Talk:Grand Union Flag

Comments

"The flag could be seen as the precursor to the flags of other former British colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada."

The above change was added 11th July 2007. This statement is unfounded and incorrect. The flags mentioned (Australia, NZ and pre-Maple leaf Canada) are based on the colonial flags of the UK. These were always based on the Red Ensign or Blue Ensign (dependant upon geographical location) and contained local identifying markers in the main field.

The Grand Union Flag 'may' have been based on the Red Ensign (white stripes added).

Dbnull 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a revert to bring back the above comment after it was deleted 'rv. It's in the article that the flags were probably made by defacing the Brithish white ensign and as all flags mntioned were also defaced ensigns, it could be seen as a spiritually precursor.)'

I still don't think that this comment should be in the article. Any flag older than the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian flags are precursors (i.e. they came before). If the intent is to relate the Grand Union Flag as influencing or being behind the creation of these other flags then that is not true. The true ancestory would be something like the following:

UK navy had 3 squadrons, each had their own colour and associated ensign:

1. Red (Red ensign)
2. White (White ensign)
3. Blue (Blue ensign)

The East India Company flag may have been derived from the Red Ensign (adding white stripes), as, possibly, later did the Grand Union Flag. Alternatively, there was a previously used plain red and white striped ensign that may have had the Union flag added as a canton. We really don't know which.

The colonial Canadian Flag was a defaced Red Ensign. So, arguably, both the Canadian Flag and the Grand Union Flag may both be derived from the Red Ensign. However, for certain, the Grand Union Flag did not form the basis of the Canadian Flag.

Both the Australian and New Zealand flags are defaced Blue Ensigns. These flags were certainly not based upon the Grand Union Flag.

Given this information, I feel as though the statement re: 'the precursor to...' is inapplicable and misleading. A casual reader will view this to mean that the Grand Union Flag formed the basis of the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand flag. Dbnull 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow, there was an incredible amount of rewrite to this article back in March which changes a lot of the previous article content and dramatically alters the reading of this article. It seems as though this was based upon the interpretation of a single author that does not confer with many historically published records. The article currently gives this flag a mythical status by referring to its history as 'tradition'.

The evidence for the existance and use of this flag and its usage is overwhelming and I believe that the earlier changes have been to the great detriment of this article. I don't want this to turn into a battle of opinions but, I do not currently believe that the article as it stands truely represents the real history and useage of this flag. Dbnull 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What appears to be a myth isn't the existence of such a flag, but its status and its name (at the time in which it was used). I don't think there is any question that this flag was used as an ensign by the Continental Navy. But Ansoff, I think, is quite convincing in pointing to a lack of any primary evidence that it was used in other contexts, including the view (I think personally well characterized as "myth") that it was flown on land, raised by Washington at Prospect Hill, etc. If you have verifiable sources to the contrary, by all means, bring them forward and let's improve the article. --ScottMainwaring 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Amongst respected and usually noted sources on this topic include:

• National Geographic 1917 and 1934.
• The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries, 1877, "Our National Flag"
• History of the Flag of the United States of America, Preble 1880 (pg 217 onwards)
• Benson J. Lossing discovered drawing from 1776
• A Brief History of the United States, JD Steele & EB Steele, 1871 (old School book stating flag as "First National Flag")
• Mariners Mirror Vol. XXIII. No. 4 OCTOBER 1937, Sir Charles Fawcett
• Mural in Freemasons hall in Boston (no date, but 'old' and difficult to get access to)
• Painting in John Hancock foyer in Boston
• Letter to Congress re: John Paul Jones raising flag in Dec 1775

There are various other sources. The only contention that I can see would be in the interpretation of Preble that can be interpreted in many ways. Historically (for over the last 230 years), it has *never* been interpreted as the article now states. Specifically, all sources that I have seen agree with:

 1. Grand Union Flag raised on Prospect Hill by Washington
 2. Considered first National Flag (not relegated to naval ensign)

