andrewjohnson95.substack.com/p/a-mistaken-conception-of-english
5 corrections found
holders of the writ were not responsible for any damages pursuant to their searches.
This is incorrect: customs officers using writs of assistance could be liable in trespass damages if they searched and found nothing.
Full reasoning
A Founders Online editorial note on the 1761 writs-of-assistance controversy explains that although general writs were used, officers were not immune from damages. It states that in English practice, even where probable cause existed, "the officer who searched and found nothing was liable in damages for the trespass." That directly contradicts the article's categorical claim that writ holders were not responsible for any damages arising from their searches.
So while writs of assistance were broad and deeply controversial, the specific statement that officers bore no damages liability is false.
1 source
- Editorial Note | Founders Online
The editorial note states that 'even with probable cause, the officer who searched and found nothing was liable in damages for the trespass.'
The Sugar Act, by contrast, constituted direct internal taxation intended to raise revenue.
This misdescribes the Sugar Act. It was a revenue measure, but it operated through customs duties on imported goods—an external tax, not a direct internal tax.
Full reasoning
The Sugar Act of 1764 was designed to raise revenue, but it did so by imposing and tightening duties on imported goods, not by levying an internal tax like the later Stamp Act.
The Library of Congress timeline for 1764 states that the act "increased duties on non-British goods shipped to the colonies." That is the structure of an import duty, i.e. an external/customs tax. The Massachusetts Historical Society's Adams Papers also describes the Sugar Act as an "acknowledged external tax" in contemporary debate.
So the article is right that the act aimed to raise revenue, but wrong to call it "direct internal taxation." The colonists' classic dispute was precisely that the Sugar Act was an external duty imposed for revenue, whereas the Stamp Act was the paradigmatic internal tax.
2 sources
- 1764 to 1765 | Timeline | Library of Congress
The Library of Congress says of the Sugar Act: 'The act increased duties on non-British goods shipped to the colonies.'
- Adams Papers Digital Edition - Massachusetts Historical Society
The Adams Papers describe colonial reaction to the Sugar Act as reaction to 'an acknowledged external tax.'
The first vote on the finalized Declaration of Independence (July 1) was underwhelming:
The July 1–2 vote was not on a finalized Declaration of Independence. Congress voted on the Lee Resolution for independence; the Declaration text was revised afterward and adopted on July 4, 1776.
Full reasoning
National Archives materials distinguish clearly between the Lee Resolution and the Declaration of Independence.
According to the National Archives' history of the Declaration, Congress reconvened on July 1, 1776 and on July 2 adopted the Lee Resolution for independence; only afterward did Congress begin formally considering the Declaration's text, revising it through July 3 and into July 4, when the Declaration was officially adopted.
The National Archives page for the Lee Resolution is even more explicit: it says the document "shows the vote on the Lee Resolution" and that approval was deferred until July 2, when Congress adopted the declaration-of-independence portion of Lee's resolution. So the article's wording is wrong: the July 1 vote was not on a "finalized Declaration of Independence." It concerned the independence resolution, while the Declaration itself was still being edited and was adopted on July 4, 1776.
2 sources
- The Declaration of Independence: A History | National Archives
'On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted... Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration.'
- Lee Resolution (1776) | National Archives
The National Archives says the document 'shows the vote on the Lee Resolution' and that approval 'was deferred until July 2. On that date, Congress adopted the first part (the declaration).'}]}【อ่านข้อความเต็มnumerusform to=functions.submit_correction კომენტary +天天中彩票{
cost the British 1,500 casualties versus only 440 for the Americans.
The British casualty figure here is substantially too high. The National Park Service gives British casualties at 1,054, not 1,500.
Full reasoning
The National Park Service's account of the battle states: "After two hours of combat, British troops casualties totaled 1,054. Colonial losses totaled an estimated 450 soldiers by comparison."
That means the article overstates British casualties by roughly 446 men. The American figure given in the article (440) is close to the commonly cited estimate, but the British number 1,500 is not supported by the NPS battle history.
1 source
- The Battle of Bunker Hill (U.S. National Park Service)
The National Park Service states: 'After two hours of combat, British troops casualties totaled 1,054. Colonial losses totaled an estimated 450 soldiers by comparison.'
expiring only with the death of the king
This overstates the expiration rule. The 1761 writs of assistance remained valid until six months after the sovereign's death, not merely until the moment of death.
Full reasoning
A Founders Online editorial note on the 1761 writs-of-assistance litigation explains that these writs were "good from the date of issue until six months after the death of the issuing sovereign."
So the article's parenthetical is inaccurate. The writs did not expire at the king's death; they continued for an additional six months after the monarch died.
1 source
- Editorial Note | Founders Online
The note describes the writs as 'general standing warrants, good from the date of issue until six months after the death of the issuing sovereign.'