Semiquincentennial of the American Revolution

[TIDE-HSV]

Having reached the semiquincentennial of the independence of the American states, I think I will hold what I have hear. There may be some to look forward to this, but I suspect some might be annoyed that this thread keeps re-appearing at the top of the board.

Unless there is some clamor for it to continue, I propose to stop here. It has been fun. I hope some of you enjoyed it.

Frankly, I've enjoyed it and look forward to reading it each day, just as I did Brad's thread on WWII several years ago...

 

[crimsonaudio]

I’d prefer you continue posting, @Tidewater

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago yesterday, when the Declaration of Independence is read to the Army in New York. A mob (including apparently some soldiers) tears down the statue of King George III. Some of the lead is eventually melted down into bullets for the army.

Washington 250 years ago today, Washington writes, "Though the General doubts not the persons who pulled down and mutilated the statute in the Broadway last night were actuated by zeal in the public cause, yet it has so much the appearance of a riot and want of order in the army, that he disapproves the manner, and directs that in future these things shall be avoided by the soldiery, and left to be executed by the proper authority."

 

[T Bone]

I have enjoyed this beyond measure. its like waiting for the news each day.....corny I know but hey, its fun. thank you @Tidewater sir.

 

[arthurdawg]

I think it has been amazing! Thanks for posting!

I will definitely read if you continue, but lots of work on your part if time for a break.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago today, Washington writes John Hancock about his soldiers paying their own way in order to serve:

"In my letter of yesterday, I mentioned the arrival of part of the Connecticut light-horse to assist in the defence of this place, and my objection to their horses being kept. Four or five hundred of them are now come in; and, in justice to their zeal and laudable attachment to the cause of their country, I am to inform you, they have consented to stay as long as occasion may require, though they should be at the expense of maintaining their horses themselves. They have pastured them out about the neighborhood of Kingsbridge, being unwilling to send them away, at the rate of half a dollar per week each, meaning to leave it entirely with Congress either to allow or refuse it, as they shall judge proper."

I present this not because this particular incident was so important, but to show that these were men willing to pay their own way in order to fight for American independence. When people today suggest they were fighting for profits or for self-aggrandizement, I would point them to the Connecticut light-horse, who paid to fight.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

250 years ago today, Washington writes John Hancock about his soldiers paying their own way in order to serve:

"In my letter of yesterday, I mentioned the arrival of part of the Connecticut light-horse to assist in the defence of this place, and my objection to their horses being kept. Four or five hundred of them are now come in; and, in justice to their zeal and laudable attachment to the cause of their country, I am to inform you, they have consented to stay as long as occasion may require, though they should be at the expense of maintaining their horses themselves. They have pastured them out about the neighborhood of Kingsbridge, being unwilling to send them away, at the rate of half a dollar per week each, meaning to leave it entirely with Congress either to allow or refuse it, as they shall judge proper."

I present this not because this particular incident was so important, but to show that these were men willing to pay their own way in order to fight for American independence. When people today suggest they were fighting for profits or for self-aggrandizement, I would point them to the Connecticut light-horse, who paid to fight.

Do you know when we started referring to ourselves as "Americans?"

 

[Tidewater]

Do you know when we started referring to ourselves as "Americans?"

Good question. I have seen references as back as the 1720s, but this was in the geographical sense ("of or pertaining to the continent of America"). In 1740, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts told the legislature that "Col. Gooch is to command the American troops" in the expedition to Cartagena in Colombia. Gooch, for the record, was the Lt. Gov of Virginian, so this clearly means "colonial troops."
Patrick Henry in the First Continental Congress (October 1774) said, "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American." This was, in the wake of the Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable Acts, had a distinctly political meaning. It was the British overreaction that drove the colonists together in sentiment.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago today, the Continental Congress receives from committee the Articles of Confederation:

"Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the colonies of
New Hampshire,
Massachusetts Bay,
Rhode Island,
Connecticut,
New York,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,
The counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware,
Maryland,
Virginia,
North Carolina,
South Carolina, and
Georgia.

