"When the Founding Fathers Settled States' vs. Federal" Topic
70 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor takes a tour of resin scenics manufacturer Wargame Ruins, and in the process gets some painting tips...
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Tango01 | 20 Apr 2020 10:10 p.m. PST |
….Rights—And Saved the Nation "When the 13 United States of America declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1776, the founders were attempting to break free from the tyranny of Britain's top-down centralized government. But the first constitution the founders created, the Articles of Confederation, vested almost all power in individual state legislatures and practically nothing in the national government. The result—political chaos and crippling debt—almost sunk the fledgling nation before it left the harbor. So the founders met again in Philadelphia in 1787 and drafted a new Constitution grounded in a novel separation of state and national powers known as federalism. While the word itself doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, federalism became the guiding principle to safeguard Americans against King George III-style tyranny while providing a check against rogue states…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
doc mcb | 21 Apr 2020 6:58 a.m. PST |
Well, that's one view. Please note, however, that under the Articles the Congress 1) won the war; 2) negotiated an excellent peace treaty; 3) resolved one of the two thorniest problems facing the new nation, the question of western lands, with the Northwest Land Ordinances. Had they been able to pass the impost amendment -- and they'd eventually have done so or kicked out Rhode Island -- then Congress would have had the income it needed to pay off the debt. |
doc mcb | 21 Apr 2020 7:01 a.m. PST |
That article is as reliable as the History Channel generally is. Not very. I am glad the US Constitution replaced the Articles, but the view that the Articles were ineffective is just "federalist" propaganda, like Shay's "rebellion". |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2020 7:35 a.m. PST |
That is just not an accurate assessment. The Articles of Confederation were fine as a wartime measure, but during that period Congress was already deferring to Washington for important decisions on the war. Shay's rebellion was an actual problem and crisis and it clearly demonstrated the shortcomings of the Articles. The Constitutional Convention originally intended to revise the Articles but finally threw them out and started over and wrote the Constitution. Congress did not win the war-the Continental Army under Washington with significant aid from France did. Shays' Rebellion is covered very well, along with Shays himself, in Dave Palmer's 1794 published in 1994 by Presidio Press. The charactization of it be 'federalist propaganda' is nonsense. When the book was republished in 2001, it was retitled For the Common Defense: America, Its Army, and the Birth of the Nation. |
doc mcb | 21 Apr 2020 11:19 a.m. PST |
Did or did not Henry Knox exaggerate and even lie about Shay's uprising to create a favorable climate for overthrowing the Articles? He did. And Washington and the other nationalists abetted him. As to winning the war, the Continental Army would not even have existed without Congress, whose diplomacy was essential in getting French help. And writing and ratifying a national government (the Articles) in the middle of a war was an impressive achievement. AND no Declaration of Independence, no victory, in part because no French help. Your perspective is too narrowly focused on Washington and on the military struggle. |
Tango01 | 21 Apr 2020 11:37 a.m. PST |
|
Pan Marek | 21 Apr 2020 12:45 p.m. PST |
Doc- I congratulate you. You've posted the only defense of the Articles I have ever seen. You stand alone. |
Bill N | 21 Apr 2020 1:10 p.m. PST |
It wasn't the Constitution that made the American union work. It was George Washington agreeing to be president under the Constitution. Regardless of what powers were in theory granted to the national government in a constitution, the reality was at the outset the national government was not strong enough to overcome the firm opposition of one of the major states or of a coalition of minor ones. George Washington was the only person who had sufficient prestige to insure that the national government be given a chance to work. Whether Washington could have pulled it off with the Articles of Confederation we will never know. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2020 2:09 p.m. PST |
Did or did not Henry Knox exaggerate and even lie about Shay's uprising to create a favorable climate for overthrowing the Articles? He did. And Washington and the other nationalists abetted him. What did Knox say? The Constitutional Convention was called because the Articles failed to constitute a viable national government. The intent of the Convention, as already posted, was to amend or fix the Articles, but the decision was made to start from scratch. Do you have any source material for your contentions here? |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2020 2:13 p.m. PST |
