William Preston and the Revolutionary Settlement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Backcountry Studies EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the third and last installment of the author’s 1990 University of Maryland dissertation, directed by Professor Emory Evans, to be republished in JBS. Dr. Osborn is President of Pacific Union College. William Preston and the Revolutionary Settlement BY RICHARD OSBORN Patriot (1775-1778) Revolutions ultimately conclude with a large scale resolution in the major political, social, and economic issues raised by the upheaval. During the final two years of the American Revolution, William Preston struggled to anticipate and participate in the emerging American regime. For Preston, the American Revolution involved two challenges--Indians and Loyalists. The outcome of his struggles with both groups would help determine the results of the Revolution in Virginia. If Preston could keep the various Indian tribes subdued with minimal help from the rest of Virginia, then more Virginians would be free to join the American armies fighting the English. But if he was unsuccessful, Virginia would have to divert resources and manpower away from the broader colonial effort to its own protection. The other challenge represented an internal one. A large number of Loyalist neighbors continually tested Preston's abilities to forge a unified government on the frontier which could, in turn, challenge the Indians effectivel y and the British, if they brought the war to Virginia. In these struggles, he even had to prove he was a Patriot. Preston clearly placed his allegiance with the revolutionary movement when he joined with other freeholders from Fincastle County on January 20, 1775 to organize their local county committee in response to requests by the Continental Congress that such committees be established. Within a few short weeks these committees, later known as Committees of Safety, took over the role of government on the county and state level as English officials fled from America.1 Recognizing his key leadership status, the freeholders elected Preston along with thirteen of his co-military officers from the recent conflict against the Shawnees and the Reverend Charles Cummings as their fifteen- member committee.2 Fincastle, thus, became the first western county to elect such a 1County courts once again took over their role of local governance in the summer of 1776 when Virginia's new constitution became effective. For an overview of the establishment of these committees, see Larry Bowman, "The Virginia County Committees of Safety, 1774-1776," 79 VMHB, (July 1971): 322- 337. 2Cummings was a Presbyterian clergyman. Proceedings of the Fincastle County Committee, 20 January 1775, Richard Barksdale Harwell, ed. The Committees of Safety of Westmoreland and Fincastle. Proceedings of the County Committees, 1774-1776 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1956), 61, hereafter referred to as Fincastle Committee Proceedings. The originals can be found in Original Records, Montgomery County, VSL. The other officers elected to the committee included Colonel William Christian as chairman, Captain Stephen Trigg, Major Arthur Campbell, Major William Inglis, Captain James McGavock, Captain William Campbell, and Captain Evan Shelby. For further biographical details, see Mary Kegley, "Who the 15 Signers Were," Journal of the Roanoke Valley Historical Society: 9:33-7. Journal of Backcountry Studies committee, placing itself squarely on the side of the growing patriotic movement. Preston and his fellow freeholders went further than other counties when they adopted a statement known as the Fincastle Resolutions addressed to Virginia's delegates at the Continental Congress.3 They clearly attempted to steer a compromise middle course between those demanding independence and those who justified recent actions taken by the mother country. On the one hand, they called for a restoration of harmony "by the most lenient measures that can be devised by the heart of men" and affirmed that their "hearts overflow with love and duty" to George III whose family had been a "guardian of civil and religious rights and liberties." But they reminded their delegates that many of them had escaped from a country where they had been denied those rights in order to find liberty in America. With this suggestion, a majority of those signing the resolutions who came from a Scotch-Irish background were reminded of their roots in Ireland and their earlier ancestry in Scotland where they felt the English had abused their liberties. In spite of these feelings, they expressed a willingness to support the King with all of their power "if applied to constitutionally, and when the grants are made by our own representatives." As in the later Declaration of Independence, they similarly attempted to distinguish between a good King on one hand and a "venal British parliament" and "corrupt ministry" on the other side.4 The authorship of the Fincastle Resolutions is unknown but Preston echoed similar