250 Years Ago: Early January 1776
Shawn Everett
Submitted to Corner Post
Neighbors, I trust the days ahead will bring new hope to your homes. The first days of January 1776 have already delivered news of profound defeat, royal cruelty, and soaring inspiration.
The New Year’s Eve assault on Quebec was a catastrophe. Our forces were severely outnumbered and weakened by desertion, disease and deprivation. During the initial charge, General Richard Montgomery was among those killed instantly by cannon shrapnel. Soon after, Colonel Benedict Arnold sustained a severe leg wound. Soldiers became confused and disillusioned. The defeat cost us hundreds of men, ended all hope for swiftly securing Canada, and is a stark reminder of the sacrifices this war demands.
The war was brought to the South with devastating brutality. We received word of the deliberate destruction of Norfolk, Virginia, on January 1st. Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor, having been driven out by Patriot forces, ordered his fleet to fire upon the city. A massive fire ensued, leaving the largest port city in Virginia, a crucial trading center, a smoking ruin.
This act of shocking brutality has served only one purpose: to prove that the King’s representatives will destroy any place they cannot control. Such military madness confirms arguments for immediate political separation.
Meanwhile, the fate of the Boston siege rests on the secretive, but immense undertaking by Colonel Knox and his men struggling to transport heavy artillery from Ticonderoga to Cambridge. Their hidden labor is the very definition of the grinding endurance required to sustain our cause, for if they fail, Washington’s army lacks the power to liberate Boston from British occupation.
Yet, as the people reeled from the death of General Montgomery and the deliberate destruction of Norfolk, a pamphlet entitled Common Sense is spreading like wildfire from Philadelphia to the camps outside Boston. Thomas Paine's ideas are transforming the cause with a devastatingly simple message. He rejects heredity as a valid claim to leadership and declares that a vast continent should never be governed by an island. This is no request for better treatment; it is a direct, eloquent demand for a new nation.
He argues that the time for debate is over, drawing a clear line between the two sides of this conflict: "The King's cause is the cause of all who prefer an easy, contented submission to the hazardous contest for the possession of a free and independent Continent." This powerful sentiment transforms the conflict from a rebellion into a movement for nationhood.
This political divide forces each of us to define what kind of society we truly desire. Loyalists value stability, tradition, and comfort offered by a powerful government, focusing on avoiding the burdens and risks of governing themselves. Patriots choose liberty, self-governance, and the inherent rights of free people, embracing the burden of personal responsibility because freedom is the ultimate and most dignified reward.
King? Or no King? The argument for separation is laid bare, and our future depends on our collective will for liberty.