As to winning the war, the Continental Army would not even have existed without Congress, whose diplomacy was essential in getting French help. And writing and ratifying a national government (the Articles) in the middle of a war was an impressive achievement. AND no Declaration of Independence, no victory, in part because no French help. Your perspective is too narrowly focused on Washington and on the military struggle. I'm a military historian and therefore I study warfare, armies, combat, and leadership. I also study the political, social, and economic sides of conflict as they affect the military side. Congress did not fight the war, Washington, his subordinate commanders, and the Continental Army fought the war and without that there would be no United States. And it was Franklin who got the French Alliance based on how well the army was performing in the field. Perhaps you should take a look at The Continental Army by Wright and if you already have it a reread might be in order. And it should be noted again that Congress deferred to Washington's judgment from about 1780, especially after the disaster at Camden. Gates was Congress' pick to command the Southern Department, not Washington's. Gates lost badly and then Congress listened to Washington. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2020 2:15 p.m. PST |
It wasn't the Constitution that made the American union work. It was George Washington agreeing to be president under the Constitution. Absolutely correct. And Article II was modeled/based on Washington's character and force of personal example. It was written with him in mind to be the first president. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 6:50 a.m. PST |
Right, and Ike and McArthur and Nimitz won WWII; FDR had nothing to do with it. Gee, wonder however Washington came up with the name "Continental Army"? Wonder what he was doing before it formed around him? Oh wait, he was in Congress, and the army formed around Boston, and the Congress appointed him to command it because he was a southerner (good political thinking). As I say, some of you are far too narrowly focused. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 6:56 a.m. PST |
Name any legislation that has had as vast and beneficial an impact on the nation as the "add-a-state" plan of the Land Ordnances. And the conflicting land claims in the west could easily have resulted in disunion and even civil war. All settled under the Articles. I am glad we have the Constitution, but the Articles were a perfectly serviceable government, except for the unanimity rule and the lack of a tax revenue -- which were fixable and indeed being fixed. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 6:59 a.m. PST |
link You can read Knox's letter there. Washington had it copied and sent out all over. Never let a crisis go to waste. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 7:00 a.m. PST |
And I am aware of the irony of my using Zinn (whom I loath) as a source. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 7:02 a.m. PST |
The numbers of these people may amount in [M]assachusetts to about one fifth part of several populous counties, and to them may be collected, people of similar sentiments, from the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire so as to constitute a body of 12 or 15,000 desperate and unprincipled men—They are chiefly of the Young and active part of the community, more easily collected than perhaps Kept together afterwards—But they will probably commit overt acts of treason which will compel them to embody for their own safety—once embodied they will be constrained to submit to discipline for the same reason. Having proceeded to this length for which they are now ripe, we shall have a formidable rebellion against reason, the principles of all government, and against the very name of liberty. This dreadful situation has alarmed every man of principle and property in New England—They start as from a dream, and ask what has been the Cause of our delusion? What is to afford us security against the violence of lawless men? |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 7:05 a.m. PST |
Franklin got the French alliance as Congress' ambassador, and could never have succeeded except that Congress had passed the Declaration of Independence. You guys are not WRONG, you just seem oblivious to the larger political dimensions of the Revolutionary War. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 7:09 a.m. PST |
"I'm a military historian and therefore I study warfare, armies, combat, and leadership. I also study the political, social, and economic sides of conflict as they affect the military side." I'm a military historian too, and I study warfare, armies, combat, and leadership as they affect the political and social and economic dimensions -- which are more important. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 8:33 a.m. PST |
If you believe that political, social, and economic sides are more important, then you're not a military historian-you're a political, social, or economic historian. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 8:41 a.m. PST |
You can read Knox's letter there. Washington had it copied and sent out all over. Never let a crisis go to waste. And your problem with Knox here is…what? Shays' rebellion was a problem that had to be dealt with. And under the Articles of Confederation the United States did not have a strong central government. The purpose of the US Constitution was to give the US a strong central government, albeit one with checks and balances and eventually a Bill of Rights. So, what is your point here? |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 8:42 a.m. PST |
Congress sending Franklin to France as ambassador did not guarantee anything regarding France. It was Franklin's doing that the alliance was forthcoming and that was also influenced by the performance of the Continental Army at Germantown as well as the defeat of Burgoyne. In short, Congress did not win the war, the Continental Army did and without the Continental army and the French support and eventual alliance, the US would not have won. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 8:46 a.m. PST |
