I'm Tony Dean. And today we'll be calling history to speak with Thomas gage. He'll be answering our call in 1775 after recently being relieved from his post in America. As the American revolution was on low heat and simmering Thomas gage played a role as the governor of Massachusetts and commander of north American forces. When things got out of control though, and his suggestions that maybe could have won the war were ignored.
He was removed of his duties and sent back to England where he quietly disappeared into society. But what makes this conversation interesting? Is his perspective on what happened? Gauged didn't hate the colonist after all they weren't Americans, they were British citizens.
In fact, when he came to the American colonies, he married one of the colonists Margaret who may have trickled some information to the sons of Liberty, giving the Americans a little bit of an advantage, but whether she did or she didn't Thomas gage, wasn't trying to stand in the way of Liberty or freedom. He was simply trying to follow English law. England was not a typical monarchy. Like the French.
It was a constitutional monarchy with laws and civility england had spent so many years creating a government where the people had a voice and after giving so much of their treasure and blood fighting to create the British system. The Americans gave them a wave and a nod and said, thanks for teeing this up. 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, fellow history, lovers in Hancock haters. Everywhere I give you Thomas gage. Hello. Is that you? General Gage. Yes, it is. I, Sir, I am so excited to speak with you today. My name is Tony Dean and I'm talking to you from the future in the 21st century. The device that you're holding in your hand, it's called a smartphone. It allows us to speak as if you and I were sitting in the same room with one another. And it also allows me to.
to share a record of our conversation with people around the world. And I think that is really important based on some of the things that you had to deal with when you were dealing with the colonists and spending your time in America. I was hoping I could ask you some questions, but before I do, I understand this is a very strange introduction. Can I answer any questions you may have first? I would love a glimpse into my future, but I think that would not be good.
. I believe that these are matters. Best left to the almighty, and I should remain ignorant of my immediate future. I am, however, most happy to provide you with an insight as to the recent events in North America. And there are so many of those recent events. I guess the first question that I wanted to ask you is when you first came to the colonies, what was your impression of that area of the colonist, of what was happening there?
Well, at that time, you must recall that I arrived in America during what is what they refer to as the French and Indian War. It was raging at the time, the Seven Years War in Europe between France and the United Kingdom of England and Scotland had ballooned into a larger conflagration. And the aims of the British government became to drive the French from North America and hold them at bay in Europe. This strategy was pursued quite vigorously, and it was at that time that I arrived.
In North America as part of a contingent that was meant to drive into the hinterland to the west of the colonies. And we participated in what was called the Braddock Expedition, which ended in, complete disaster and great many casualties.
My impression of the Yankees, as they called themselves, was mixed among them, they had some very upright and brave individuals and, but also they depended so thoroughly upon militias, which came and went and came that it was difficult sometimes to really operate as a regular army. As the war went on, there was great patriotism amongst these people. The French had been their enemies and their Indian allies for years.
And with victory, however, all of the issues between The government in London and these various colonial legislatures started to come to the fore. And I found them to be an argumentative and difficult people. I married one. I married Margaret Kemble from New Jersey. So, of course, I had great affection for the 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.
I'll just call it that and I won'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 very difficult 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. Did you find her to be that way? Was she argumentative and difficult as well? Oh, a bit. Yes, they're all Americans.
And so, all of them have a heightened sense of their own rights and their own capabilities and their own course through life and their trajectories in her case, I found it to be charming and delightful a strong woman, a beautiful and strong woman. In others, it was less appealing. I will say that and I believe that it all came down to a sense of entitlement. That these Americans often had and , an absence of their true role as subjects of his majesty. , inside of the British political system.
When you talk about, , entitlement and 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. And one must understand that. In the United Kingdom, we have reached what I consider to be the pinnacle of human freedom. We are living on a planet in a world that is ruled by large measure, by absolute monarchs, dictators warlords.
Here, there and everywhere, but in England, Scotland after a great deal of strife, we have achieved a higher form of government. We actually have the beginnings of a representative parliament and the role of the king And of parliament is to preserve and expand the liberties of its citizens. But with that comes a responsibility. One must submit to the acts and 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 as equals to that of the British Parliament. And down that road, I sense there is mayhem. They have responsibilities, but they 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's liberty, but exercise it responsibly and in submission to the law.