Art. I. THE Name of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Art. II. The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any Act whatever, and hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, for their common Defence, the Security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general Welfare, binding the said Colonies to assist one another against all Force offered to or attacks made upon them or any of them, on Account of Religion, Sovereignty, Trade, or any other Pretence whatever.
Art. III. Each Colony shall retain and enjoy as much of its present Laws, Rights and Customs, as it may think fit, and reserves to itself the sole and exclusive Regulation and Government of its internal police, in all matters that shall not interfere with the Articles of this Confederation. …
These Articles shall be proposed to the Legislatures of all the United Colonies, to be by them considered, and if approved by them, they are advised to authorize their Delegates to ratify the same in the Assembly of the United States, which being done, the foregoing Articles of this Confederation shall inviolably be observed by every Colony, and the Union is to be perpetual: Nor shall any Alteration be at any Time hereafter made in these Articles or any of them, unless such Alteration be agreed to in an Assembly of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every Colony."

Congress orders 80 copies printed (one for each member) and orders that "no member furnish any person with his copy, or take any steps by which the said confederation may be reprinted."

The Articles would not be ratified until 1781.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Good question. I have seen references as back as the 1720s, but this was in the geographical sense ("of or pertaining to the continent of America"). In 1740, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts told the legislature that "Col. Gooch is to command the American troops" in the expedition to Cartagena in Colombia. Gooch, for the record, was the Lt. Gov of Virginian, so this clearly means "colonial troops."
Patrick Henry in the First Continental Congress (October 1774) said, "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American." This was, in the wake of the Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable Acts, had a distinctly political meaning. It was the British overreaction that drove the colonists together in sentiment.

It's interesting to me, the European reaction among some, when we call ourselves "Americans," which I know goes all the way back at least to the 60s. They reply that we don't even occupy all the North American continent. As I've said, in German, where I'm fluent, I just say something like "aus den Staaten." Or I limp through one of the other tongues I speak poorly. That draws no reaction. So, the British reaction is as old as the term...

 

[Tidewater]

It's interesting to me, the European reaction among some, when we call ourselves "Americans," which I know goes all the way back at least to the 60s. They reply that we don't even occupy all the North American continent. As I've said, in German, where I'm fluent, I just say something like "aus den Staaten." Or I limp through one of the other tongues I speak poorly. That draws no reaction. So, the British reaction is as old as the term...

True. Call Canadians, and especially Mexicans "Americans" and see what reaction you get.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago (yesterday), the Royal Navy sails two ships past American fortifications & cannons, up the river in New York. Americans soldiers lined the banks and watched the British sail up the river. Washington chastises his soldiers for such "unsoldierly" conduct.
250 years ago today, Lord Admiral Howe send a letter to "George Washington, Esq." (as opposed to "General George Washington"). Washington's aid, Colonel Reed says there is no such person in the Army, and declines to accept the letter.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago today, Congress repudiates the prisoner exchange agreement Benedict Arnold struck with Captain George Forster.

In the battle of the Cedars in Quebec in May, a number of American soldiers had fallen into British hands and some American soldiers had been murdered by Indians after their surrender. Arnold and Forster made a deal to hand the Americans over in exchange for a like number of British soldiers in American hands. Hancock write to Washington, "Should the United States of America give their sanction to the Jesuitical and villainous distinction which Captain Forster adopts to justify his conduct, there would be no end to butchering our prisoners. They have, therefore, very properly reprobated it; and, in the genuine spirit of freedom, resolved that such cruelty as shall be inflicted on prisoners in their possession, by savages or foreigners taken into pay by the King of Great Britain, shall be considered as done by his orders, and recourse be immediately had to retaliation."

The new states and the army are still working out roles and responsibilities, who has authority to conclude agreements with the British, on what subjects, etc.

In the long term, this repudiation may be the beginning of Arnold's journey to being a turncoat.

 

[arthurdawg]

Speaking of Benedict… Valiant Ambition is a very readable recounting of his betrayal. By Nathaniel Philbrick.

 

[T Bone]

this is one benefit of living near lake george. lots of activity around here within easy drives
thank you again TW

 

[Tidewater]

this is one benefit of living near lake george. lots of activity around here within easy drives
thank you again TW

Mrs. Tidewater and I are planning a trip to upstate New York this autumn: Fort Ticonderoga and a USMA football game. Never been to either.