…but the Articles were a perfectly serviceable government… Not after the war was over they weren't. They were ineffectual and the country was in chaos, with Shays' Rebellion merely a symptom of that chaos. There was not a chief executive under the articles and no power to tax. It was fine for the ending of the war when Congress deferred to Washington as the de facto chief executive, but after the war was over and Washington resigned and went home, the Articles were not sufficient to effectively govern the nation. And the Articles did not even come into effect until early 1781 when they were ratified. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 8:59 a.m. PST |
Why you used anything by Zinn as a reference is beyond me. He was a colleague of the Berrigan brothers and Noam Chomsky and all four of them are not loyal citizens at all. The Berrigans got aboard one of the Iowa class battleships and attempted to do damage with hammers. They were stopped and apprehended by members of the ship's Marine detachment. They could have been shot and to my mind it is too bad that they were not. I have no time at all for anyone of their ilk. |
Bill N | 22 Apr 2020 12:03 p.m. PST |
Shays' rebellion was a problem that had to be dealt with. Shay's Rebellion was an issue regarding Massachusetts internal governance. It wasn't a rebellion against the United States. Its only Federal connection was that the rebels may have sought to arm themselves from the Federal facility in Springfield. Even if the Federal government had the resources in 1787, should they have been committed to prop up a very unpopular Massachusetts state government? If you believe that political, social, and economic sides are more important, then you're not a military historian-you're a political, social, or economic historian. I don't think a Balkanized approach to history is appropriate. Military, economic, political, technological and social factors are involved in most historical analysis. Any decent historian today needs to be able to be prepared to take a wholistic approach if the subject warrants it. I also don't call myself a historian, but rather a student of history. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 12:19 p.m. PST |
Bill N, yes, I agree. Brechtel, again, I think you are too narrowly focused, but of course I agree completely about Zinn. Just happened the Knox letter was on one of his sites. Have you read Forrest MacDonald's E PLURIBUS UNUM? His treatment of Shay's is dead-on, I believe. And it is an excellent book overall. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 1:40 p.m. PST |
The letter in its entirety is on pages 194-196 of Henry Knox by Noah Brooks. I do not have, and have not read MacDonald's book. |
doc mcb | 22 Apr 2020 4:16 p.m. PST |
I expect you would find his interpretation congenial. And he has ablack humor that is fun. "The former Regulators mostly became Loyalists -- loyal to a king who, for all they knew, might only have been a rumor." |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 6:13 p.m. PST |
I have ordered MacDonald's book. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 6:14 p.m. PST |
I don't think a Balkanized approach to history is appropriate. And what is that? |
Brechtel198 | 22 Apr 2020 6:15 p.m. PST |
I also don't call myself a historian, but rather a student of history. I agree with that assessment. All of us if we are actually interested in history should be students of history. |
doc mcb | 23 Apr 2020 6:47 a.m. PST |
I expect by Balkanized Bill means overly compartmentalized. My old prof used to call research into a narrow topic "postholing". But warned that the deeper you go, often, the more connections you find to seemingly unrelated matters. Generally speaking I think historians learn to posthole first, and then to synthesize later. |
doc mcb | 23 Apr 2020 6:49 a.m. PST |
Glad you are getting EPU. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Apr 2020 6:58 a.m. PST |
I erred regarding the Knox letter. I don't believe that it is complete in the volume I referenced. However, I did find it on line. Where does it state or intimate what you remarked upon?, ie: Did or did not Henry Knox exaggerate and even lie about Shay's uprising to create a favorable climate for overthrowing the Articles? He did. And Washington and the other nationalists abetted him. And this letter was written prior to the Constitutional Convention and before Washington was president. New York 23 October 1786 My dear sir. I have long intended myself the pleasure of visiting you at Mount Vernon, and although, I have not given up that hope, and shall probably gratify it in the Course of next month, yet I cannot longer delay presenting myself to the remembrance of my truly respected and beloved general, whose friendship I shall ever esteem among the most valuable circumstances of my existence.1 Conscious of affection, and beleiving it to be reciprocal in your breast, I have had no apprehensions of my silence being misconstrued. I know the perplexity occasioned by your numerous correspondents and was unwilling to add to it. Besides which, I have lately been once far eastward of Boston, on private business, and was no sooner returned here, than the commotions in Massachusetts hurried me back to Boston on a public account. Our political machine constituted of thirteen independent sovereignties, have been constantly operating against each other, and against the federal head, ever since the peace—The powers of Congress are utterly inadequate to preserve the balance between the respective States, and oblige them to do those things which are essential to their own welfare, and for the general good. The human mind in the local legislatures seems to be exerted, to prevent the federal constitution from having any beneficial effects. The machine works inversly to