Dbnull 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the bulk of these are re-presentations of Preble's work, and Ansoff's argument is that Preble got it wrong when it came to interpreting 18th century source material. That's the nature of a national mythology: many sources retelling stories that resonate with the readership, but which when critically analyzed are hard to support with evidence. I think as Wikipedia editors it's certainly not our place to uncover the facts, but it is our responsibility to critically assess secondary sources and not simply repeat the "respected and usually noted sources", at least when there is a compelling argument to the contrary. To honestly represent the current state (post 19th and 20th century) state of scholarship, I think the article needs to indicate the conventional/traditional/historically held/national mythological/whatever we want to call it view espoused by your sources, but also to highlight the serious challenge that Ansoff's peer reviewed, published work in one of the top journals of vexillological research poses to this view. --ScottMainwaring 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit to not having seen Ansoff's work, I'm going to have to search it out. I assume it to be astounding piece of work to overturn over 230 years of accepted Vexillogical history. I'm assuming he is not simply re-interpreting Preble himself.

Dbnull 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the gravitas assigned to 'Ansoff's' work in this article. I've been trying to find the actual article to review it and am having trouble finding any place to access this work. 99%+ references from any decent search engine return references to this page and the Stars and Stripes article in Wikipedia. For such an enormous over-turning of established received opinion reflecting over 200 years of research it would seem that this 'research' would be more widely received and available in the vexillogical community than it currently is. I'd be fine for a foot-note to this work to be included but the current text is a gross mis-representation of general received opinion in this. The inclusion of the current text almost seems to be an attempt at promotion of one individual's pet theory. Thoughts, please.Dbnull 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It would obviously be improper for me to get involved in this discussion. However, I'd be glad to make arrangements to provide a copy of my article for review, and to further discuss the subject offline. My contact information is on the NAVA web site at www.nava.org. Peter Ansoff 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: The article in question is now available on the NAVA web site (www.nava.org), under the "Flag Information" tab. Click on the "NAVA News and Raven Articles" link. Peter Ansoff 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read Peter's article, it represents a well researched and thorough examination of the primary sources for the story behind the GUF. I'm still digesting the content and am undecided on where I stand re: the conclusions. It presents some good arguments and I look forward to seeing the reception that this receives in the community. Dbnull 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I said earlier that I didn't want to get involved in the discussion, because I'm a "party to the dispute" as it were. However, there's a statement currently in this article that is, at best, very misleading: "Historical documents report that the flag was flown by George Washington and was first raised by his troops on New Year's Day in 1776 at Prospect Hill." As I showed in my Raven article, that statement is factually wrong. The primary sources do *not* report that, at least not without some fairly imaginative interpretation. It would be more correct to say "It is commonly believed that the flag . . ." Peter Ansoff 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I enjoyed your "Prospect Hill" article in the Raven. It was nice to read a fresh perspective on the Grand Union. I'm glad to see it's already listed at the end of this article. Mingusboodle 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I actually didn't start out to challenge the Prospect Hill story. The article was just supposed to be an investigation of how the name "Grand Union Flag" originated. When I started to read the primary sources, however, there was a "hey, wait a minute" moment -- they didn't say what everybody has always said that they said!

I think that a followup article is needed to definitively debunk the story of Franklin and the "flag committee." It's really just folklore, but it keeps resurfacing.Peter Ansoff 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---

"The stripes signify the "uniqueness and unity" of the Thirteen Colonies" My understanding is that this is appropriated meaning, after the striped flag was used people began to apply meanings after the event. In the same way that the colors of the Stars and Stripes are assigned meanings, yet these are not the reason for the colors (the colors are Red, White and Blue because of the Grand Union Flag). Dbnull 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dbnull. There are a couple of contemporary references to the fact that the 13 stripes represented the 13 colonies, but the "uniqueness and unity" seems to be a post-hoc invention. Peter Ansoff 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I just read that the Grand Union design was actually authorized by the 2nd Continental Congress in 1775. I have never read that before and suspect it to be bull. Can anyone enlighten me? Mingusboodle 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of it in the Journals of the Congress, which were the official record of its decisions. Does what you read cite a source?Peter Ansoff 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there was no source cited. If I ever come across such a source I'll mention it, but I'm not holding my breath that I'll find it. Thanks. Mingusboodle 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Salute?

