right.
And so, yeah, sounds good.
Right?
It does.
So.
Then, one of the people in Parliamentcome up, stand up, and says, King
(36:01):
George, , or Your Highness, you are mad.
You have always been mad,and your ideas are terrible.
What happens to him?
Nothing.
He actually is able to say such things.
Now, it may not be politic for him to doso, but he is protected in that regard.
(36:22):
As long as he does not advocate forrebellion for removal of his majesty
illegally if he wishes to simply say thatthe judgment of his majesty is impaired
or that it is not correct or that weare not getting good advice, that is
where you must say things in parliament.
Thank you very much.
And there may be consequences,political consequences, but there
(36:45):
would be no legal consequences.
Where in French, they would chophis body into pieces and spread them
on, each on a different continent,
I would expect so, yes.
Okay.
So, when you're talking aboutparliament, are these all elected
officials or are these people appointed?
It's a blend.
They are, in theory, inthe House of Commons.
(37:07):
They are all elected, but some arefrom very small boroughs that are
with a very small number of voters,all of whom are in the pocket, if you
wish, of the Member of Parliament.
Typically, he may be oneof the major landowners.
The House of Lords.
(37:28):
Is a hereditary, largely hereditarybody of the nobility, the minor to major
nobility, Viscounts, Barons and othervarious Lords, all of them typically
large landowners, but all of them servantsof the monarch, some of the military,
some of them commercial or industrial.
(37:49):
And then there are.
Lords spiritual from the establishedchurch , so it's a blend.
And so not universally elected thereare members of parliament who are
very popularly elected from partsof London and many of the cities.
And then of coursethere are the ministers.
Who work in their roles under thetutelage of his majesty but again within
(38:16):
the rules and the acts of parliament.
So it's complex and we callit the British constitution.
None of it's written downexcept for the acts and the laws
themselves, but the body of it is anachievement and it works quite well.
At least it works betterthan dictatorship.
And we have struggled very hard to gethere over hundreds and hundreds of years.
(38:39):
And so the reason I speak pridefullyof this and rail against those who
would tear this edifice down is thatit has taken so long and cost so much
blood to build that I would like it to
it just seems like from what you'redescribing, , the Americans are just
completely ignoring all the work thathas come before this to get to the
point where they had the opportunityto speak loudly and have freedom.
(39:04):
Well, yes, that's just it.
It is quite impressive that theyshould they are beneficiaries of this
system, and yet they do not respect it.
There are members of Parliamentwho speak highly of the Americans,
and I respect their opinions.
They tend to be of the Whig persuasion, as are many members of my family.
(39:25):
I even myself would claim to be on theliberal side of many of these things
and many of these issues but it ismy point again, and I'm beginning to
repeat myself perhaps a bit here, isthat There are limits to these things.
There is a responsibility.
You may not like the government.
You may not agree with the government.
(39:46):
You may say savage things about thegovernment, and you have that right,
but you also must respect the lawsand the acts of that government.
Yeah, makes sense.
So where does your wifefall on all of this?
And I wonder also if when you ended upfalling in love with somebody from the
colonies, I'm wondering if that kind ofpulled you to that side a little bit.
(40:08):
It did a bit.
I have great sympathies, as I havesaid for many Americans, and this has
been terribly distressful, Margaret.
She has many friends that Now that weare departed from America I suspect it
will be a long time before we are back.
And she has many friends andfamily who are stranded now in some
(40:30):
of these colonies and are undersome great distress from the mob.
So it is a difficult situation.
I, I admire many of the Americanswhile despising many of them.
The ones that you despise, if youcould go back and redo what you had
done, would you have had them executed?
No, I think that would be uncivilized, butI might drop them down a very deep hole.
(40:55):
But let them live
With a loaf of bread.
yes, exactly
that's fantastic.
Your wife.
So you're back in England now.
How long have you been back in England
Oh a month.
Yeah we took ship in in Ibelieve September, and it took
several weeks to come across.
And your wife did shedid come with you back
Yes and the children, yes.
(41:15):
So, your wife, is thisher first time in England?
No, we have we have actuallyvisited several times.
Most recently was in 73.
We went across briefly to meet family andto introduce her to members of my family,
as well as a number of the children.
So, and also to do some business.
(41:36):
We then returned and you might recallthat I was the I've been the Commander
in Chief, or at least I was at thetime, of land forces in North America.
I returned to England and thenwas appointed Governor, replacing
Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts,and thus returned instead of New
(41:58):
York, where my residence and our.
Command was instead of their returningto Boston and and establishing
and new house and such in Boston.
Is Boston the hub of the entireAmerican, I mean, we call it revolution.
You've said civil war several times.
I suppose depending on whichside you're looking at it.
(42:19):
Is just how you would name it.
But whatever you would callit, is Boston the hub of that?
It is very much thehub , of these troubles.
Absolutely.
Without the troubles in Boston, the othercolonies would not have proceeded down
this road of sedition and rebellion.
They may still have beenproblematic, there may still
(42:41):
have been political difficulties,but nothing like what we have.
It is very much These Denseans andstiff necked Yankees of Boston that
have created so much of the trouble.
I wonder this is a hard questionto ask you because there's no
way to ask this in a nice way.
, it certainly will sound offensive.
So forgive me if it does,but there are rumors.