the public good in all its parts. Not only is State, against State, and all against the federal head, but the States within themselves possess the name only without having the essential concomitant of government, the power of preserving the peace; the protection of the liberty and property of the citizens. On the first impression of Faction and licentiousness the fine theoretic government of Massachusetts has given way, and its laws arrested and trampled under foot. Men at a distance, who have admired our systems of government, unfounded in nature, are apt to accuse the rulers, and say that taxes have been assessed too high and collected too rigidly—This is a deception equal to any that has hitherto been entertained. It is indeed a fact, that high taxes are the ostensible cause of the commotions, but that they are the real cause is as far remote from truth as light from darkness. The people who are the insurgents have never paid any, or but very little taxes—But they see the weakness of government; They feel at once their own poverty, compared with the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter, in order to remedy the former. Their creed is "That the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all. And he that attempts opposition to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept from off the face of the earth." In a word they are determined to annihilate all debts public and private and have agrarian Laws which are easily effected by the means of unfunded paper money which shall be a tender in all cases whatever. The numbers of these people may amount in massachusetts to about one fifth part of several populous counties, and to them may be collected, people of similar sentiments, from the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire so as to constitute a body of 12 or 15000 desperate & unprincipled men—They are cheiffly of the Young and active part of the community, more easily collected than perhaps Kept together afterwards—But they will probably commit overt acts of treason which will compell them to embody for their own safety—once embodied they will be constrained to submit to discipline for the same reason. Having proceeded to this length for which they are now ripe, we shall have a formidable rebellion against reason, the principles of all government, and the very name of liberty. This dreadful situation has alarmed every man of principle and property in New England—They start as from a dream, and ask what has been the Cause of our delusion? What is to afford us security against the violence of lawless men? Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property. We imagined that the mildness of our government and the virtue of the people were so correspondent, that we were not as other nations requiring brutal force to support the laws—But we find that we are men, actual men, possessing all the turbulent passions belonging to that animal and that we must have a government proper and adequate to him—The people of Massachusetts for instance, are far advanced in this doctrine, and the men of reflection, & principle, are determined to endevor to establish a government which shall have the power to protect them in their lawful pursuits, and which will be efficient in all cases of internal commotions or foreign invasions—They mean that liberty shall be the basis, a liberty resulting from the equal and firm administration of the laws. They wish for a general government of unity as they see the local legislatures, must naturally and necessarily tend to retard and frustrate all general government. We have arrived at that point of time in which we are forced to see our national humiliation, and that a progression in this line, cannot be productive of happiness either public or private—something is wanting and something must be done or we shall be involved in all the horror of faction and civil war without a prospect of its termination—Every tried friend to the liberties of his country is bound to reflect, and to step forward to prevent the dreadful consequences which will result from a government of events—Unless this is done we shall be liable to be ruled by an Arbritary and Capricious armed tyranny, whose word and will must be law. The indians on the frontiers are giving indisputable evidence of their hostile dispositions. Congress anxiously desirous of averting the evils on the frontiers, have unanimously agreed to augment the troops now in service to a legionary Corps of 2040 Men. The additionals are to be raised as follows Connecticut 180 R. Island 120 Infantry and artilly Massachusetts 660 New Hampshire 260 Cavalry Maryland 60 Virginia 60 1340 This measure is important, and will tend to strengthning the principle of government as well as to defend the frontiers—I mention the idea of strengthning government confidentially but the State of Massachusetts requires the greatest assistance, & Congress are fully impressed with the importance supporting her with great exertions.2 I received your favor respecting Desdevans who has been teizing congress for a number of years—He is now at lake champlain—I never have been convinced of his services for the Union, although he has received considerable emoluments therefrom.3 The death of our common & invaluable friend genl Greene, has been too melancholy and affecting a theme to write upon. Mrs Knox has lately presented me with another daughter, who with its mother are in good health—She unites with me in presenting to Mrs Washington and yourself the most affectionate respects. I am my dear Sir with ardent wishes for your permanent and perfect felicity Your sincere friend, and much obliged humble Servant H. Knox |
doc mcb | 23 Apr 2020 8:52 a.m. PST |
