To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

List of colonial governors and administrators of Tobago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page lists Governors of Tobago. Governors of Tobago have been referred to by the formal titles of "Governor" and "Lieutenant-Governor". For governors of the united Trinidad and Tobago after 1889 see List of Governors of Trinidad and Tobago.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    334
    754
  • ✪ Constitution Day Lecture: Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy
  • ✪ Right- and left-hand traffic

Transcription

[Applause]. Andrew O'Shaughnessy: Well, it's a pleasure and privilege to be with you on Constitution Day and I'm hoping that by the end of this talk you're going to feel even happier and prouder that you have a constitution. I'd like to thank my hosts, uh, Kyle Harper, uh, Kevin Butterfield, and Paul Gilje for inviting me for this special occasion. It's actually my first time in Oklahoma. Uh, growing up in Britain, my chief association with this state was the movie Oklahoma. [Laughter]. And you may not be aware but that movie made a great emotional impact in Britain immediately after the second World War. It was in color and although there had been movies in color in the 30s, uh, there were very, none during the second World War. And secondly, it exuded optimism. I've heard older people describe seeing Gordon MacRae coming through those long, uh, the, through the fields, and uh the excitement as he sang Oh What a Beautiful Morning 'cause only a couple years earlier the British had been faced with invasion and here was literally the dawn of a new day. So it's one of the ironies of this talk, is that not only do you celebrate the American Constitution, American freedom, but so do the British and so do all of those who were liberated by America. Now this is a book obviously about the other side. It may amuse you that there are two different covers, one American and one British. And they're different, and they even have slightly different titles, although I can assure you the ending is the same. [Laughter]. This is the American edition done by Yale, which is actually uh particularly good because it has color illustrations, and although I can't make a lot of claims for the text, I can say that there is no book on the American Revolution with more red colored pictures. And the cover on both of the books is actually the same painting. It's John Singleton Copley, an American artist, and it's a painting called The Floating Batteries of Gibraltar. And it depicts a scene towards the end of the American Revolution, it's a painting that virtually, very few people have seen because during the second World War it was moved to Gibraltar where it stayed for 40 years. It's now in the Guildhall, uh, Art Museum, um, which very few people visit when they go to London, uh, it's somewhat eclipsed by galleries like the National Gallery. Um, it's life size, it's a mural, and what you're seeing here is a detail. And amusingly the detail almost reinforces the stereotype which this book is written against because you have the arrogant British general, who could be played by Sir Laurence Olivier, figure pointing into the distance. And his subordinate looking up and friends, when they looked at this cover, said the subordinate almost seems to be saying, Are you being serious? There's also a Christlike figure in the corner, who looks as though he's being crucified. They used my full name, Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy. I recently had to do, uh, an interview with The Atlantic Magazine responding to the decision of the Connecticut Democrats to drop the name of Jefferson and Jackson from their annual dinners, and someone wrote to me afterwards and suggested that I change my name. [Laughter]. But, I, in actual fact it was my mother's maiden name. My father was well aware of the juxtaposition and I always have to add that he had read the biography of Jackson produced uh, in, at the end of the second World War which never mentioned anything about Indian removal. And the subtitle you'll see is slightly different in the British edition, just remember it's British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of the Empire. So this is the British edition of the book. As you see instead of just the two commanders you have this rugby scrum of redcoats, looking very victorious because publishers said that, um, the British are not interested in defeats. They only, they didn't use my middle name, which they said sounded American, uh, the, the British do not use middle names and middle initials. Uh, it's so, the tradition's so strong here that Harry Truman actually had to create a middle initial. Uh, that would never be the case in Britain. And the subtitle is different. Instead of British Leadership, it's British Command and the word command somehow has a different tone to leadership. And instead of the Fate of the Empire, it's the Preservation of the Empire. So I really just want to alert you that marketing can ear, even rear its ugly head in history and that interpretation, this is really a book all about interpretation and looking at events from different perspectives. The American war was a war that Britain seemingly should have won. Britain had only a few years earlier won what in America's called the French and Indian War, and what in this... in in Europe is called the Seven Years' War. This was the war in which Britain literally became a global power. It acquired of course Canada but it also acquired Bengal in India and this was the state that really gave the British a major foothold in India. They'd already had a presence in India but this was the critical, uh, period in which they gained their main foothold. And they gained islands in the Caribbean, uh, a fortress on the uh west coast of Africa and essentially became, uh, the global power. And they would go on after the American Revolutionary War to win the French Revolutionary Wars and to defeat who arguably is regarded as the greatest uh general of all time, Napoleon. So the American Revolutionary War was an aberration, and the question naturally arises, Why did the British lose? It was the only occasion in the 18th century where the British significantly lost a naval battle to the French. They prided themselves on being the uh supreme naval force in the world. What went wrong? And the popular, uh, explanation that's particularly strong among laypeople is the idea that it was simply lost by bad leadership. Aristocratic buffoons in command, people who had just stepped into their positions because of who their father was rather than any uh merit. Uh, that idea is particularly perpetuated in movies. I'll show later a clip from The Patriot, which you'll think unfair because that was a movie that was severely criticized by historians but the stereotypes that perpetuates are popular in every movie on the American Revolution, like Al Pacino's movie Revolution. You'll get exactly the same stereotypes. And these are stereotypes incidentally which were created as much by the British as anyone in America. Uh, the idea that they'd lost by bad leadership was an idea that was contemporaneous to the American Revolution. The leaders blamed each other. When the first British consul came to America in the 1790s he introduced, he was introduced to George Washington. And he said Washington was incredibly impressive, you know, standing six foot four, he had a military bearing, uh, this kind of nobility of manner, but he said I'm sure he wouldn't have looked so impressive if we'd just sent better generals over to fight against him. And that's the irony of this, this idea that it was just lost by bad British leadership. It actually diminishes the achievement of Washington and his contemporaries. It's a popular idea in popular history. Barbara Tuchman did a book uh called The March of Folly, and a third of it was about British leadership during the American Revolution. It was really a book about Vietnam, which was when it was published, and essentially denouncing all wars and all leadership, but uh it particularly played to the stereotypes and they do get into um, uh, serious academic history as well, with the use of words like hidebound and incompetent being very common. The point of writing this book was not really to um in any way particularly uh to absolve these personalities or to revive them. Uh, they were on the wrong side of history, uh, they will never be popular, the uh, they stood for ideas which today we regard as reactionary. My concern with those stereotypes was that it really shifted our attention from the real reasons why Britain lost the war. And so I'm going to talk a bit about the personalities that at the end of our, my talk, I'll give you the abbreviated elevator pitch version of why the British lost, uh, which I think is a lot more interesting and indeed has many more parallels to current conflicts, not least uh in recent history, Vietnam, but arguably, uh, also Iraq and Afghanistan, although that's not the reason that I wrote the book, but I think there are interesting uh parallels to think about. Uh, I wrote the book as a series of biographies, rather like a play. Each person is introduced in order of their importance. There are 10 major figures considered in the book. These are both military and political figures, the 10 key decision makers on the British side during the American Revolutionary War. The first of course you would expect to find in the book uh, George the Third, uh, the man that Thomas Jefferson described as a tyrant, the person who was principally blamed in 1776 for the war. In reality, George the Third had very little to do with policy up until about the Boston Tea Party, so he was, he certainly wasn't the source of the war. Uh, in this period, as today, uh, decisions were made in the name of the king. Uh, the king had a lot more power than the current monarchy, but most of the day to day decisions were made by the prime minister and the cabinets and that was certainly true of colonial policy up until the Boston Tea Party. But George the Third was very interesting because although he was not to blame for the war, he could still be retained as a villain here because he becomes the leading war hawk in Britain, he becomes obsessed with this conflict. This is a painting of him at the height of the war, ironically by his favorite artist who was American, Benjamin West. And, uh, this shows him in his war, in his war mode. He's even wearing his redcoat, and when this painting was done, he'd moved his favorite royal retreat from Richmond to Windsor Castle and started to have Windsor Castle rebuilt and repaired so he's literally in a fortress, he was having military music played every evening, and he was obsessed by the war because he argued if Britain lost America, it would cease to be a major power. It would just become a secondary country within Europe. He was so obsessed that he actually, uh, threatened his resignation, what's known as an abdication, and twice wrote out his abdication speech. He wanted to go on even after Yorktown. The person who was responsible for the policies that led to the Revolution or the immediate trigger, uh, the famous Tea Act, was Lord North, and he's pictured here in the robes of the Chancellor of Oxford University. Uh, I often joke to