Questions: I've read several times that the Grand Union was (likely) the first flag/ensign to receive a salute from another government. That seems significant, but the fact that it isn't in this article makes me suspicious that it's another piece of lore passed down as history. Can it be documented? Has it been disproven? Did the salut-er realize the ship was of the united American colonies, or was the ship mistaken for a British (perhaps EIC) merchant? Mingusboodle 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was, sort of. The earliest incident that I'm aware of was at St. Croix (Danish, at the time) on 25 October 1776. A British spy reported that an American merchant ship was leaving port, saluted the fort and had the salute returned. A 16 November 1776 incident at St. Eustatius (Dutch) is more famous because the ship involved was the Andrew Doria, a brig of the Continental Navy. She fired a salute to the fort and had it returned. However, it appears that the Dutch authorities did not know that she was an American warship, and thought that they were just welcoming a new customer. The British protested nevertheless, and the Dutch governor was relieved.

The St. Croix incident is discussed in Furlong and McCandless, So Proudly We Hail, 1981. I'm not sure offhand what the definitive source is for the St. Eustatius incident.

It's extremely unlikely that anyone would mistake the Continental Colours for the EIC flag. The EIC did not trade in North America or the Caribbean, and its ships were not allowed to fly the EIC ensign north of St. Helena in the Atlantic. Peter Ansoff 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a significant piece of trivia. Could it be added to this article? Mingusboodle 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read this, available on the Library of Congress' website. I find it interesting because: 1) it predates the St. Croix event 2) it gives an example of an American ship flying the new (but unrecognized) American flag 3) a foreign port actually fired on a British frigate to defend an American ship before the St. Croix event

30 August 1776

By a vessel arived here yesterday we are Informd from the Master, who lately sailed from this port for Cape Francois, that on his arrival there under American Colours, the curiosity of his flag drew Such numbers on board as almost Sunk his vessel. They enquired whence he came, what news &c. He told them he carried the flag of the Independant States of America, & gave them the declaration of Independance which they carried on Shore Soon after which the Govr Sent his Compliments to the Capt with permission to hoist his flag in that harbour. The Capt farther says that three days before he left the Cape, which is thirteen days Since, dispatches arrived from old France acquainting the Governor that Twenty Ships of war with a number of Troops were coming to that port in Consequence of which people were Set to work in repairing the barracks there to receive the Troops.

By authentic accounts from Martinique as late as the 3rd Instt. we are Advised the Commandant there had Just received Orders to protect all American vessels that came there, that an English Frigate chasing an American vessel into Port Royal came So near the fort they fired upon the Frigate & beat her off.

Mingusboodle 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Presidential inaugurations?

Today the Grand Union flag is often included as the "first flag" in displays of U.S. flag history, such as on the backdrop of Presidential inaugurations.

Does anyone have a picture we can use to support this statement? I found the image below on Wikimedia of the latest inauguration in 2005. The enormous Betsy Rosses are plainly visible on either side above the Capitol steps, but I can't make out a Grand Union. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line. It was redundant, as the intro also states that the flag is considered a "first flag," and no one has yet provided any evidence that it's used in presidential inaugurations. Mingusboodle (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The following sentence starts clearly, but then descends into confusion: "The overlap of crosses in the canton was symbolic of two kingdoms, England and Scotland; this practice of displaying the equal components called states in America, was adopted in the form of stars, suggesting universalism, aside from the rather limiting usage to be had from continually adding crosses, no crosses being distinctly representative per colony-cum-commonwealth/state (unlike St. George for England, St. Andrew for Scotland and, later St. Patrick for Ireland)." Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Union Flag