Indians? desperate and unprincipled men determined to annihlate all debts violence of lawless men turbulent passions This is propaganda. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Apr 2020 9:53 a.m. PST |
And why is that? You're not explaining your argument well here at all. Perhaps a more coherent posting instead of merely bullet points would be helpful. And propaganda isn't necessarily lies, which you alluded to earlier. And forceful, colorful language may be an exaggeration, but it might not be lies from a loyal and generally honest public servant. In 1786 the country was a mess which was why the Constitutional Convention was called. And the Indians in the Northwest Territory were a potential problem and even after the Treaty of Greenville there would still be problems there, something that was fomented by the British and would be one of the causes of the War of 1812. |
doc mcb | 23 Apr 2020 1:37 p.m. PST |
I know propaganda need not be lies; I was an MI officer fifty years ago. Knox was a nationalist, as was Washington, and wanted the Articles replaced, and saw in the Shays affair an opportunity to frighten the country into doing what they wanted. The language I quoted is extreme for what actually happened, particularly as regards the Shaysites' demands and restraint. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Apr 2020 3:54 p.m. PST |
I disagree. Both Washington and Knox were Federalists and whether or not they were nationalists, in the definition of the times, is arguable. And the letter was written before the Constitutional Convention and showed that at the very least the Articles had to be redone. The national government was ineffective and had only worked after being implemented during wartime because Washington was the de facto head of state and Congress deferred to him. There is no indication that either or both wanted to 'frighten' the country. The leaders figured it out on their own. And there had almost been a mutiny of the army officers at Newburgh which Washington quashed without violence, the threat of violence, and by force of personal example. And Washington was retired by the time the Constitutional Convention was convened and the members dispatched people to bring him to it. At heart, Washington was a farmer and that's what he wanted to be again after the war ended. You cannot judge historical figures by the 'ethics, morals, and beliefs' of the 21st century. They have to be judged in their own time and that is something that too many authors and historians (and the two are not necessarily the same) try to do. And whatever else you wish to believe for whatever reason, it was these men who gave us our country. 'By 1787 many Americans viewed the army and the defective policy which had created it as the very symbol of the inadequacy of government under the Articles of Confederation.'-Richard Kohn, in Eagle and Sword. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Apr 2020 4:04 p.m. PST |
Right, and Ike and McArthur and Nimitz won WWII; FDR had nothing to do with it. Nobody said that FDR had nothing to do with the winning of War II. That being said, he didn't fight it, command and lead troops in the field, and didn't come up with the military strategy that did. Churchill was a much more astute war leader than Roosevelt, and the man responsible for the US war effort was General Marshall. Churchill called him the 'Organizer of Victory.' Roosevelt, on the other hand 'failed to provide effective political guidance during the last crucial year of the war' and failed to inform his new Vice President, Truman of what needed to be done-including information on the Manhattan Project. Marshall remarked on Roosevelt that 'When President Roosevelt began waving his cigarette holder, you never knew where you were going.' If you haven't read The Superstrategists by John Elting, I highly recommend it. And if you have read it, I highly recommend that you reread it a time or two. |
doc mcb | 24 Apr 2020 6:32 a.m. PST |
GW and AH and HK etc were nationalists, at a time when a strong central national government was unpopular. Federalism was a popular idea, and of course the US was already a federal union under the Articles. So the nationalists brilliantly labeled themselves federalists and their opponents — who believed in federalism at least as strongly — as anti federalists. I am content with the USConstitution, but it is best not to accept politicians' labeling of themselves and their opponents uncritically. |
doc mcb | 24 Apr 2020 6:34 a.m. PST |
I agree that an ailing and dying FDR made great blunders as WWII was ending. |
doc mcb | 24 Apr 2020 6:36 a.m. PST |
And GW was an ambitious politician. E.g. the Mount Vernon conference. And the Society of the Cincinnati. |
Brechtel198 | 24 Apr 2020 6:38 a.m. PST |
The following cherry-picked extracts that you have posted do not convey at all the substance of Knox's letter to Washington, which, by the way, was a private letter from a former officer of the Continental Army to his former commander. Washington at this time was a private citizen and Knox was attempting to relay to him the national situation as Knox saw it. And the bullet points look just a little different when posted in context: Indians? ‘The indians on the frontiers are giving indisputable evidence of their hostile dispositions. Congress anxiously desirous of averting the evils on the frontiers, have unanimously agreed to augment the troops now in service to a legionary Corps of 2040 Men.' desperate and unprincipled men ‘The numbers of these people may amount in massachusetts to about one fifth part of several populous counties, and to them may be collected, people of similar sentiments, from the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire so as to constitute a body of 12 or 15000 