students at the University of Virginia that they should be sister campuses, uh, since Oxford was the headquarters, the cavaliers during the English Civil War, and as you may know, UVA calls itself the home of the Cavaliers. They even have a cavalier come on at the beginning of the football game. And both, the students of both universities say that they're the home of lost causes. However the lost cause in Britain was also a civil war, uh, a war in which they supported the monarchy. And the other lost cause was the American Revolution when Lord North was chancellor of the university and the students and the faculty supported the government. Lord North today is known as the worst Prime Minister in British history. It's a... an expression still used in Parliament when you want to insult a prime minister. It was particularly popular during the Macmillan years in the early uh 60s. Uh, and indeed he was responsible for the Tea Act but what interested me about Lord North was the moment that he realized that the 13 colonies were united, he immediately tried to backtrack. And that was before a single shot had been fired. Essentially it was the moment that news came of the deliberations of the First Continental Congress, which had met in Philadelphia in September of 1774, but news didn't get to Britain of what they had decided, 'cause they kept their deliberations secret, until early December. And from that moment on until the end of the war, Lord North tried to find a peaceful way out and tried to negotiate. He began by, uh, negotiating with Benjamin Franklin, through third parties. In February the following year, he offered a conciliatory proposal in which Americans could tax themselves rather than be taxed by England. And by the middle of the war, he made his ultimate offer, that America would never be taxed. It's known as the Carlisle Commission, that every piece of legislation passed since the French and Indian War would be repealed and that Britain would basically have nothing but token oversight of America, much like modern-day Australia or Canada, a British-appointed, uh, executive figure, uh, but essentially local self-government. And North kept trying to resign, arguing that he'd been an obstacle to peace, he was associated with the measures that led to the war, he kept asking the king to resign. But he was retained, because far from being incompetent, uh, he was actually one of the few people in Parliament who was sufficiently supportive of the war and sufficiently gifted that he could keep together a government. Prime ministers had to be able to win the support of the House of Commons, not by corruption. Only about a fifth of the House of Commons could be bribed or held, uh, royal positions. Essentially by oratory and by good management. Uh, there was no regimented party system in England at the time, and Lord North was one of the most gifted orators in the history of Parliament. He faced some of the great opposition speakers of all time, people like Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox, William Pitt, both the Elder and the Younger. He'd go into Parliament not for an hour a week like David Cameron and do Prime Minister's question time, but for three days a week, uh, he'd arrive usually at lunchtime, which was when debates started to get hotted up, and he'd stay often till the early hours of the morning, frequently with no recess the next day. He'd wait until almost the end of the debate and then speak for two hours without notes. Um, and his speeches were almost, people would go just to watch him speak. Uh, his budget speeches for example, which would normally be considered highly dull, because he could give every fact and every figure from memory, uh, people would actually crowd the galleries to hear him. And that was another feature of Lord North. He was a brilliant financier. He essentially held two modern jobs. He was both Prime Minister but Chancellor of the Exchequer, he, the job of the Secretary of the Treasury. He negotiated all of the loans to keep Britain afloat. The biggest concern at this period was the British national debt. It was far higher than the current American national debt in terms of the GNP. Uh, they spent almost 40% of all tax money just servicing the debt. Then there's one chapter with two people, and that is the Howe brothers, Sir William Howe and uh his brother Lord Richard Howe. Sir William was head of the army, Lord Richard Howe was head of the navy. And this does sound like the ultimate good old boy network, how could you get two brothers commanding in two different areas. Well, it was actually Sir William Howe that the government appointed. And he was only uh, had recently been appointed a general. Um, if you looked to the list of generals at the time, he was 105 down the list, so 105 more senior generals, and he only had I think three generals below him, who happened to be Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne, who would also serve in, uh, America. In other words, the British government chose its most junior generals, but not because they were the B team, but precisely because they were thought to be the most able and to have the most, uh, vigor, and also to know about conditions in America. Sir William Howe had served in American during the French and Indian War and he'd been part of one of the greatest British victories of all time, in which the British took Quebec and he was part of the scaling of the Plains of Abraham. He was beside the body of General Wolfe when he was killed at, uh, Quebec, and he was a pioneer in what were known as light infantry and the easiest way to think about light infantry is to think of them almost like modern-day