Otherwise, you have anarchy and you have civil strife, which can lead evermore to that one thing we wish to avoid and which I find, we find ourselves in once again, it seems, a civil war. When you talk about submission to the law, and then you meet people like Samuel Adams, you just have to be pulling your hair out, seeing how somebody like that operates. Well, yes the difficulty there is that they see the law very selectively.
Every one of them considers himself a lawyer, but they pick and they choose. We have politicians of that stripe that pick and choose from every book they can find only picking the things that they wish to expostulate upon. But these Americans and particularly, 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 the environs of Boston into gang warfare, into criminal activity mobs in the streets, and there was bloodshed. There were tarrings and featherings and royal officials that were simply doing their jobs who were driven out 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 submission I'm simply saying that one must remain inside the boundaries of the law.
And when you leave that behind, , there is, there's no way back there. You've, you now have pulled up anchor and are drifting free in the winds and the results are rarely satisfying. And I fear that these Americans will go from one crisis to the next. I can only hope that this rebellion that we 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 come to their senses by our force of arms.
But eventually, I am hopeful that , as His Majesty says, that , we, we have great kindness towards our American brethren, but they must, In fact, understand the relationship between the government and 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 what I hear from what Americans say, because I love to hear your point of view.
What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me, but it appears to me that when the British look at the people of the world, , 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 military maybe wealthy people. And then where are the colonists in that hierarchy? well, I would rework it a bit for you. I would put His Majesty, yes, nominally at the very top, but also the Parliament.
Equal you recalled it in English history, we've had absolute monarchs, but George our king is not such. He is a constitutional monarch and believes deeply in the constitutional role of the monarchy. So that parliament is in fact the lawmaking body of the land of everywhere that, that we call England, if you wish, or English possessions and British possessions and the military reports to his majesty, but follows the directives of his ministers and of parliament.
And the people are yes, I would not call them subservient, but they are subjects of his majesty and they, but parliament is elected by them. And I understand, and I will admit that the elections of the various members of parliament. Are not completely democratic. There are the rotten burrows here and there.
And of course we have a house of Lords that must pass a judgment on new legislation and acts, and they are hereditary as well as a religious and such, there are Lords spiritual and landowning Lords, hereditary. The people of England are subject to these laws, so they would be next in line. The colonies, I do not personally see them 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 own legislatures for their own local rules. But someone must be in charge. And that, in my mind, is the British Parliament, and it is in the mind of the King the same way. The Americans, those that are rebelling, and there are many of those, but there are many who remain loyal, simply will not accept that.
They do not believe that the acts of Parliament can reach across the ocean And rule over their lives, but someone must do it. Otherwise they are independent, which I realized many of them wish to be now, that, that is a path that I believe leads to further , warfare, strife, and calamity. I agree with you that someone must be in charge because if somebody is not in charge, it is just nonstop chaos. There's no question about that. I guess.
What I'm wondering is if the colonists don't want the English parliament or the king to be in charge of them, should they 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? I think not, I believe that the colonists are they are distracted in many regards.
I believe that , this is actually a conspiracy and a plot by a minority to drag away these colonies, which the British government and the British nation have invested enormous blood, treasure and toil into. And for this small minority to simply decide on their own that they want it all, they want to take it all away, is simply improper. Yes, if this was of overwhelming opinion in the streets and amongst every man, woman, and child in the 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 their pockets with the riches of America. After the land has been conquered and after the civilization has been established along the coast , it is simply, it's simply wrong. Would you, for example, acquiesce to your neighbor simply taking over your house because it's attached to his and he likes it and he wants it all? No, you would not. You would fight back.
And that is precisely what the British government is doing at this time. Do you think maybe when you look back at 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 call the Intolerable Acts, which I think the English call the coercive acts. Yeah. Do you think that perhaps those were not levy properly?
And if they had been maybe explained or sold or maybe built up a little bit slower that maybe the reaction from the colonists wouldn't have been so strong. I must agree with you there. I do believe that there were moments where another course could have been taken, another path chosen. The Americans are a proud people and their legislatures I may not agree, but their legislatures feel that they are 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 London who simply do not understand this. And I believe that my predecessor in Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, even argued these points back to parliament, but wasn't ignored. And. And in my case I argued that there were basically two paths here, either acquiescence or conquest. That the middle ground was never going to work. So, I do believe that there were missteps along the way.