For those interested in further background in the early flag of the colonies, please source the book (Our Flag) by Robert Allen Campbell. This has been a rather hard to find book until lately. It was also republished (original publ. 1890 by H. E. Lawrence in Chicago) in 1975 By Naconah Schaffer Butler. The 2nd chapter tells of a december 13th meeting in Cambridge of the committee to design a flag. The members ( Franklin, Washington, Lynch and Harrison turned their authority over to a mysterious professor who recommended a flag that was already in existance. (The east india company). I first found this book about 3 years ago. I have since seen it on different net sites. Doxatime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doxatime (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Campbell book is not reliable. It does not cite any sources, and is basically a fairy tale cobbled from a few unrelated facts. There was indeed a meeting a Washington's headquarters in the Fall of 1775, attended by Franklin, Lynch and Harrison as representatives of Congress. The purpose of the meeting was to work out the organization of the Continental Army. Extensive minutes were kept of the sessions, and none say anything about a flag. The connection with the East India Company flag really makes no sense at all -- the EIC was the enemy, and it was their tea that was thrown into Boston harbor. Also, the meeting could not have happened on 13 December, because the commission was back in Philadelphia long before then. Peter Ansoff (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington certainly did not consider the EIC or the King the enemy. In the early part of the revolutionary war Washington used to toast the health of king George. To quote Fawcett:

"The adoption of an English flag with the Union Jack in its canton gives rise to no difficulty. Though hostilities began in 1775, it is indisputable that Washington and other leaders of the revolt were still in hopes of a reconciliation with the Mother-country, and the war was regarded as one against the unlawful acts of the King's Ministry rather than one involving disloyalty to the King. Otherwise it is absurd to suppose that a flag with the Union Jack on it would ever have been adopted."

Here's a snippet of the National Geographic 1934 Flag edition explaining why choice of flag may make sense.

National Geographic 1934 page 340

Indeed, many redcoats in Boston had come fresh from fighting in India and were familiar with the EIC colours. It's not at all absurd to consider that using the EIC flag would be a signal to the redcoats that the fight was not with the Motherland but with the British Government. Not too disimilar from anti-government movements in the US today flying the Stars and Stripes yet being against the Government.

Regarding Campbell's book, it's pretty much been disregarded in history. The National Geographic 1934 edition mentions the tale and explains that there is no evidence to support the story. Dbnull (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the right place for a general discussion of the "Grand Union"'s origins, but here are a few quick thoughts on the above comments:

1. There is no question that the leaders of the Revolution, publicly at least, still hoped for reconciliation with Britain in 1775. However, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why they would choose the flag of the EIC, and at least two reasons why they would not. First, most of them had probably never even seen the EIC flag. Second, the EIC was part of the restrictive colonial mercantile system that the colonies were rebelling against.

2. There is no reason to think that Washington had anything to do with designing the flag. All indications are that it was created in Philadelphia for use by the Continental Navy squadron under Commodore Hopkins. Washington was not involved with the creation or fitting out of the squadron.

3. The last paragraph of the National Geographic excerpt is sheer speculation -- we have no idea who chose the design, or why. My guess is that it was a cheap, practical solution to the need for a distinctive naval ensign for the Continental navy. Initially, the navy consisted of converted merchant ships, all of which would already have had British red ensigns. It would have been a straightforward matter to "difference" them by adding stripes. Peter Ansoff (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, regarding your first point (i.e leaders of revolution probably never seeing EIC flag); Benjamin Franklin lived in London for a number of years (his London house can be seen at: http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org). You'll see from the map that he lived right on the river Thames and would have been more than familiar with the ensigns being flown at the time. This included a plethory of HEIC ensigns on ships in the Thames; I have a number of paintings and illustrations from this time period that show ships of the Thames flying these flags. Fawcett also quotes:

"Thomas Gibbons, Esquire, of the United States Navy, saying: "If they [the stripes] were suggested by anything then existing, I think it may have been the flag of the East India Company, with which the colonists in seaports especially, were familiar.""

Also, the Grand Union Flag was first hoisted by John Paul Jones on the Alfred - John Paul Jones being a native of the British Isles and therefore being more than familiar with the most prevalent ensigns of those times (the HEIC flag being one). I think that these simple examples demonstrate quite clearly that it's a stretch to consider that key players in the revolution were not aware of the HEIC flag.