commandos. These were people who could break out of a regular regiment, uh, the most athletic people in the regiment and could rush forward and fight what the British often called Indian-style warfare, ambush warfare, uh, what we might today think of as guerrilla warfare. The minister responsible for the war in England understood it would be unconventional warfare and that the person who knew most about that unconventional warfare was Sir William. But he insisted as his price of service that his brother be made head of the navy, and that was very smart, because, uh, there was no joint chief of staff in this period. They were run entirely independently, and therefore to have the best, uh, coordination between the navy and the army was to literally have two siblings in charge of both. The irony about Lord Richard Howe is he was appointed because of his brother. He went on to become one of Britain's greatest naval heroes before Lord Nelson, and he illustrates a key point in this book, that there's a very thin line between success and failure, and that some of us can thrive in particular conditions but be overwhelmed in others. Uh, sociologists often talk about being set up for failure, and to some extent that was the case with these two brothers. Lord Richard Howe was also a pioneer in naval warfare, uh, and especially the development of what was known as amphibious warfare, where the army and navy worked together. Lord Richard Howe really wrote the manual, uh, for the British navy on amphibious warfare and he was involved in certainly commissioning, if not actually designing, the flat-bottomed ships which would carry the troops, and whose bow would go forward, much like the ships on Omaha Beach on D-Day, would go forward and troops could just rush off, uh, and land, uh, from their ships. These two men between them landed 15,000 troops on Staten Island in early August of 1776 with 40 cannon in about two and a half hours. And they're tremendously effective. And indeed one of the great advantages the British had was amphibious warfare, they're able to attack any town along the coast at any point. And remember, much of the American population lived within 50 miles, and this is obviously the British American population, were living within 50 miles of the coast, and so were highly exposed to attack. John Burgoyne was not, was never commander-in-chief. The commander-in-chief for the first half of the war was Sir William Howe and he won every battle in which he commanded, including some of the largest battles of the American Revolution, uh, battles like Long Island or Brooklyn, uh, battles like White Plains, Germantown, uh, he defeated Washington on each occasion. Uh, John Burgoyne was a junior commander, and the two great defeats for the British in this war, Saratoga and Yorktown, were both won, or rather lost, by junior commanders. But Burgoyne, until the American Revolution, was seen as one of the really rising stars in the British army. He would have been senior to Howe and he was older, but for the fact that because of debts he'd had to spend some time out of the army living in France. This painting, which is in the Frick Collection in New York, was commissioned by his commander in Europe during the French and Indian War to really celebrate the fact that Burgoyne had successfully defended Portugal against Spain. So he's still a hero to this day in Portugal. This man, Lord George Germain, was the politician who was most responsible for the war in Britain. He's the favorite person to blame. There is interestingly only one scholarly biography. When you think of the amount of work we have on Confederates during the Civil War, uh, it's remarkable that someone so critical would be so little studied, and the biographer begins the biography by saying, I detest this man. [Laughter]. And that's quite rare in biographies. You usually choose to write about people you admire. And yet, Germain had a staff of only 25 people, which is smaller than the staff that I oversee in Monticello, and between them, they got 4, uh, 35,000 British troops to America in the summer of 1776. Uh, it was such an effort that they required every ship in the British merchant navy. Uh, there are descriptions, they weren't just coming from England. Uh, southern Ireland was a major source 'cause the British had a third of their army constantly garrisoning Ireland, and they were coming from Germany and several different ports in Germany, uh, which was providing German mercenaries, although some military historians insist on calling them auxiliaries, not mercenaries. Whatever, uh, one of those German soldiers described in a diary how they were so compact on board ship that when someone wanted to turn in the night, uh, they had to shout out so that the whole regiment turned over. Germain had one basic plan, which was to send the commanders more troops than they'd requested and to knock out Washington's army early and quickly. And every, uh, military historian who of course have 20/20 hindsight, will tell you that if there was an opportunity to win this war, it would have been defeating Washington's army early on, uh, probably in New York. Uh, instead, he felt let down by his commanders, who both in Canada, uh under Guy Carleton, and uh with um, uh, with, we talked earlier, Sir William Howe, uh, both of them were more interested in negotiating than in actually forcing the pace against uh the continental army. So he felt somewhat left down, let down. Sir Henry Clinton was the commander-in-chief for the second half of the war. He took over from Sir William Howe. He also has just one biography. It's actually a very good one and is probably the last military history book