That the government could have done better to either early on acquiesce, find a peaceful solution or early on arrive in overwhelming force and simply and simply squash and destroy these revolutionary and rebellious tendencies before they got going. Once things had gotten out of hand, we had insufficient force to deal with them. And the rest, as they say, has been history. We are now engaged in a much more severe conflict with these united, as they call themselves colonies.
And and it's a much more serious issue. , I do recall writing back to Whitehall if you think to send 10, 000 men, send 20, if you think to , spend a million pounds. Spend two, you will save both blood and treasure in the end. Now, I wrote that after things had become very severe in New England.
But going back earlier, yes, I would agree that there were moments when I wish that perhaps some ministers from Whitehall had taken ship and come over here to negotiate one on one with these people and perhaps find a better solution. The war that is now underway will be costly, expensive , in blood, treasure, men, material, and everything. I feel I, I am not optimistic for the future.
Let's talk about the possible missteps . I'd like to hear maybe an example of if something was going to be handled different earlier what would have possibly made a difference? And then if that was not going to be the answer, I'd like to hear the other side of that. If we were going to use overwhelming force, , 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 me examples of both of those?
Well, of course, recall that I Was until I became the governor of Massachusetts. I was purely a military man. And so I had the luxury of seeing these things from afar. But although quite up close, but still with some separation. I believe that our difficulties date back to the era in the late previous decade with the Stamp Act and the various taxations that were created by active parliament.
And the trouble for the local people was what they considered to be the overriding of their local legislatures. A smarter path at the time, and this is in the fullness of hindsight, might have been to approach each of the colonial legislatures individually with a request And with some mechanism by which the taxes, which were very fair and which were very necessary.
Could have been promulgated through colonial legislation and might have been much more accepting accepted, I should say, in the colonies for the matter of being locally created at the request of Parliament, but locally created, locally collected, and locally administered. I don't know if the legislatures would have.
in this regard, it may have been a fool's errand, but I believe that an attempt should have been made to find a different way because I will admit that While I may see the British Parliament as supreme and something to which one must submit that was not universally the 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 rather than what one wishes it would be.
started down a difficult path in the latter 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 who felt that this was an opportunity to create mayhem and to glean power. Oh that tasted of blood. They felt that they had won something. And from that moment on it was very difficult to To to negotiate with them in good faith because they always wanted more.
So I believe early on , a more respectful, Environment might've been established in which the colonial legislatures were far more involved. But then later I would say as we got into the middle of last year in 1774, as the Massachusetts in particular and its neighboring colonies were descending into civil unrest and rebellion by then it was either some broad acquiescence.
That would have undermined the argument of the radicals, or, as I said, some very heavy, sharp military blow to have brought everyone to their senses. I do not know, for I am only so clairvoyant, but I'm not sure which of these two paths might have been more successful, but the middle path of standing by our legislatures, standing by our principles, but at the same time having insufficient force , to enforce these things, that has led to the present dilemma.
So being a military man if you could have had it your way and no longer, was it a situation you do what you can with what you have, you have exactly what you need. How many troops would you have asked for? Oh, , twenty five thousand. It would have required a mobilization across the United Kingdom. It would have been exceedingly expensive. But it , it would have been inexpensive compared to what I fear. Is going to happen over the next several years.
Yeah, it probably would have been less expensive because , it is one of those things where, you know, it seems like if you do something halfway, Sometimes you have to do it three or four or five or 10 times, 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 great affection for the American people. And I would have only resorted to that in the exigency of. Of actual rebellion, but that's just it.
The, these people have chosen extra legal and rebellious paths on their own, they were not forced down that road. It is their own radicals who they have followed down that road. It would be only in those circumstances that I would advocate for a military response, but my very point is, if one chooses a military force, And a military response, it must be overwhelming leaving something half done is simply not a path to success in these matters.
So either head this off by compromise early or finish the job with overwhelming force. When you look at the rabble rousers, , I bring up Sam Adams again. He seems like he is definitely one of them. Yes I'm guessing that you would probably list John Hancock in that place as well. Yes, very much so.
And Hancock, John Hancock, was, we realize now, was very much behind the the events that led to the destruction of East India Company T in the harbor in Boston, and a number of the subsequent crises that occurred. And so yes I consider them all when I look at them. Yes, very much a part of the radical class. What is their crime in the eyes of the English? Is there crime against the King? Is it against God? Is it against what is their crime?