Fawcett also makes an argument negating your sub point "the EIC was part of the restrictive colonial mercantile system that the colonies were rebelling against". Fawcett notes:

"On this point the Company was in agreement with Franklin, for in 1667 it had advocated an alteration of the duties to prevent smuggling, and in the beginning of 1773 it urged the abolition of the duty of 3d. a pound on tea in America, which Lord North's ministry insisted on retaining. Franklin, therefore, far from having reason to dislike the Company, could properly regard it almost as an ally."

I agree with the second point regarding Washington, there is no evidence that he was involved in designing the flag.

Regarding your third point, the British navy did use a 13 striped red and white flag as a signal flag. This defaced with a snake would explain the "don't step on me flag". It would also be an alternative explanation for the GUF (i.e. add a Union Flag to canton to show loyalty to the King). There are other 'possible' supporting arguments, to support knowledge of the HEIC, but they are quite weak, so I'll stop short at this point. Ultimately, all theories at this point are speculative, all that can be done is to present the known facts and have the masses interpret the evidence accordingly.

- Neil Kimber

Dbnull (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,Neil!

There's much to discuss about these points, and, again, I'm not sure that this is the right forum to go into details. For now, I'll limit it to saying that, *if* there is a historical relationship between the EIC flag and the Continental Colors, my guess would be that it had nothing to do with any preceived political affinity betweeen the EIC and the American colonies. More likely, the EIC flag was seen as a "differenced" version of the British ensign, and suggested the idea of a similar flag to identify American vessels. Also, the person who made the connection was probably not Franklin -- I don't think that there's any evidence that connects him with the creation of the Continental Colors.

There's an unfilled need for a critical analysis of Fawcett's article. One of these days . . . ;-) Peter Ansoff (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

I agree this probably isn't the right forum to dive too deep into details. Just friendly commenting at the moment. I've struggled to find anything credible regarding the origination of the design of the Grand Union Flag, especially regarding who was involved. I suspect this will always remain speculation.

If you are interested in further research of Fawcett's work then I'd recommend his book on 'East Indiamen' : http://www.doullbooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=65271&CLSN_957=124197063995746898f791790cc702be this has a whole chapter on the HEIC flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbnull (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a simple reason the Grand Union Flag (i.e., the British East India Company Flag) was chosen ... the American Colonists had fought under it before. About 20 years previous in the Seven Years War they had captured the French Fort of Louisberg ... and they the American Colonists had fought under that "Grand Union Flag". They had "bonded" to that flag ... and 20 years later they took it as their own. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The US government claims it was the first flag: http://publications.usa.gov/epublications/ourflag/history3.htm unless someone can offer reliable proof otherwise, its only prudent to take their official word on on the matter.

99.207.29.228 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Moi

To quote your source... "The first flag of the colonists to have any resemblance to the present Stars and Stripes was the Grand Union Flag" The source doesn't actually call it the "first flag," it says it looked more like the modern flag than it's predecessors. Canute (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey all

I remember reading somewhere years ago that the East India Company Flag was based on a flag routinely used by English traders. This website appears to bear that out by saying: "Until about 1630 when the red, blue and white ensigns were introduced, nearly all English ships are thought to have flown striped ensigns with a St George's cross canton." Also has a section on this flag which is probably worth a read. 58.110.44.246 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Congress Flag?

Why is this flag known as the "Congress Flag?" Congress did not authorize it, and until now, I've never read of any special connection between this flag and congress. Mingusboodle (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

surviving flags?

Are there any surviving original Grand Union flags? Elsquared (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Union Flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112113342/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=537&division=div1 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=537&division=div1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictures are inconsistent

Why is the flag in the photo (taken in San Francisco) different to the flag in the box? The San Francisco flag looks more like the flag shown in the article on the East India Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchino61 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks the same to me. What do you think is different? — Andy Anderson 04:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• And yes, it is similar to the East India Flag, but apparently a square canton rather than a rectangular one. This is covered in the article on the flag of the East India Company .
• Both of these are the Grand Union Flag. If you think the canton in the San Francisco flag looks rectangular, note that its top part is wrapped over, including the top red stripe. — Andy Anderson 00:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)