This week in Revolutionary War history, let’s check up on what was going on 250 years ago in and around the colonial Province of Massachusetts Bay. Last week, there was finally some much-required good news at a bleak moment in our national history. George Washington received an update from his cousin and estate-manager, Lund Washington, regarding the fortification of Washington’s 8,000-acre estate on the Potomac. Other areas see planning for the liberation of Boston from its defending Red Coats. Josiah Quincy was formulating daring and expensive plans for a cut-off. Finally, merchants contracted in weeks prior have returned from a voyage south British possessions in the Caribbean. They bring gun powder and ammunition, a crucial boost to the Continental Army as the cool air creeps south from Quebec, which itself happens to be another theater of battle.

            On November 5, 1775, Washington issues his General Orders the same as every day. But this day is Guy Fawkes Day. Short history lesson: Guy Fawkes was an Englishman in the late 16th-century who converted to Catholicism at a young age and moved to Spain. There he fought in the Spanish army and using support he gained, tried to get Spain’s support in a Catholic uprising in England during the Eighty Years’ War. Eventually, Fawkes had a plan to assassinate King James I of England and restore a Catholic-based monarchy. The “Gunpowder Plot” saw the rigging of Westminster with explosives to kill the king and cripple the government. On November 5, 1605, Fawkes was caught guarding the explosives and was eventually sentenced to death. So, November 5 marks “Guy Fawkes Day” not to celebrate the man, but his capture and the preservation of the Anglican King.

            Jumping 170 years into the future, the day would still be celebrated in various forms. However, the rowdy Continental Army soldiers’ methods were not to General Washington’s liking. Washington received word that the men were going to do “that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the effigy of the pope.” he wrote in his orders. This was not uncommon, especially with the English’s main rivals being Catholic nations, anti-Catholic fervor ran deep. Washington draws out the reasoning for his banning of this practice quite plainly, without much hesitation. He highlights the poor timing of this and how crucial it is to not display ani-catholic sentiments, “at a time when we are soliciting, and have really obtained, the friendship & alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as brethren embarked in the same cause.” In other words, “we are trying to win over the predominantly Catholic Quebecois, please do not make the army seem too overtly anti-Catholic.”

            Speaking of Canada, Major General Philip Schuyler writes from the north on November 7. He informs Washington of the recent capture of Fort Saint-Jean on the Richelieu River in Quebec. The defenders laid down their arms to General Richard Montgomery about a week earlier. This puts the army dangerously close to Montreal.

            That same day, the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord John Murray of Dunmore, who currently holds nominal power in the province by appointment of the king, offers “A Proclamation.” Dunmore declares martial law, and also, famously, states, “I do hereby further declare all indentured servants, negroes, /or others, (appertaining to rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear arms, /they joining His MAJESTY’S troops as soon as may be.” This proclamation leads to upwards of two-thousand slaves to flee their plantations and join the British army in search of freedom. This, and similar propositions over the following years, would lead up to 20,000 enslaved peoples to enlist into British service.

            On November 9, the situation in the north seems to be progressing toward disaster. Though Washington had received good news from Schuyler, he gets a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Roger Enos. He begins, “I am on my return from Colo. Arnold’s Detachment.” He goes into detail of the supply disaster facing Arnold’s army. Provisions are dangerously low, and the army is told to march on into the unknown. Enos states his column only had a few days of provisions left, and with Arnold carrying on ahead, Enos decided to turn back to Cambridge. Enos would arrive back in Cambridge on November 25, where he would be arrested and court martialed.

            On November 10, Washington’s General Orders thanks Colonel William Thompson of Ireland for a successful skirmish outside Boston. He remarks of the battle, “Yesterday, in pushing thro’ the water, to get to the enemy on Letchmore’s Point (now Lechmere Square).” The battle was a trudge through the icy waters north of Boston.

            That same day, Washington receives a note from John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. With Hancock’s note are three resolutions that was passed by the congress that day. One of which is to rais two battalions of Marines, and another is to use said troops to launch a sea-bourn assault on Nova Scotia. When supplies are critical, morale is low, and temperatures are dropping, it is amazing to think a naval landing on Nova Scotia was not only on the table, but passed.

This Week In Revolutionary History

By Sam Bishop

RFK Jr and his choice for the next U.S. Surgeon General, Casey Mean, are fervent advocates of drinking raw (unpasteurized) milk. Should you listen to them?

            In 1862, Louis Pasteur invented a method of killing bacteria in wine and beer without affecting the taste. Beginning in 1920, Americans began to pasteurize milk using his method.

            The process is simple: milk is rapidly heated to at least 161 degrees F (71.7 C) for at least 15 seconds and then rapidly cooled. This extends the shelf-life of milk and kills the harmful bacteria that can be transmitted in milk.

            Today, about 3% of Americans consume raw milk and the MAHA movement wants to increase that number. Much of the rationale is simply “freedom to choose,” while touted benefits include more nutritional content and better taste. There have also been some observational studies that claimed that children who drank raw milk had fewer allergies.

            The taste issue is false – it is impossible for most people to taste any difference. Pasteurization has minimal effect on the nutritional value of milk. A few vitamins may be decreased by pasteurization, but these are not in high content in milk in any form.

            Since most children who currently drink raw milk live on farms, it is hard to say whether it is the milk or the farm environment that leads to fewer allergies. (We know that children who are allowed to play in the dirt have fewer allergies than those who are kept in pristine environments.)

            What is clearly true is that drinking unpasteurized milk can lead to serious infections. Each year there are milk-associated outbreaks of infections with listeria, campylobacter, salmonella and toxin-producing E Coli. These are not trivial illnesses, and can be particularly dangerous to small children or those with immune deficiencies. Virtually every outbreak has been associated with drinking raw milk.

            Can you follow Dr. Mean’s advice to “look the farmer in the eye and pat the cow” before drinking milk from that farm? No. Up to a third of all raw milk sampled contains harmful bacteria, and a healthy-appearing animal can be the source.

            Protect yourself and protect your children – only consume dairy products that are pasteurized!

            Edward Hoffer MD is Associate Professor of Medicine, part-time, at Harvard.

What Does The Doctor Say?

By Dr. Edward Hoffer