 

[T Bone]

Mrs. Tidewater and I are planning a trip to upstate New York this autumn: Fort Ticonderoga and a USMA football game. Never been to either.

the fort is nice. the area is gorgeous in the fall, have never been down the hudson to the USMA. Holler if you need any help while up this way.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago today, Washington writes to Hancock. In his letter, Washington gives an update on the Connecticut light-horse:
"The Connecticut light-horse, mentioned in my letter of the 11th, notwithstanding their then promise to continue here for the defence of this place, are now discharged, and about to return home, having peremptorily refused all kind of fatigue duty, or even to mount guard, claiming an exemption as troopers. Though their assistance is much needed, and might be of essential service in case of an attack, yet I judged it advisable, on their application and claim of such indulgences, to discharge them; as granting them would set an example to others, and might produce many ill consequences."

The American military in that war in a nutshell. Willing to serve, willing to pay their own way to serve sometimes, but not willing to take part in a work detail or even to mount guard. Sometimes, they would rather quit than do those. So they went home.

 

[Tidewater]

250 years ago today, the committee on foreign relations reports the form of a treaty to be signed with France. This is to be the "going in" position of the united States in discussions with France, should a treaty be signed between the United States and France:


There shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship between the most serene and mighty Prince, Lewis (sic) the Sixteenth, the most Christian King, his Heirs and Successors, and the united States of America; and the Subjects of the most Christian King, and of the said States; and between the Countries, Islands, Cities, and Towns situate under the Jurisdiction of the most Christian King and of the said united States, and every of them, and the People and Inhabitants thereof of every degree; with out Exception of Persons or Places; and the Terms herein after mentioned shall be perpetual between the most Christian King, his Heirs and Successors, and the said united States.

Art. 1. The Subjects of the most Christian King shall pay no other Duties or Imposts in the Ports ... of the said united States, ... than the Natives thereof,

Art. 2. The ... People ... of the said united States and every of them shall pay no other Duties, or Imposts in the Ports, Havens, Roads, Countries, Islands, Cities or Towns of the most Christian King, than the Natives of such Countries,

Art. 3. The most Christian King shall endeavour, by all the Means in his Power to protect and defend all Vessells, and the Effects belonging to the Subjects, People or Inhabitants of the said united States, or any of them, being in his Ports ...

Art. 4. In like manner the said united States, and their Ships of War and Convoys sailing under their Authority shall protect and defend all Vessells and Effects belonging to the Subjects of the most Christian King ...

Art. 5. The most Christian King and the said united States shall not receive, nor suffer to be received into any of their Ports, ... any Pirates, or Sea Robbers, or afford, or suffer any Entertainment, Assistance, or Provision to be afforded to them, ...

Art. 6. The most Christian King shall protect, ... the ... People ... of the said united States and every of them, and their Vessells and Effects of every Kind, agairst all Attacks, ... by or from the King or Emperor of Morocco, or Fez, and the States of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, and any of them, and every other Prince, State and Power, on the Coast of Barbary in Africa ...

Art. 7. If, in Consequence of this Treaty, the King of Great Britain, should declare War, against the most Christian King, the said united States shall not assist Great Britain, in such War, with Men, Money, Ships, ...

Art. 8. In Case of any War between the most Christian King and the King of Great Britain, the most Christian King, shall never invade nor under any pretence' attempt to invade or get Possession for to possess himself of Labradore, New Britain, Nova Scotia, Accadia, Canada, Florida, nor of the Islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, St. John's, Anticosti, nor of any other Island lying near to the said Continent, ... it being the true Intent and meaning of this Treaty, that the said united States, shall have the sole, exclusive, undivided and perpetual Possession of all the Countries, Cities, and Towns, on the said Continent, ...



This goes on but the notable thing is that the United States claimed all the British territories of North America and wanted France to swear off any intentions of annexing them. To reiterate, this was the US' "going in" position in negotiations with France.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

250 years sounds long. Occasionally, I'm reminded, since my memories go back to WWII and toddlerhood, that I can remember 1/3 of our nation's history...