to win the Bancroft Prize in American History back in the 60s, uh, which is the main prize given by the American Historical Assocation. And it was written at the height of psychohistory, and that's the only unfortunate aspect of the book. And it essentially found in Clinton a classic neurotic. And uh since Freud was popular, it argued that he had, uh, a distant father and an overprotective mother, which was fascinating 'cause we know nothing about his childhood. Uh, but it is a bit like the old psychologist's joke, which is essentially my approach in this chapter, that uh the good news is you are suffering from anxiety, the bad news is you have much to be anxious about. [Laughter]. Because Clinton, Clinton was being expected to win this war with fewer British troops, the number of troops actually declines in America during the war, and less naval support than his predecessor. At the time when Britain was first fighting France, and then Spain and then Holland, with much of Europe in a, an alliance, supposedly a league of armed neutrality but which in many ways was anything but neutral, and hostile to Britain. Uh, Clinton in fact was the most cerebral of all the British commanders, arguably the most cerebral of any British officer in the 18th century, because we have his notes on military history, military doctrine and strategy. They fill 30 volumes. We have nothing like that for any other British officer in the 18th century. Furthermore, he really understood the key to this war. He said the key was firstly the navy, that the moment he predicted an inferior British navy was off the coast of America with a superior French navy, Britain was basically lost, that any detachment of British troops could be cut off. His father, one thing we do know about his father, his father was an admiral who'd been governor of New York, he knew America from childhood, and his uncle was an admiral, he understood the navy in the way that few people in this war did. The people on the opposite side who really understood this was going to be key were George Washington and John Adams. But he understood something even more important which will be the key to my explanation later on. And the real, what was essential was gaining the support of the population, that the views of the citizens was critical in a way that hadn't been true previously in warfare, in which citizens generally were not involved. And he wrote, We need to win the hearts and subdue the minds of America. He understood that it was a war of hearts and minds and he was desperately unhappy because he just didn't feel the British had the support. When he was appointed, uh, a young captain walked into his office in New York, and found him crying and the, his commander-in-chief, through his tears, pointed at a sentry at the door, and said I would rather be that man than in my place now. Lord Cornwallis was another junior general who of course was also defeated, uh, the critical defeat, Yorktown. But Cornwallis again went on to have a highly successful career. He was young enough to have a postwar career. Um, they're not necessarily things we would celebrate today, uh, one was putting down the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which was pretty well Ireland's largest rebellion, uh, uh, before the 20th century, and the other was, um, as Governor-General of India, he essentially expanded British India from Bengal well into the south. He commanded, um, battles, where there were many more troops than anything that had been seen in America during the American Revolution. And the final two personalities are both naval, since as I've indicated the navy is, is obviously quite critical to this. Sir George Rodney is probably the admiral you'd least expect to find in this book because he wasn't a failure, he was a success. He actually emerged with his reputation actually enhanced by this war, which was not true of anyone else, and that's because during this war, he defeated three enemy admirals of three different countries. He killed one of the admirals, the admiral of the Dutch fleet, and captured his fleet, uh, and he captured the admiral of Spain. There was also the leading admiral of France, de Grasse, who was the admiral who'd actually defeated, uh, the British at the Battle of Chesapeake Capes, which had allowed Cornwallis to be surrounded and successfully besieged at Yorktown. And one of the reasons for having Rodney here is that the British in fact towards the end of this war were victorious against France. There was a naval battle called the Battle of the Saints, fought in April of 1782. If they'd won that war earlier, if they'd won that battle earlier, uh, it would have freed them to focus all of their forces on America. And he was the commander at the time, it allowed them to retain all of the rest of their empire, uh, to the point that really France gained nothing from this war, other than the island of Tobago and fishing rights off Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Uh, you could say that the French were the real losers. And finally there was the Earl of Sandwich, who, uh, after whom the sandwich is named, and uh Sandwich again is the person most blamed among civilians and politicians for the war 'cause he was in charge of the navy. And this was the only war of the 18th century in which the navy was severely defeated, uh, off the Chesapeake Capes, and the argument was he just was too corrupt and didn't have it, uh, sufficiently prepared. It was very unfair and people began to realize that in the 1930s, when his papers were published, because Sandwich had been an administrator of the navy before most of the other politicians had been born. And he