Well, the quick answer would be yes but, In truth, it is not even against his majesty. It is against the law. Their crime is that they have created extra legal congresses and have acted outside of any legislative control. They have the very act of destroying the tea, although I am sure that Mr. Hancock while pulling the strings in the background has made sure that his fingers are nowhere near the the actual crime and his hands are very clean I would expect. He's clever that way.
Their crimes are. Are absolutely outrageous. . They have simply taken themselves completely outside of the legal framework that ensures public safety and harmony within the society. Down their path comes anarchy and mob rule. There is such a thing as too much democracy. You can, if you ask every single idiot in the street what they think, you will get 10, 000 answers.
And again, I go back to the idea that one must have a leader, a responsible leader, one that is appropriate and who is able to act in accordance with the law and for the benefit of people. These people care nothing for that. I believe that they are operating outside of the law for their own benefit. They wrap it in their cause of liberty and such, but it is, Absolutely, I feel a sham and a a shield that they employ.
They are acting in, in a seditious manner and they are plotting against and to overthrow the correct and rightful government of, first of all, Massachusetts and now the other colonies too. As you think about the rabble rousers, , the people that are the biggest problems we had a war here not too long ago in our time. And we took our government took a deck of cards and said, these are the most important people based on the value of those cards. So they said, the ace of spades is this person.
And then, King of spades is this person. So if you were going to list those people, who's the biggest problem, who are the top three or four people with Oh, I believe it would certainly be John Hancock Samuel Adams. Gentleman John Adams, who is a much more civilized 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. At present you may know that , the British army is in fact besieged by these rebels in Boston, and they are holding on very valiantly against them, but this is open warfare. These people , they are engaged in civil war and we have dealt with that before. We've dealt with it in many parts of the United Kingdom.
And this will be dealt with also, but I would put those for Ohio my list, and there are several other ringleaders that are part of what they are calling their continental Congress. But if. If one could round up and ship off these ringleaders, I believe the entire enterprise would cool down quite substantially.
the gosh, what an interesting thought if you could round them up looking, okay, I want you to imagine for a second that these people that we're talking about the biggest problem, people, the Hancock, the Adams boys, all right, if they were in England and they were doing what they're doing right now. , and they were caught in England. 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 would be incarcerated or exiled. We we have gotten past the point where we used to draw on quarter people for treason. I think it's still on the books. We could do it, but I believe that we would be far more humane. But They would be subject to the most stringent of lawful prosecutions. And yes, a death could be in there for them. , I would have to defer to a jury. They are British citizens and they would deserve a jury trial.
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 in England, in Scotland, Ireland there would be severe punishment. However, I would point out that if they were doing this, for example, in France, , we wouldn't even know their names. They would have been taken out long ago and simply murdered.
And that is the difference between the way that the rest of Europe these days seems to be run and the British entity on the, in the British Isles. We are increasingly resorting to much more civilized ways of dealing with our problems. And the great irony here is that as we have made this progress towards what I consider to be high civilization the Americans feel that they're running ahead of us now. And they like children who have just gotten into a playground and they've run ahead.
And our simple point is no, stay with your parents 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 of these people, particularly individuals like Samuel Adams are in my opinion, simply ill designing men bent on rebellion and aggrandizement of power, Wouldn't matter where you put them. What country you dropped them in, they'd be creating problems.
They would, very likely they are fortunate to have created their problems inside of a British ruled territory. As I said, if they didn't in Russia or Germany or France, they would've simply disappeared. I see. You're making the French sound like they're barbarians. Well, I fought with them for many years. They they have many traits of civilization and they are very high military.
scientists but, they're their love of their monarch and their, the absolute nature of his rule, I believe is to the denigration of their country. And they may someday do something about that, but it won't be soon. Let's talk about monarchs for a minute. Because the monarchs in England, this part has always confused me a little bit. The monarchs in England, it is not uncommon for a man to be king, and then that role of leadership 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 lot of times you don't end up with the most qualified person and in fact, from my understanding of reading about you in history, it seems like you had a lot of disputes with the way or disagreements with the way that the English government was handling things over in the colonies. Maybe that they were even ignoring your requests. Ah, yes. Well, that is true.