(43:03):
That when you go back a little bit,you go back to the battle at Concord
and Lexington and there are rumorsthat the colonists had some information
that was going to happen in advanceand they were prepared and many of
those rumors are that your wife hadpassed some of that information along.
(43:23):
Yes, scurrilous lies spreadby the very same Yankees.
And I can tell you that boththe provincials and the friends
of government had sufficientingress into each other's lives.
Lives plans and domiciles that we knewwhat each other was doing without it
(43:45):
being necessary for someone like Margaret, to provide them this information.
I knew and was informed ofthe assembly of munitions.
Canon and muskets shot powder tents,bts, everything in conquered and equally
they the passing person in the nightcould see and probably had information
(44:11):
of our expedition out to Concord andobviously did before it actually happened.
And, of course, there were theseriders that got out into the night.
There was a man, I believe hisname was Revere, who rode and
managed to get partly to Concord.
Apparently he was captured by severalof our soldiers partway through.
(44:32):
But still the message got out.
So there were many riders.
Routes and paths by which both sidesin this knew about the other's plans.
There was no need, in my opinion,for my wife to have done such a
thing, nor would she have done.
And she finds the entire situationdistressing, but the idea that
(44:53):
she would go against family andgovernment and all that, that she
holds dear is simply a scurrilous liemade up by these very ill designing
men that I have spoken of earlier.
But wouldn't you agree thatthe land that she was born in
that, , we'll call America.
Wouldn't you agreethat, , that is her homeland.
(45:16):
, it's true.
There is her family, but is she,does she not have an allegiance
to her homeland as well?
well, no I would say . Yes.
She does have an allegiance to herhomeland and that is right and proper,
but her homeland is part of the whole.
That is, one can be both a patriot for,in her case, the province of New Jersey
(45:40):
or Massachusetts or New York, take yourpick, and still be a British patriot.
In fact, they are congruent there isevery reason and there are many people.
For whom this is not a challenge.
They do not see any sort of distractionin that idea and in that concept, they're
(46:01):
both proud Americans and proud Englishmenor Scotsman for the matter, or Irishmen.
And they carry on theirlives in harmony with the law.
And for the greater good of all again,it is simply these particular ill
designing, difficult uncompromising men,many of them Yankees but also elsewhere
(46:26):
in the colonies who at every turn,foment trouble, find the worst in every
proposal and . Destroy the worth of thenewspaper the broad side, they've spread
lies about everything that they can,and they have turned a number of heads.
All of it, again, as I said, inthe pursuit of power, they wrap it
(46:49):
in this wonderful word of liberty,but I would ask who on earth
helped to create such liberty.
It was in fact, the British.
System, the British government, theBritish history the great march of
British liberty that brought us to thispoint from Magna Carta down to this day.
(47:10):
And they seem to while they claimto be students of this and admirers
of this great history, they alsotrample on it at the same time.
Mob rule is not liberty.
Yeah, no question about that.
Your wife who am absolutely convincedthat you believe that there is no
(47:31):
way that she passed any secretsalong and that may be true and I
don't know either way, obviously.
Okay.
But I do want to ask this about that.
. If she were passing secrets along,let's just say that she was, which
we have established she's not, butif she was, who does she have contact
with regularly , on the colonist side
(47:52):
that that information couldbe passed to, like, was one of
them I can't remember his name.
Doctor,
Dr.
Church,
Oh, Benjamin Church.
yes yes, well, yes, therewould have been opportunities.
Of course, Dr.
Church has also been veryhelpful in providing information
(48:13):
to myself personally.
And of course I believe thathe's now rather he's still in
Boston, but under the protectionof his majesty's soldiers there.
But yes, there would be possibilities.
Margaret is an independent woman.
She goes about herbusiness during the day.
But indeed there would be fewopportunities for her to mix
(48:36):
particularly with the radical set.
Thank you.
And so that, again, begs thequestion, to whom would she
be giving , this information?
So, on many levels, , thestory simply does not hold up.
And and, there's been no great evidence.
In addition to which, I did notdiscuss many of these items with her.
(48:57):
As I did not discuss them with anyone,very few, only my inner military
circle, the plans going out to, toto Concord were simply were revealed
to Colonel Smith of the 10th Regimentand others only in conversation and in
written order within days of the event.
(49:18):
, I have a rule of not bringing work home.
Okay.
Dr.
Church, Dr.
Benjamin Church.
If you were, this is a man who has thaton both sides, there are strong feelings,
I believe, because on your side of thefence, this man is a Patriot that gave you
information about what was going on Andfrom the colonists side, from the American
(49:41):
side, he is going to be seen as a traitorthat deserve nothing less than death.
Are you the one that turned him?
Isn't it incredible.
How much of a difference perspectivemakes the whole American revolution
is an entirely different event,depending on which side of the
ocean you're looking at it from.
Benjamin Church who betrayed the Americancause and is hated by American Patriots
(50:05):
would have been seen as a loyal Englishmanfrom Thomas gauges side of the pond.
And the reality is he wasboth in the next episode.
We're going to talk a little bitabout George Washington, the sons
of Liberty, as well as the mistakesthat gage would have corrected.
If he could do it all over again,I'm glad you're enjoying the podcast.
(50:25):
And if you haven't yet subscribednow, and we'll see you at the next
episode of the calling historypodcast with part two of Thomas gage.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.