said, before Lexington Concord, that Britain should fully mobilize its entire navy because the war would result in a war with Europe. Every time Britain fought a war, and this was true of the French and Indian War, they always lost the first three years, 'cause their navy was getting cranked up, you know, half pay, uh, admirals and um captains would have to be brought off land, ships would have to be fixed up, new ships have to be built. Instead the navy budget was actually cut at the time of Lexington and Concord, partly for budgetary reasons and also partly because the government did not want to frighten the French and cause an arms escalation. So those are the 10 personalities. I'm going to show you a minute and a half film clip of, uh, from The Patriot, to show you the kind of caricatures that exist. Remember, movies inform people much more than books, a lot of our stereotypes come from, uh, movies. I shall then very briefly give you the real reasons why the British lost and take some questions. O'Shaughnessy: So, in the film clip, Lord Cornwallis, uh, he calls his, uh, coats, which is a splendid uh scarlet uniform, he's calling it a horse blacket, blanket, and insisting that his clothing be given more priority than his, um, military supplies, and he's more worried about his dogs, which is a constant theme in the movie, than he is about winning the war. The real Cornwallis was the general who at Ramsey's Mill in North Carolina burnt all his supplies, discarded his tents, and slept out in the open with his troops, and his soldiers, uh, and we only have a few private accounts, but they all testify to how much they were devoted to him because he shared the same deprivations as they did. Uh, this is the man who when he was in Ireland refused to live in the castle but lived in Phoenix Park and was consequently nearly assassinated. And this is the Governor-General of India who just hated pomp and ceremony, and did away with it unlike his predecessors and unlike any of his British successors, so he was quite the opposite to, uh, but he was the most aristocratic person in the British army serving in America, but really defied all of the stereotypes. So briefly why did then the British lose? Well essentially the British had an army of conquest, not an army of occupation. Uh, they won and took at some point every American city but they could never occupy territory. They tried in uh New Jersey in the winter of, uh, '76-'77, they tried to occupy Pennsylvania in 1777, and I think the best illustration is the southern campaign, uh, after taking Charleston, when they defeated uh the Continental Army in the South. They defeated Horatio Gates, the American general who'd won at Saratoga, and essentially cleared the South largely of any professional military and yet their problems started as they tried to march north. And eventually they would be surrounded by more troops and outnumbered, uh, even though initially in the campaigns they had the military advantage. They faced today what we would call insurgencies, led by people we think of as folk heroes, like Francis Marion, who later became known as the Swamp Fox. It's another Parson Weems story, when he gave him that, uh, that title, or Thomas Sumter, the Gamecock. But there were hundreds of these petty conflicts in the South and these, uh, militia leaders or partisan band leaders uh who successfully disrupted the British supply lines. Uh, the British, what they did get wrong was their expectation that the majority of Americans would support them. And we should remember like most revolutions, including the current or recent Arab, Arab Spring, revolutions are also civil wars, and the American Revolution was a civil war. 19,000 Americans fought on the side of the British. It's been estimated, and there's no way really of ever being precise, but easily a fifth of the American population were pro-British. So they had reason to think that they had real support in America, they simply overestimated that support and that's because American loyalists were telling them that four out of five Americans support Britain and the only reason people don't come out and the only reason they don't speak up is they're being intimidated by the patriots, uh, who drive them out of their homes, uh, who tar and feather them if they, show their real, colors. The effect of not being able to occupy territory meant that they had to get all their supplies from Britain 3000 miles away with a semimedeival uh system of administration. Uh, they were having to bring in 57 tons of food per day. Uh, the horses were the major consumers of forage but even some of the forage had to be brought from abroad. Coal, candles, all of this was having to be brought from uh Britain. No country in the world had fought a war of this size at this distance before. It simply exceeded their um ability. Then of course it became a world war, but long before the French actually became formal allies, the British were having to convoy their fleets across the world and take preparations for what they knew would become a widescale European war, which meant that they couldn't focus entirely on America. Ultimately they didn't lose, they still had Savanna, St. Augustine, uh, they still had New York, um, they still had, uh, east Florida, uh, they still had Canada. At the end of the, uh, war, at least uh up until after Yorktown, uh, what really changed uh, what could have gone on, was opinion in Parliament. Lord North could no longer command sufficient majorities. Opinion in Britain turned against this war as people started to feel that the support in America was not there and there was no point in uh persisting. Of course, the stories we grow up