However, I would say that it is the role of a military man to propose, but then it is and I did on many occasions, right back to Lord Barrington, the secretary at war with suggestions for strategy troop movements, things of that nature. But again, there is an appropriate and proper hierarchy. And in such things, , you will always be given situations where you may not appreciate or like the particular decisions that are made. You simply must live with them.
And in regards to the monarch, yes, it is a hereditary title, no doubt about that. But one of the critical things that one must realize is that the king is not an absolute monarch. . He lives within the law and he actually does operates at the behest and through Parliament and his ministers. So this softens the individual rule of a single man. For example, if the French king Is mad or savage. 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 these episodes , because we have had good and bad monarchs in our history but as they have become more constitutional, . And as power has been distributed throughout the government and throughout Parliament, House of Lords, and the ministers, then the 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, is it King George the third? Is that right? That is correct.
Very So I want to challenge what you just said and understanding that I may be wrong. So King George, let's say he meets with parliament and he says, all right, that's it, these colonists, if we don't. Rip the bandaid off and just completely go all in and make a huge mark. We're going to be messing around with this for decades. So we're going to send 75, 000 troops right now. We're going to find the rabble rousers.
We're going to bury them 10 feet underground 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 Parliament come up, stand up, and says, King 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 do so, but he is protected in that regard.
As long as he does not advocate for rebellion for removal of his majesty illegally if he wishes to simply say that the judgment of his majesty is impaired or that it is not correct or that we are 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 would be no legal consequences.
Where in French, they would chop his body into pieces and spread them on, each on a different continent, I would expect so, yes. Okay. So, when you're talking about parliament, are these all elected officials or are these people appointed? It's a blend. They are, in theory, in the House of Commons. They are all elected, but some are from 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 one of the major landowners. The House of Lords. Is a hereditary, largely hereditary body of the nobility, the minor to major nobility, Viscounts, Barons and other various Lords, all of them typically large landowners, but all of them servants of the monarch, some of the military, some of them commercial or industrial. And then there are. Lords spiritual from the established church , so it's a blend.
And so not universally elected there are members of parliament who are very popularly elected from parts of London and many of the cities. And then of course there are the ministers. Who work in their roles under the tutelage of his majesty but again within the rules and the acts of parliament. So it's complex and we call it the British constitution. None of it's written down except for the acts and the laws themselves, but the body of it is an achievement and it works quite well.
At least it works better than dictatorship. And we have struggled very hard to get here over hundreds and hundreds of years.
And so the reason I speak pridefully of this and rail against those who would tear this edifice down is that it has taken so long and cost so much blood to build that I would like it to it just seems like from what you're describing, , the Americans are just completely ignoring all the work that has come before this to get to the point where they had the opportunity to speak loudly and have freedom. Well, yes, that's just it.
It is quite impressive that they should they are beneficiaries of this system, and yet they do not respect it. There are members of Parliament who 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.
I even myself would claim to be on the liberal side of many of these things and many of these issues but it is my point again, and I'm beginning to repeat myself perhaps a bit here, is that There are limits to these things. There is a responsibility. You may not like the government. You may not agree with the government. You may say savage things about the government, and you have that right, but you also must respect the laws and the acts of that government. Yeah, makes sense.
So where does your wife fall on all of this? And I wonder also if when you ended up falling in love with somebody from the colonies, I'm wondering if that kind of pulled you to that side a little bit. It did a bit. I have great sympathies, as I have said for many Americans, and this has been terribly distressful, Margaret. She has many friends that Now that we are departed from America I suspect it will be a long time before we are back.
And she has many friends and family who are stranded now in some of these colonies and are under some great distress from the mob. So it is a difficult situation. I, I admire many of the Americans while despising many of them. The ones that you despise, if you could go back and redo what you had done, would you have had them executed? No, I think that would be uncivilized, but I might drop them down a very deep hole. 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 I believe September, and it took several weeks to come across. And your wife did she did come with you back Yes and the children, yes. So, your wife, is this her first time in England? No, we have we have actually visited several times. Most recently was in 73. We went across briefly to meet family and to introduce her to members of my family, as well as a number of the children.
So, and also to do some business. We then returned and you might recall that I was the I've been the Commander in Chief, or at least I was at the time, of land forces in North America. I returned to England and then was appointed Governor, replacing Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts, and thus returned instead of New York, where my residence and our. Command was instead of their returning to Boston and and establishing and new house and such in Boston.
