Revolutionary Cape Fear: The Fires of Liberty (1767-1776)

In our last American Nomad Historical Adventure, we traveled back to 1765-66, during the pivotal Cape Fear Stamp Act Crisis.

In the Fall of 1765 to the Spring of 1766, Wilmington and neighboring Brunswick Town were a hotbed of resistance against the despised British Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on all paper goods, from legal documents to playing cards. In the summer of 1765, prominent Cape Fear area judge Maurice Moore of Brunswick Town wrote a scathing pamphlet denouncing the tax. This act so angered then Royal Governor William Tryon that he removed Moore from the bench until the repeal of the Stamp Act.

In November of 1765, the first armed protest against the Stamp Act occurred in the then bustling port city of Brunswick Town. Over the next few months, the Sons of Liberty organization, led by men like Cornelius Harnett, John Ashe, and James Moore, orchestrated protests in Wilmington and Brunswick Town.

The citizens of Brunswick even held Governor Tryon and comptroller of customs at the port of Brunswick, William Pennington, hostage in the governor’s mansion at Russellborough (then called Castle Tryon) while compelling customs and naval officials like Captain Lobb and William Dry to cease enforcement of the Act. For more on the War of Regulation and how it differed from the movement towards Independence read our article: Reckoning with the Regulators.

In continuing our study of the American Revolution in Cape Fear, I wanted to dive deeper into the role of the Sons of Liberty in the region and the key players in the movement towards independence.

What’s So Taxing About the Stamp Act?

On March 22nd, 1765, led by the initiative of Prime Minister at the time, Lord Grenville, Parliament passed a Stamp Act Resolution on its American Colonies in hopes of driving revenue to pay for the country’s massive debts acquired in the French and Indian War.

At first, Parliament’s reasoning seemed logical: why not tax Americans for helping them to defend their lands and acquire new tracts for settlement in the Ohio River Valley? The British victory over France and her allies had procured the empire Canada and much of the land up to the Mississippi, but it had come at a heavy cost. By the war’s end in 1763, the national debt was 133 million pounds (around $35 billion today), reaching 157% of Britain’s GDP, and the interest on the loans incurred to finance the war consumed at least half of the country’s revenue. Britain desperately needed cash, and their population in England was already the heaviest taxed in Europe. So, the Crown looked to the colonies.

The Colonial Objection: Virtual vs. Actual Representation

However, it wasn’t simply the financial burden that inflamed the colonists; it was Britain’s fundamental lack of regard for their rights as British subjects. British citizens had the constitutional right to be taxed only with representation. Parliament tried to argue that the colonies were represented through “virtual representation,” claiming that every Member of Parliament represented the interests of all British subjects worldwide, including the Americans.

But for men who had exercised significant self-government with little interference since reaching America, this did not sit well. While they had tolerated indirect taxation through the Navigation Acts and the Sugar Act (part of the overall policy of mercantilism), the Stamp Act was the first direct, internal tax on the colonists’ own commerce and property.

The Voices of Opposition

Only five members of Parliament voiced their opposition to the Stamp Act. Ironically, one of those men was Charles Cornwallis, the future British general who would later command forces in the Southern Campaign.

In a series of debates in February 1765, Isaac Barré, who had fought alongside Americans during the French and Indian War, spoke out vehemently against the tax. When Treasury Secretary Charles Townshend disparaged the colonists, Barré gave a moving speech repudiating Townshend and giving the American cause a rallying cry:

Mr Barré: “[Were] they planted by your care? No! Your oppression planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country…

[Were] they nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them… sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon them…

[Were] they protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, they have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious industry for the defence of a country…

The [American] people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has. But they are a people jealous of their liberties and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated; but the subject is too delicate and I will say no more.”

Barré’s speech was published throughout the colonies and became a rallying cry. Townshend’s insult, suggesting the colonists were “children of your planting,” prompted Barré’s brilliant response, which included the term that gave the burgeoning resistance movement its powerful name: Sons of Liberty.

The Nuts and Bolts of the Grievance

Before we return to the “Sons of Liberty” in North Carolina, let’s summarize exactly why this specific tax was so frustrating to American colonists:

1. The Debt and Defense: The Stamp Act was instituted to fund the maintenance and salaries of the 10,000 British troops stationed in America following the French and Indian War—a financial burden the colonists felt they should not have to bear, particularly for a standing army they felt was unnecessary in peacetime.
2. The Scope and Cost: It was a direct, internal tax on nearly all paper goods, from legal documents and newspapers to playing cards. Payment was demanded only in specie (gold or silver), a form of currency desperately scarce in the colonies, effectively creating a financial chokehold on commerce.
3. The Precedent: No Taxation Without Representation: The tax violated the colonists’ right to be taxed only by their own colonial assemblies, escalating the conflict from an economic dispute to a foundational argument over political rights.

The Fire Rises in Cape Fear

Even growing up in North Carolina, when we learned about the Sons of Liberty, the focus was almost always on Sam Adams and his team in Boston. While this is a critical piece of history, it is important to shed light on the fact that the South—especially the Cape Fear region of North Carolina—was also a tinderbox of patriot sentiment and movement towards independence as early as 1765.

The Colonies were each founded via different charters and with different motivations for settlement, from the money-making Virginia Company to the religiously-driven settlements in Massachusetts, and the economically-focused structure of the Carolinas. As much as each of the Colonies were tied to England, their goals for liberty were often nuanced depending on their local daily lives. The Stamp Act took what had been disparate colonies and began to unify their motivations under a common cause: the demand for liberty as their rights as Englishmen.

This early resistance made a profound impact: North Carolina was the only colony where the Stamp Act could never be enforced and the stamps were never formally issued. No doubt Tryon reported the fury of the rebellion to his superiors in England, which would have contributed to the overturning of the Stamp Act in March 1766 (just one month after Tryon was actually held hostage with Pennington at Brunswick).

Continuing the Legacy

In continuing our study of the American Revolution in Cape Fear, I wanted to dive deeper into the role of the Sons of Liberty in the region and the key players in the movement towards independence.

While many of the Sons of Liberty leaders had temporary periods of cooperation with Governor Tryon in the immediate aftermath of the Stamp Act repeal, the fire of liberty would not be silenced. Many of those who rose up in 1765-66 in North Carolina were among the first to rally to the banner of the patriot cause in the 1770s.

Let’s dive deeper into the history of the Sons of Liberty movement and the ardent Cape Fear patriots, whose sustained zeal helped forge a path to victory in the Carolinas. Their early resistance laid the groundwork for the decisive victory at Moores Creek Bridge in February 1776—an event that effectively ousted Royal Authority from the state until Cornwallis reentered the region in 1780-81.

While many historians focus solely on Boston, we must remember the continuous patriotism of the Carolina Sons of Liberty: from their resistance to the Stamp Act, to their work on non-importation boycotts in 1770, to their collaboration with Josiah Quincy and the Massachusetts Sons of Liberty, and finally, their dramatic work to oust Royal Governor Josiah Martin and burn Fort Johnston on July 19, 1775 (Southport).

After the Stamp Act Crisis: New Tensions Arise

The repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 was a temporary reprieve, but Governor Tryon’s subsequent actions kept political tensions high. In the years following the crisis, North Carolina faced a series of political trials, including Tryon’s controversial decision to move the capital to New Bern and fund a lavish Governor’s Palace using taxpayer funds levied by the colonial legislature. This, combined with the fact that the larger western counties like Orange (Hillsborough) and Rowan were underrepresented in the legislature, and Tryon’s selection of corrupt backcountry officials like Edmund Fanning, led directly to the War of Regulation (1765-1771).

On the surface, it would appear the Regulators and the Sons of Liberty should have been natural allies against colonial authority. While many of the Stamp Act leaders had opposed Tryon and his officials during the Stamp Act crisis, many of those same Sons of Liberty, like James Moore, fought with Tryon against the Regulators at the Battle of Alamance west of Hillsborough on May 16th, 1771.

This split occurred because their grievances were fundamentally different. While both groups shared frustrations over taxation, their focus differed dramatically:

• The Regulators primarily opposed local and colonial taxes, believing those funds were corruptly administered by county officials and that the western counties lacked proportional representation in the colonial legislature. The conflict was internal, blaming Tryon and a corrupt colonial government, not Parliament.
• The Sons of Liberty were focused on the principle of imperial taxation; for them, the issue wasn’t the amount of the tax, but Parliament’s lack of authority to levy any tax on the colonies without their consent, as Maurice Moore had qualified.

During the Revolutionary War, the political lines blurred: some regulators remained loyal to the crown, while others joined their former foes at Alamance to become leading patriots.

The Townshend Acts and Non-Importation: 

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Parliament was still determined to assert its financial authority. The colonial resistance to the Stamp Act had been successful in overturning it in March 1766, but Parliament, frustrated by the lack of colonial revenue, introduced a new set of taxes in the summer of 1767 known as the Townshend Acts. Initiated by Charles Townshend, the same gentleman who had disparagingly referred to the colonists as children in his debate with Isaac Barre over the Stamp Act, The Townshend Acts taxed imported goods like glass, lead, paint, paper and tea, which were important to daily life. These taxes were equally abhorred by the colonists, who worked together to form a Non-Importation movement, sourcing more items from the colonies and boycotting British imports that were subject to the new duties. The homespun movement began in Massachusetts down to North Carolina’s Cape Fear with both the Sons of Liberty enforcing the boycott, and the Daughters of Liberty working to promote and manufacture domestic goods. The Daughters of Liberty worked to manufacture and spin their own cloth for clothes.

From New England to the South, the outcry was still rooted in the principle of ‘no taxation without representation,’ as parliament was taxing them without their consent as they had no elected members to voice their interests. Parliament argued these were “external” taxes on imports, the colonists saw them as “internal” taxes to raise revenue similar to the Stamp Act. But the biggest political frustration was not just the tax itself; the passage of the New York Restraining Act concurrently with the Townshend Acts demonstrated Parliament’s willingness to suspend a colonial assembly for non-compliance. This was viewed as a tyrannical overreach that threatened the very principle of self-governance across all the colonies. The creation of a new customs board in Boston and the use of admiralty courts without juries for enforcement was similarly viewed as oppressive. A key goal was to use the revenue from the duties to pay the salaries of colonial governors and judges, making them less dependent on colonial assemblies and more loyal to the Crown.

By April 1770 much of the Townshend taxes had been overturned, except for the tax on tea, which would prove to start an uproar from Boston to Wilmington to Edenton NC and beyond. 

During the non-importation period,  North Carolina lagged behind several other colonies in strict observance due to several tumultuous events in the state, including the Regulator Movement, and in 1769 a terrible hurricane that devastated the Cape Fear region. The economy also was not strong enough during this period for some to feel confident enough to fully comply with the non-importation clauses.  However many men and women kept the flicker of liberty and rebellion alive.

In June 1770, a month after news of the Townshend Act repeal reached Wilmington, the Sons of Liberty were not ready to give into the tax on tea.  They met in the city to figure out a way to crack down on noncompliers of nonimportation.  While many of the taxes had been removed, the fact tea was still taxed without colonial approval was an insult to no taxation without representation.  Men like Cornelius Harnett wanted to exhort the citizens of the Cape Fear to not back down on nonimportation, and any out of compliance would face repercussions.  This meeting formally established Chapters of Merchants Committees of Inspection in Six Counties, including a major focus on enforcing the boycott in key port towns like Brunswick. 

Cornelius Harnett: The Sam Adams of the South

In 1773, Massachusetts Patriot Josiah Quincy recognized the critical need for forging unity by cultivating alliances outside of New England. His decision to visit the Cape Fear region, renowned for its patriot fervor, led him to the leadership of North Carolina. During this southern tour, he inspected Fort Johnston and assessed the military capabilities of the South.

The key encounter was with Cornelius Harnett of Wilmington. After an evening of cordial conversation, the two agreed to a “continental correspondence” to discuss revolutionary matters. This interaction blossomed into a deep friendship, culminating in Quincy’s highest praise for Harnett: calling him “the Samuel Adams of North Carolina.” Quincy’s choice of the Cape Fear region underscores the area’s recognized importance in the broader colonial movement for liberty.

The Teacup Tempest: When the price of tea was too ‘steep’ a cost

When you tour the Burgwin-Wright House, the oldest Colonial era home in Wilmington open to the public, one of the home’s treasures is a lavish tea caddy, handpainted in China that stored loose tea leaves. While most residents in the Cape Fear did not have the wealth of John Burgwin or own such a lavish caddy, tea itself was central to social gatherings and daily life across all classes in Colonial America.

Imagine if you suddenly had to pay a ‘Caffeine Tax’ on your daily cup of coffee—how would you react? I personally would probably pay the tax, at least at first, because coffee kick starts my day and I enjoy going to a coffee shop with friends. However, when you begin to realize the tax isn’t fair and you are paying for something that you deem unconstitutional in your rights as a then ‘British citizen,’ suddenly you might change your tune.

Tea had been included in the Townshend Act taxes, and even when the rest of the duties were repealed in 1770, the tax on tea stubbornly remained. While many did continue to give up tea to abide by nonimportation, it wasn’t until the Tea Act of spring 1773 that anger over the tax hit a boiling point. On the surface, the Tea Act actually provided the colonists with a cheaper option to purchase tea by allowing them to buy directly from the struggling British East India Company. This created a monopoly and severely cut out colonial merchants and smugglers who profited from selling foreign tea. For many colonists, this cheaper tea was viewed as an unacceptable trap—a ploy to get them to purchase the product and, in doing so, tacitly accept the existing Townshend duty, thereby validating Parliament’s constitutional power to tax them without their consent or representation.

Frustration over the Tea Act led to the first major Tea Party protest, which began in Charleston, South Carolina. On December 3rd, 1773, a large public meeting was held at the Exchange Building where Charlestonians agreed not to pay the tea duty. For twenty days, Charlestonians peacefully protested, and the tea sat untouched on the ship. Finally, on December 23, 1773, the tea was seized by customs officials. It was not thrown into the harbor, but instead stored in the Exchange. Due to travel distances, this event in Charleston would not have been known about in Boston until after their own famous protest took place. The fact that two major port cities spontaneously protested the Tea Act without direct knowledge of the other shows this was truly an intercolonial issue.

The more famous ‘Boston Tea Party’ event took place on December 16th, 1773. Men in disguise in Boston boarded an East India Company ship, dramatically dumping 342 chests of tea—an astonishing amount valued at approximately $1.5 million today—into the Boston Harbor. While the British could make excuses for boycotts and peaceful protests, losing $1.5 million in tea that financially impacted a for-profit company was the final straw for England. Parliament swiftly responded by issuing the harsh Intolerable Acts, which closed the port of Boston.

While Parliament liked to think this was a ‘New England’ problem, news of the Intolerable Acts was an affront to all the colonies. From September 5th, 1774 to October 26th, 1774, representatives from twelve colonies (Georgia was absent) joined the First Continental Congress at Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia to forge an alliance against the crackdown. The First Continental Congress was critical in the road to revolution as it unified the colonies in their resolve to stand up to the tyranny of the tax, not just as single colonies but as organized united effort. They approved the Suffolk Resolves, which had been written by Joseph Warren of Massachusetts, as a blueprint for action. The Suffolk Resolves denounced British punitive action in the port of Boston (if it could happen in Boston, why not Wilmington or Brunswick) and urged colonists to defy Britain by refusing British goods and preparing militias for self defense.  The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress petitioned King George for redress of their grievances. 

Wilmington Tea Party

While many North Carolinians are rightfully familiar with the Edenton Tea Party (more on that in a future post), I only recently learned that the ladies of Wilmington also host a Tea Party to show their support for non-importation taxes and the repeal of the Intolerable Acts. The Wilmington Tea Party occurred between March 25-April 5th 1774 (no firm date recorded).  Unlike the Boston Tea Party, where tea was dumped into the harbor, the women in Wilmington used a more symbolic and public act.  The women gathered and proceeded to burn their tea in a solemn procession in the streets of Wilmington.  This act was designed to publicly demonstrate their commitment to the non-consumption of British goods as their opposition to the tea tax. Wilmington was one of several cities where women stood up against British overreach.  Women across the Carolinas played important roles in the road to Revolution.  

Details about the event are scarce, relying primarily on a single, contemporary, but unsympathetic source: the journal of Janet Schaw, a Scottish woman visiting her brother in the Cape Fear region who was a Loyalist.

• Schaw recorded in her journal: “The Ladies have burnt their tea in a solemn procession, but they delayed however till the sacrifice was not very considerable, as I do not think any one offered above a quarter of a pound.”
• Though she was critical and mocked the small quantity of tea sacrificed, her account provides concrete evidence that a public, organized protest by the women of Wilmington did occur.
• Crucially, no records exist to identify the women who organized or participated in the event, and historians do not know the exact location where the tea was burned.

The First Continental Congress directly influenced the Cape Fear as it created a unified colonial boycott of British goods to protest the Intolerable Acts through the Articles of Association, implementing strict non-importation/non-exportation rules, and establishing local committees to enforce it, aiming to pressure Britain into repealing taxes and asserting colonial rights as Englishmen. 

Cornelius Harnett was designated as the chairman of the New Hanover Committee of Safety in 1774, in response to the Articles of Association. In this role he had executive control over the local political and military preparations for the looming war. At this junction, many colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Britain and hoped the non importation resistance would cause parliament and King George to relent.  However for men like Cornelius Harnett, they recognized that war was coming and liberty could only be secured through Independence.  

1775: The Revolution Begins in the Cape Fear

Even before Lexington and Concord, the Cape Fear was a tinderbox of tension waiting to erupt in rebellion. The period of reconciliation was over. The fires of rebellion in the Cape Fear region of North Carolina burned hot as a series of explosive events began to unravel in 1775.

• Enforcement of Resistance:  Beginning on January 21st, 1775, Harnett and the Committee began holding regular meetings to enforce the Continental Association Trade Ban. They forced local merchants to re-ship imported goods, banned “Balls and Dancing” to encourage austerity, and worked to enforce price ceilings on salt to prevent merchant exploitation.
• The Final Act of Royal Rule: When the North Carolina Assembly officially endorsed the Committees of Safety in April 1775, Royal Governor Josiah Martin dissolved the assembly, thinking it would prevent this rebellious self-government. In truth, this was the final act of a functioning colonial government, leaving the committees completely in power.

• The Governor Flees (May 1775): In the wake of the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19th, tensions rose. Governor Martin fled from the capital of Tryon Palace in New Bern to seek protection at Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear. This would be a costly error.
• Burning of Fort Johnston (July 19, 1775): Martin’s flight to Fort Johnston proved a futile attempt. Patriot leaders like John Ashe, Cornelius Harnett, and Robert Howe marched on the mouth of the Cape Fear River and burned Fort Johnston to the ground. Governor Martin was forced to flee completely, taking refuge aboard the British warship HMS Cruizer, governing the colony from the sea.

Martin’s last hope of recapturing North Carolina came at the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge (just west of Wilmington) in February 1776. Loyalist Scots Highlander Troops were utterly routed by Patriots led by Richard Caswell and James Moore. This crushing defeat effectively expelled all royal government from North Carolina until Cornwallis attacked Charlotte in September 1780.

The aftermath of the victory at Moore’s Creek Bridge led to North Carolina’s Fourth Provincial Congress, chaired by Cornelius Harnett, to adopt the Halifax Resolves on April 12, 1776, granting the Second Continental Congress permission to declare Independence. North Carolina was the first state to officially call for independence.

We’ll be diving deeper into the history of these pivotal events in feature posts.  Don’t forget to subscribe as we continue to learn more about Revolutionary Cape Fear – from Fort Johnston to Moores Creek to the British occupation of Wilmington in 1781.

What to discover this amazing history in person? It’s time to plan your Cape Fear getaway. Wilmington CVB is an excellent resource in planning your Cape Fear Revolutionary Adventures.

Must see sites for Revolutionary War Buffs in the area:

• Burgwin-Wright House (only Colonial Era home open to the public in Wilmington); Don’t miss one of Hunter Ingram’s history tours!
• Historic Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson State Park
• Fort Johnston site in Southport – The Fort is now a museum and Visitor Center tied to the North Carolina Maritime Museum at Southport
• Moores Creek Bridge National Battlefield

In addition to America 250 history, American Nomad has lots of fun adventures planned for 2026 from cool mountain communities to Destination Coffee (your caffeine fix on great java hotspots), scenic destinations, National Parks and more. Have an idea for a feature – comment below.

Get to Know American Nomad Traveler

Hi, I’m Adele Lassiter, the travel enthusiast behind American Nomad Traveler. This is where I share my love for history, cool museums, art, and travel tips. When I’m not writing, I’m a singer-songwriter with a passion for Americana music. You can find my new album here: adelelassiter.bandcamp.com

You can also follow us on facebook for the latest blog posts, cool reels, daily history and travel tips

We also have a podcast and vlog – American Nomad Traveler is available on all streaming platforms through Buzzsprout and on YouTube

We are now on Substack for additional content from Travel to History to Art and beyond…

Love Art History?  Check out our sister blog: artexpeditiontours.com or find us on facebook

Are you interested in collaborating with American Nomad Traveler…or have an idea for a story?  Contact Adele at: americannomadtraveler@gmail.com or use the form below