on, of uh minutemen, of sharpshooters, of Washington's leadership, this was critical as well because as Paul Gilje and I were saying before this, um, history's never inevitable until the event is over. Uh, one could imagine that if there'd been a different leader from Washington, and the alternatives were appalling. John Hancock was considered at the beginning of the war, who was an aristocratic dilettante and commanded very, very briefly in Newport, Rhode Island, where he was a disaster. Another alternative was actually a former British officer, Horatio Gates, who won Saratoga but was defeated at Camden and was so nervous about being captured that he got on his horse and rode 150 miles, which Alexander Hamilton, who was only in his early 20s at the time, rather crudely said was a fast pace for an old man 'cause he did it in a almost record, uh, speed. Um, and so, there are many factors but essentially the British did not have the hearts and minds. I want to take questions, but I do want before you leave, and I realize some will have to get up and go at the end of the questions, but I'd love the show you a clip of John Adams being presented to George the Third, uh, after we've taken a few questions, because in this clip the dialogue is exactly the dialogue that John Adams used uh and wrote up the next day in his letter back to America. There's not a single word added. It's also, I think, brilliantly dramatized in what was the John Adams um series, and it's also very moving because if you think about it, this was the real moment of American independence. It's not the Fourth of July, 1776, it was then just an aspiration. It was that moment where Adams as the first American ambassador, not the term used at the time, uh, minister plenipotentiary, presented his credentials and used the word the United States of America. Thank you. [Applause]. Man: I wonder if you'd uh speak just a little bit more about the role that Edmund Burke did or did not play in all this. He's considered the father of conservatism in this time period. O'Shaughnessy: Well, you know, Burke's speeches on the subject of America are brilliant. I remember I used to teach in a history department where a colleague said she hated Burke, um, and I'm actually not a fan of Reflections on the French Revolution. It's uh written in this sort of hyper, rather hysterical fashion, um, and uh it's hyperbolic, but his writings on America and his speeches on America are quite brilliant and they are prophetic. He argued the only way to control this country is not by coercion, that would fail, it's by good will, and he made the case, um, that it could be done simply by not changing the traditional structure. And Burke was a great believer, and this is why he's regarded as the father of conservatism, although rather different from sometimes the conservatism we think of today, it's a sort of British style conservatism where you're actually rather hostile to change, and you, you, you change incrementally, organically. He, he predicted the French Revolution, by uh wiping everything away, would uh essentially end in tyranny, which it did, whereas the American Revolution he argued was a defensive revolution, it was actually trying to protect the status quo. I'm a huge admirer, though, of Burke but he, I, you probably know I work in Monticello and he gets the same criticism as Jefferson, that these were philosophers but also practical politicians so they're always accused of being contradictory, 'cause they actually have to put their ideas into practice. Woman: One of the things that we learn, when we think about the American Revolution from the North American side, is the importance of the press and the importance of the circulation of texts and discussion, and a number of the people who you write about, I know about because of how they feared the American press, and listening to you talk today made me wonder about the vibrant press that existed in 18th century England. Is there a politics [inaudible] for these people that you write about [inaudible] North America that's getting played out in Britain during the war itself? Can you tell us about that? I can imagine some of these people being celebrated and other pilloried and I'd love to know more about that? O'Shaughnessy: The... the British press, although it initially in the war, as with opinion generally everyone was excited, uh, and expecting a quick victory, the British press turned apart from the government newspapers, of which there were a couple, um, against the war. And by 1778, uh, they, you know, after Saratoga, they basically saying, This is unwinnable, and uh they published uh lots of hostile accounts. They often reprinted articles straight from the newspapers in America. Lord North got very upset about it. He might have today complained about the liberal media because he said you know, in America, you can't write against the government, and you'd be hauled up in front of Congress, you can't attack the Revolution. In Britain, anyone can say what they like. Um, and no one was ever, uh, Horne Tooke was put in prison for libel, for a brief time, but no one was ever hung for treason in Britain, um. No, there were very few penalties for opposing this war and um at the time of Bunker Hill, you had the largest antiwar petitioning campaign in British history up until that, uh, point. They were getting petitions from towns in England which had never petitioned Parliament, so the, the opinion was divided on the war from the start, and what is amazing is that the generals generally were anti the war. So Sir William Howe uh sat in Parliament as did most of the generals in this period. It helped their political, their military