Is Boston the hub of the entire American, I mean, we call it revolution. You've said civil war several times. I suppose depending on which side you're looking at it. Is just how you would name it. But whatever you would call it, is Boston the hub of that? It is very much the hub , of these troubles. Absolutely. Without the troubles in Boston, the other colonies would not have proceeded down this road of sedition and rebellion.
They may still have been problematic, there may still have been political difficulties, but nothing like what we have. It is very much These Denseans and stiff necked Yankees of Boston that have created so much of the trouble. I wonder this is a hard question to 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.
That when you go back a little bit, you go back to the battle at Concord and Lexington and there are rumors that the colonists had some information that was going to happen in advance and they were prepared and many of those rumors are that your wife had passed some of that information along. Yes, scurrilous lies spread by the very same Yankees. And I can tell you that both the provincials and the friends of government had sufficient ingress into each other's lives.
Lives plans and domiciles that we knew what each other was doing without it being necessary for someone like Margaret , to provide them this information. I knew and was informed of the assembly of munitions. Canon and muskets shot powder tents, bts, everything in conquered and equally they the passing person in the night could see and probably had information of our expedition out to Concord and obviously did before it actually happened.
And, of course, there were these riders that got out into the night. There was a man, I believe his name was Revere, who rode and managed to get partly to Concord. Apparently he was captured by several of our soldiers partway through. But still the message got out. So there were many riders. Routes and paths by which both sides in 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 situation distressing, but the idea that she would go against family and government and all that, that she holds dear is simply a scurrilous lie made up by these very ill designing men that I have spoken of earlier. But wouldn't you agree that the land that she was born in that, , we'll call America. Wouldn't you agree that, , that is her homeland. , 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 her homeland 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 or Massachusetts or New York, take your pick, and still be a British patriot. In fact, they are congruent there is every reason and there are many people. For whom this is not a challenge.
They do not see any sort of distraction in that idea and in that concept, they're both proud Americans and proud Englishmen or Scotsman for the matter, or Irishmen. And they carry on their lives 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 in the colonies who at every turn, foment trouble, find the worst in every
proposal and . Destroy the worth of the newspaper 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, in the pursuit of power, they wrap it 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, the British history the great march of British liberty that brought us to this point from Magna Carta down to this day.
And they seem to while they claim to be students of this and admirers of this great history, they also trample on it at the same time. Mob rule is not liberty. Yeah, no question about that. Your wife who am absolutely convinced that you believe that there is no way that she passed any secrets along 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, but if she was, who does she have contact with regularly , on the colonist side that that information could be passed to, like, was one of them I can't remember his name. Doctor, Dr. Church, Oh, Benjamin Church. yes yes, well, yes, there would have been opportunities. Of course, Dr. Church has also been very helpful in providing information to myself personally.
And of course I believe that he's now rather he's still in Boston, but under the protection of his majesty's soldiers there. But yes, there would be possibilities. Margaret is an independent woman. She goes about her business during the day. But indeed there would be few opportunities for her to mix particularly with the radical set. Thank you. And so that, again, begs the question, to whom would she be giving , this information? So, on many levels, , the story simply does not hold up.
And and, there's been no great evidence. In addition to which, I did not discuss many of these items with her. As I did not discuss them with anyone, very few, only my inner military circle, the plans going out to, to to Concord were simply were revealed to Colonel Smith of the 10th Regiment and others only in conversation and in written order within days of the event. , I have a rule of not bringing work home. Okay. Dr. Church, Dr. Benjamin Church.
If you were, this is a man who has that on both sides, there are strong feelings, I believe, because on your side of the fence, this man is a Patriot that gave you information about what was going on And from the colonists side, from the American side, he is going to be seen as a traitor that deserve nothing less than death. Are you the one that turned him? Isn't it incredible.
How much of a difference perspective makes 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 American cause and is hated by American Patriots would have been seen as a loyal Englishman from Thomas gauges side of the pond. And the reality is he was both in the next episode.
We're going to talk a little bit about George Washington, the sons of Liberty, as well as the mistakes that gage would have corrected. If he could do it all over again, I'm glad you're enjoying the podcast. And if you haven't yet subscribed now, and we'll see you at the next episode of the calling history podcast with part two of Thomas gage.