thoughts in a letter to his longtime friend and delegate to Congress, Edmund Pendleton. He observed that as people in the backcountry became more aware of certain "ministerial measures," their "Spirit of Opposition" continued to increase. Alluding to potential problems of loyalism, he expressed the hope that if citizens could see that they no longer had a duty to support the king's ministers when "Tyranical or at least Unconstitutional Steps" were taken, the support would grow stronger. And he also echoed the anti-English theme so natural to the Scotch-Irish: Many of them are Descended from those brave men who so nobly defended their Religion & Liberty in Ireland in a late inglorious & Despotick Reign, & were so instrumental in Supporting the Revolution in that Kingdom. Those Transactions almost every Descendant from the Protestant Irish is well acquainted with either by History or Tradition. Therefore they cannot bear the Thought of degenerating from their Worthy Forefathers, whose Memory, & ought to be held very dear to them. 3Illustrating the interests of the entire colony in such statements, The Virginia Gazette (Purdies) printed the resolutions on 10 February 1775. 420 January 1775, Fincastle Committee Proceedings, 61-4. Harwell discounts some of the exaggerated claims made for the document in ibid., 20-1: "The Fincastle Resolutions have sometimes been cited as a sort of precursor of the Declaration of Independence. Only as a part of the general movement toward independence is this true. As a revolutionary document they have less force than the comparable Westmoreland Resolutions on June 22, 1774. They are in a pattern of the county resolutions, most of which took pains to affirm their loyalty to Great Britain. And they are far less strong in their sentim e n t s f o r independence than the Albemarle County document, probably the strongest of the resolutions, which was w r i tten by Thomas Jefferson." Also see Thad Tate, "The Fincastle Resolutions: Southwest Virginia's Commitment," Journal of the Roanoke Valley Historical Society, 9:19-31. Journal of Backcountry Studies Preston may have been emphasizing this theme because many Patriots suspected all Scotch-Irish were Loyalists. Preston's hope that the cause of liberty would "find almost as many Friends as there are Inhabitants in the back Country" would soon prove to be wishful thinking.5 Frontier leaders now faced a real paradox. They had just defeated the Shawnees with the help of the Royal governor but now faced the prospect of having to fight the same governor over other issues. Colonel William Peachey, a military colleague of Preston's, noted this contradiction to Preston early in 1775 after congratulating him on the recent peace with the Shawnees. He warned, "The next attack, I fear, will be from worse Savages for so, Such may truly be deem'd who will take up arms to enslave their Friends, Countrymen and fellow subjects."6 So the Fincastle Committee prepared for the worst and Preston helped his fellow committee members develop their own sources of amunition. And as the Revolution developed, southwest Virginia became one of the major gunpowder sources for both the Continental Army and the militia in Virginia. Saltpeter was found in many of the area caves and there were numerous sulphur springs.7 To make gunpowder one needed twelve parts of saltpeter, one-and-a-half parts of sulphur, and two-and-a-half parts of charcoal--ingredients found in abundant supply in southwest Virginia. The Fincastle committee began purchasing sulphur and looking for individuals who might establish saltpeter mines and a powder mill for the county.8 In some cases incentives were needed which Preston could provide as the county surveyor. Arthur Campbell asked for his help in giving a small piece of land on which John Beck, who agreed to establish a powder mill, could live.9 With supplies in hand and growing concerns about the future and with the growing threat of Indian attacks, Preston and other militia leaders were now able to get their militia captains motivated to hold private musters and to arm their men.10 Although ostensibly targeted at Indians, the Fincastle committee undoubtedly knew those same militiamen could be used against the English if relations continued to deteriorate. Even with such militant preparations, cooperation still remained strong between 5[WP] to Edmund Pendleton, [1775], PP-DM, 4QQ 34. 6William Peachey to WP, 24 January 1775, PP-LC, 863. 7In other areas saltpeter could only be gotten from pigeon and chicken droppings. By the middle of 1776, Preston reported to Edmund Pendleton that attempts to make saltpeter among the mountains had now been "discovered & made by a number of People." [WP] to Edmund Pendleton, 15 June 1776, PP-DM, 4QQ 50. 8The skills involved in making ammunition caused Preston to worry when Captain Vanbebber taught a recently freed white man who had been raised since childhood by Indians how to make saltpeter and gunpowder. Now this man had returned to his Indian family where Preston feared he would teach them the same skills.