careers, and had been completely against the war, and Lord Cornwallis was one of only six members of the House of Lords to go vote against the Stamp Act. Man: Uh, what about the Native Americans? We hear a lot here about the Chickasaws and their participation. Can you speak to that a minute? O'Shaughnessy: Well, and one of the reasons, you know, during the, opinion was never static in America, and the, the feelings and way people divided was changing throughout the war but one of the things I argue in the book is that it was changing more and more in favor of the patriots. And very soon after the start of the war, Britain was being regarded as a foreign power and the British themselves were regarding Americans as foreign, whereas at the outset they were calling each other brothers and calling this a civil war between the two countries. Um, but the British alliance with the Native Americans was part of this process. Um, uh, it, it really alienated opinion. And, you know, there were many declarations of independence, even towns did their own declarations, all of them mention that alliance, and also the use of Germans as mercenaries, which appalled people, uh, the American Declaration of Independence refers to the Native Americans as savages, and you generally get the argument in most military texts that it didn't help the British at all. I think you have to be wary of that. I noticed with Burgoyne's campaign as he came south from Canada, he eventually lost the Native Americans 'cause of, of the campaign was clearly going very badly, um and Native Americans had a totally different style of warfare. Um, but it's very clear that he starts to lose his intelligence about geography once they leave, that they'd been immensely successful scouts. And one of the problems for the British was really effectively using these nontraditional forces. Um, it was a problem on the American side as well, and the general who really mastered it was Nathanael Greene, because Greene had to take over from Horatio Gates with this total remnant, uh, hub of an army in the South, and Greene understood that the army had to work as much as possible with unconventional forces. And so he created uh communications with people like Thomas Sumter and worked with them. We'll take perhaps I think one more and then I'll show the clip, is that all right? Excellent. Man: I noticed some of the people you didn't mention was Lord Dunsmore. O'Shaughnessy: Yes. Man: Uh, which, uh, gets into the African American participation [inaudible]. O'Shaughnessy: Well Dunmore uh was governor of Virginia and Dunmore was the first to encourage slaves to run away to join the British side. Uh, the British never had that as a, uh, a policy, but many enslaved people ran to the British side, and fought on the patriot side as well. And for a lot of people like the Native Americans, like enslaved people, they were seeking their own liberty, and it wasn't so much that they were fighting for the British, as fighting for their own self interest um and for their own uh freedom. But that of course alienated opinion in the white South. Um, certainly Clinton encouraged, uh, enslaved people, uh, to go over to the British side. Simon Schama recently did a book, which almost makes the British the heroes of the American Revolution and these great emancipationists, 'cause it was the biggest emancipation before the American Civil War. But you have to be very wary, not only would there have been the British played the main role in the slave trade, but they did not free the slaves of loyalists. And, uh, it was only the slaves of their opponents. Furthermore they had their own slave plantations in the Caribbean with almost 400,000 people in places like, um, Jamiaca. But I think the war does start to change British opinion because it was the one moral high ground that these British officers could occupy was to say how terrible, in a country speaking of liberty, uh, that they should have slavery, and Samuel Johnson famously said, Why is it that the masters of slaves are the first to yell, Liberty? And it is interesting that the abolitionist movement really gains huge momentum in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution, and that the British would eventually see themselves as a great antislavery nation. Okay. [Applause]. Man: Thank you very much for being with us here on Constitution Day. We'll see you next year.

Contents

Lieutenant Governors of British Tobago (1764–1781)

  • Alexander Brown (Lt Governor of Tobago) – 12 November 1764 – July 1766
  • William Hill – 2 December 1766 – 16 October 1767
  • Roderick Gwynne – 16 October 1767 – 1769
  • Robert William Stewart – 1769 – 1771
  • William Young (Lt. Governor of Tobago) of Auchenskeoch Castle (Scotland) – 1771 – 1777
  • Peter Campbell (Lt Governor of Tobago) – 1777 – 1779
  • John Graham (Lt Governor of Tobago) – 1779 – 1781
  • George Ferguson (Lt Governor of Tobago) – 1781 – 2 June 1781

Governors of French Tobago (1781–1793)

Governors of British Tobago (1793–1899)

See also

References

  1. ^ "No. 13543". The London Gazette. 2 July 1793. p. 561.
  2. ^ "No. 13707". The London Gazette. 23 September 1794. p. 973.
  3. ^ "No. 18447". The London Gazette. 28 February 1828. p. 409.
  4. ^ "No. 18462". The London Gazette. 18 April 1828. p. 749.
  5. ^
     "Daly, Dominick". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
  6. ^ "No. 22902". The London Gazette. 14 October 1864. p. 4851.
  7. ^ "No. 24508". The London Gazette. 2 October 1877. p. 5455.
  8. ^ "No. 24508". The London Gazette. 2 October 1877. p. 5455.
This page was last edited on 25 September 2019, at 02:04
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.