MDCAROLI-L Archives

Archiver > MDCAROLI > 2002-05 > 1021993878


From: "Family Tree Bookshop" <>
Subject: Re: [MDCAROLI] Andrew family
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:11:18 -0400
References: <200205191141.AA2889482486@mail.kans.com>


Dear Jim:
The case in question is one of the "cause celebres" of Eastern Shore
revolutionary history. It is one that has been looked at by a number of
historians--the best of which was my old professor Ronald Hoffman in his
work "Spriit of Dissension" --and
it is one that is caught up in a rather complex fabric. The Eastern Shore
was in great turmoil throughout most of the Revolution and it goes beyond
"for" or "agin" the fight for liberty. Andrews and company's raid on
Murray's store house for salt can be seen in the same context as Colston's
raid on James Lloyd Chamberlain's store house for salt. A closer read of
the events, and a look back throughout history --particularly exercizes of
"popular justice" and peasant revolt --gives a clue into what was going on
here. It was seen by many that some members of the "gentry" who were also
Revolutionary leaders were engaged in the engrossment of articles which were
scarce throughout the province and were of vital necessity to the lives of
everyone. The salt riots can be seen in the same light as "bread riots"
which happened frequently throughout Europe. Because of the British
blockade, the availability of salt was scarce --although there was attempts
to produce it in places such as in Worcester County. Oddly enough, people
such as Murray and Chamberlaine had plenty in stock --and were probably
hoarding and selling at a rather high price. Thus, they were seen as
"engrossers" who were profiting at the expense of the public. The raids by
Andrews and Colston were attempts to bring about some sort of justice. I do
know in the case of the Colston raid in Talbot County that after breaking
into Chamberlaine's store house the "banditti" left money --which they
believed was a just price for the salt--and probably Andrews and his group
did the same.

As with all "peasant revolts" or exercizes in "popular justice" (which some
might call vigilatism) someone of a higher social class would have to
sanction such a thing for it to happen--and in this case it was Andrews. He
held a degree of rank in the militia--and his rank in that organization is
equivalent to his rank in the local society. Certainly he had been elected
as Captain of the militia company which he probably raised--but would not
have been given his commission without the sanction of the Convention. As
with all peasant revolts--once they were put down--someone had to be the
example, and it would have been the person of most quality who would have
been levied the highest bond and the highest fine and again in this case it
was Andrews. If you notice, the other participants were fined rather
lightly when brought to trial. Nor did anyone really fight the charge.
Most claimed that they were not guilty but were unwilling to contest the
state in the matter and instead threw themselves on the mercy of the court.
The court then fined them a certain amount and that was that.

There is little difference between what Andrews and his gang did and what
took place earlier in places like Boston and were instigated by such groups
as the Sons of Liberty--except for the fact of "who" was in charge and "who"
of the gentry gave their tacit approbation to such acts.

There is a lot more concerning the compexity of the situation, and as I am
and will be doing in my "pontifications" in the newsletter--there is a lot
more to the militia than meets the eye. The militia was certainly a defense
force--although early in the war the primary duty for the defense of the
state was given to the "state troops"--and was to be the force to first
react to any raid or invasion. Once engaged, the state troops were then to
be dispatched to fight. Unfortunately for the state, the creation of the
Continental army meant that Maryland and other states were called upon to
fill a quota. Maryland dispatched the state troops (which then became the
nexus of the Maryland Line) and by doing so left the state's defense
entirely in the hands of the militia. It would appear that the militia was
not designed to fulfill this duty. Instead, its primary duty was to be a
political pressure group. First, the order that "all" men between 16 and 40
to enroll themselves into companys of militia wasa tactic to see who was
"with" and who were "agin." Additionally, such a force could be used to keep
political pressure up against those suspected of holding tory sympathies and
to keep the general population in check. Unfortunately again for the state,
this did not quite work the way they hoped both on the Western Shore and
particularly on the Eastern Shore. The dissension that arose was from a
number of sources--political, economic, and social, and the place where the
dissension was most manifest was within the ranks of the militia itself.
Again, the actions of Andrews and others was a manifestation of the dissent
that was rife throughout the state.

I probably have opened more questions than closing answers in this bit
of rambling--but will gladly answer all questions as best as I can--so give
the old professor your best shots here and I will answer them the best that
I can.

Hope this finds all well
<<<Neil>>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew, Jim" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: [MDCAROLI] Andrew family


> Hello List,recently received from Neil a copy of his
> transcription Eastern Shore General Court Criminal
> Judgements 1782-1785 and 1777-78, finding some very
> interesting things. Appears the colonial government
> charged the American Militia members with levying
> war on the state, and varying with their rank,
> charged a bond for their release until trial. One
> interesting thing is to see who signed their bonds.
> Now, I assume 2000 pounds current money to be a
> sizable amount considering the inflation rate of the
> last few years, so signing the bond would be a
> serious act. Finding that Richard and Jeremiah
> Andrew signed the bonds of James and Joshua Dillon,
> Joshua Willis, Issac Weatherly and others implies a
> special relationship. Jim Andrew
>
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>
>

----- Original Message -----

This thread: