The Shoemaker And The Tea Party Summary

Alfred F. Young took on an interesting task with his book The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. He began his project looking for what role the average person played in the history of the Revolution, but changed directions when he realized it was more than just the common persons account that mattered; it was also about the meaning behind an individual’s memory. The way a person interpreted their experiences was equally important, if not more important, than the details of the events themselves. Young describes the process of constructing memory as both a construction of personal experience and a construction of public memory. What is most important in “doing history” is how those events were forgotten, and then

later remembered. In order to truly relate to or understand an event, the historian must understand what emotion drove people to action and then reconstruct that into text.
Young dabbles in the meaning of public and private memory, and how those two specifically shaped the naming of The Boston Tea Party. He ponders how the construction of memory caused it to be named The Boston Tea Party (Young viii). He asks, “Does it make any difference how many people name a historic event?” questioning how public memory affects the way an event is branded (Young xvi). After thorough research, he discovers that the first place it was called The Boston Tea Party was in the memoir James Hawkes wrote after a series of interviews with the subject of the book, George Robert Twelves Hewes. He goes on to ask, “Could it be that the event itself was not recognized, that it had been “forgotten” and then “remembered” sixty years later” when Hewes was discovered and interviewed (Young xv)? Throughout the book, he discusses the how public memory was shaped and the events forgotten, while the private memory of Hewes resurrected the long forgotten history of the American Revolution.
To discover Hewes, and his memory of the Revolution, was a complex task for Young to attempt. His goal, as stated several times in the introduction, was to construct an informed and scholarly account of an ordinary man through both public and private memory. What Young recognized and highlighted was the fact that the little people mattered. Their ideas, stories, and experiences changed the course of the world as they knew it and shaped the world as we know it now. Knowing how they individually remembered an event is just as significant, if not more so, than public memory because theirs told a very personal story. They can provide emotion and passion that can connect us across centuries of time and place us right in the midst of the action. Their stories are the reason we can connect with and understand the past.
George Robert Twelves Hewes came from humble beginnings and remained in humble living all of his life.

He came from a family of nine children and was orphaned by the age of 14. He learned the trade of shoemaking, not by choice, but because he did not have the money nor the stature to do much else. One of the only chances he had to rise above the working class would have been through marriage, but he married a woman whose family was just as poor as his own. Together they had 15 children, and for the majority of his life, they remained nameless and poor. But inside, he was more than just a poor man from the working

class.
Hewes was not a political man, but rather a social activist of sorts. What he wanted was justice for himself and those in his community. When the British soldier walked out without paying for his shoes, Hewes simply wanted him to pay his bill rather than receive 300 lashes as punishment (Young 36). When he confronted Malcolm for threatening a boy with a cane, and Malcolm hit him instead, Hewes wanted him punished by the courts rather than the tarring and feathering he received. He was so outraged by the way the man was treated, he broke through the crowd to cover him with a blanket. He later spoke with the man with respect and dignity as if the whole thing had never happened. What Hewes demonstrated in his interactions with the community was his respect for others and appreciation for the world he was a part of.
When Hewes, and ordinary man with an extraordinary drive, decided to take part in the destruction of tea, he was demonstrating the same social justice mentality he had demonstrated with Malcolm and the British soldier.

He was doing what he felt was right for his community and the freedom of his fellow colonists. His participation in The Boston Tea Party, and later in the war, was driven by his own “personal experiences” (Young 53). He did not want to be the source of pain for others, and he wouldn’t stand by as others were pained. Hewes had known many losses and experienced a rough upbringing so taking part in the monumental act of rebellion and destroying hundreds of pounds of tea anchored him in his sense of community. The action against Britain was collective without prejudice against the lower classes of society, and for once in his life, he was able to rise above his status and be a part of a community he was otherwise excluded

from.
Hewes later joined the war as a privateer and a member of the militia. His decision to serve had come earlier in life but he was denied due to his short stature. As the war raged on, the need for bodies allowed him to participate in the significant task of fighting the British. Joining the war may have come from his long-time desire to do something with his life other than being a shoemaker, but his main reasons were most likely his patriotism and his desire to earn a higher wage (Young 58). Unfortunately for Hewes, his service in the militia and as a privateer did little to change his economic status. What it did however, was leave a “memory of rights asserted (by threat of mutiny) and rights respected” (Young 66). The memory of The Boston Tea Party and his service during the war had psychologically lifted him out of the working class into someone who was important, and that was important to Hewes. He was not recognized for his part in the Revolution until late in his life, but in his mind, he knew what he had done was life-altering for many people.
It was almost 30 years after the Revolution before Hewes experiences became a story. James Hawkes and Benjamin Bussey Thatcher interviewed Hewes and published two memoirs about his life. Their memoirs finally gave Hewes the recognition he deserved and served as a tool to revive the memory of the Revolution. Young describes how these memoirs led to Hewes invitation to celebrate the Fourth of July in Boston that were documented in local newspaper stories; Hewes had become their hometown hero. His portrait was painted and named The Centenarian, and later hung in a Boston gallery. It was through Hewes personal memory, documented in his memoirs, that public memory was resurrected and reshaped. Young states that in reconstructing the events of the Revolution, what was once called “the action against the tea” transformed into what we know as The Boston Tea Party (Young 88). Young describes how public memory, much of which was formed by people who had not experienced it, had long forgotten or misinterpreted the significance of The Boston Tea Party (Young 89). Through Hewes memory and public appearances, Young argues, the memory and significance were reborn; we owe our independence and the formation of our country to the ordinary men who are oftentimes forgotten.
Young effectively analyses how public memory was significantly shaped and subsequently forgotten by the political parties that participated in the Revolution. In an effort to distance themselves from ‘mob’ behavior, The Sons of Liberty excluded many of the memories they deemed “politically embarrassing” (Young 95). On the other hand, the Whig party did a good job of documenting and politicizing their participation in the revolt and it is their records that Young relied heavily on to validate Hewes claims. And, while Boston celebrated the Fourth of July, they were not celebrating the collection of small revolts that led to their independence, but rather it was a “grand day for the militia” (Young 111). Memories were also lost in the monuments and historical sites that were neglected, and eventually destroyed. Young effectively links the 30 years of silence about the Revolution to the way politics and neglect shaped public memory.
Throughout the book, Young keeps with his main theme of how memory of the Revolution was reconstructed through the common people and the way they remembered their actions, specifically George Robert Twelves Hewes. When he began his journey, Young was only looking to showcase the ordinary actors of the Revolution and did not realize he would end up studying Hewes’s memory. Young tells his readers how memory is used to reconstruct the past for political purposes and for “resisting change or achieving innovations” (Young xv). It became an important task for Young to understand and convey why Hewes memory is so important; he was an ordinary man who acted extraordinarily, was forgotten for a period of time, and then remembered again. He explains in detail how Hewes recollection of The Boston Tea Party was drawn out of him through proper questioning by Hawkes and Thatcher. He refers often to how Hewes’ memory was formed through his participation and emotion, and how remarkable it was that he could remember so many things in detail. Young explains how he, like many historians, is skeptical of the credibility of memoirs because a primary source is always best when it is available; memoirs are retold stories and can be flawed in their details (Young xii). Young paints an exciting picture of what life was like for Hewes and others in the working class that keeps the reader interested while simultaneously making them feel like they are a bystander to these historical events. While the public memory had been shaped by the political parties of the time, Young adequately convinces his audience that the real memories lived on in those who were in the midst of the action. Young argues and proves that, for the most part, individual memory serves no higher political purpose; it is the raw and real story. Overall, the book was an easy and exciting read. There were times when his quotes from other sources became confusing, but after reading them several times, they were easier to understand. He painted a vivid picture of what life was like for his main character, George Robert Twelves Hewes, and how Hewes upbringing brought him to take action against the British.