desperate & unprincipled men—They are cheiffly of the Young and active part of the community, more easily collected than perhaps Kept together afterwards—But they will probably commit overt acts of treason which will compell them to embody for their own safety—once embodied they will be constrained to submit to discipline for the same reason.' determined to annihlate all debts ‘In a word they are determined to annihilate all debts public and private and have agrarian Laws which are easily effected by the means of unfunded paper money which shall be a tender in all cases whatever.' violence of lawless men ‘Having proceeded to this length for which they are now ripe, we shall have a formidable rebellion against reason, the principles of all government, and the very name of liberty. This dreadful situation has alarmed every man of principle and property in New England—They start as from a dream, and ask what has been the Cause of our delusion? What is to afford us security against the violence of lawless men? Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property.' turbulent passions ‘But we find that we are men, actual men, possessing all the turbulent passions belonging to that animal and that we must have a government proper and adequate to him—The people of Massachusetts for instance, are far advanced in this doctrine, and the men of reflection, & principle, are determined to endevor to establish a government which shall have the power to protect them in their lawful pursuits, and which will be efficient in all cases of internal commotions or foreign invasions—…' This is propaganda. Please demonstrate how the above is propaganda, and/or where it can be considered lying on the part of Knox as you have stated? Here is what you posted on 21 April: Did or did not Henry Knox exaggerate and even lie about Shay's uprising to create a favorable climate for overthrowing the Articles? He did. And Washington and the other nationalists abetted him. Did Knox have a reputation for exaggeration or lying? How did Washington ‘abet' Knox? He was a private citizen at the time? And where does Knox advocate ‘overthrowing the Articles?' The reason for calling the Constitutional Convention was to reform the Articles because they were not effective for governing the nation with little power granted to Congress and no head of state? Lastly, what did Washington say in his reply to Knox? Perhaps this is part of one of them, from 25 February 1787: ‘They were indeed exceedingly satisfactory, and relieving to my mind, which had been filled with great and anxious uneasiness for the issue of General Lincoln's operations and the dignity of government. On the happy termination of this insurrection I sincerely congratulate you; hoping that good may result from the cloud of evils which threatened not only the hemisphere of Massachusetts, but, by spreading its baneful influence, the tranquility of the Union.' Sounds levelheaded and full of common sense to me. |
Brechtel198 | 24 Apr 2020 6:52 a.m. PST |
AND no Declaration of Independence, no victory, in part because no French help. The French Alliance came because of the Continental Army's performance at Germantown and the battles of Saratoga, along with bagging a British army in the latter campaign. Additionally, Franklin as ambassador to France was key to getting French support before the alliance which resulted in critical supplies of arms, ammunition, and uniforms and then the alliance itself. |
Brechtel198 | 24 Apr 2020 12:45 p.m. PST |
Regarding Knox's character and veracity, the following might be useful. The comments can be found in Henry Knox by Noah Brooks, pages 259-266. 'Throughout the contest of the Revolution, this officer continued at the head of the American artillery, had been promoted to the rank of major general. In this important station he preserved a high military character, and on the resignation of General Lincoln, had been appointed Secretary of War. To his great services and to unquestionable integrity, he was admitted to unite a sound understanding; and the public judgment as well as that of the chief magistrate, pronounced him in all respects competent to the station he filled. The President was highly gratified in believing that his public duty comported with his private inclination in nominating General Knox to the office that had been conferred upon him under the former government'-Chief Justice John Marshall. 'Long will he be remembered as the ornament of every circle in which he moved, as the amiable and enlightened companion, the generous friend, the man of feeling and benevolence;-his conversation was animated and cheerful, and he imparted an interest to every subject that he touched. In his gayest moments he never lost sight of dignity;-he invited confidence, but repelled familiarity. His imagination was brilliant, his conceptions lofty, and no man ever possessed the power of embodying his thoughts in more vigorous language; when ardently engaged, they were particularly bold and original, and you irresistibly felt in his society that his intellect was not of the ordinary class. Yet no man was more unassuming, none more delicately alive to the feelings of others. He had the peculiar talent of rendering all who were with him happy in themselves; and no one ever more feelingly enjoyed the happiness of those around him. Philanthropy filled his heart; in his benevolence there was no reserve-it was as diffusive as the globe, as extensive as the family of man.'-Dr James Thatcher. 'To praise him for his military talents alone would be to deprive him of half the eulogium he merits; a man understanding, gay, sincere, and honest-it is impossible to know without esteeming him, or to see without loving him,-thus have the English without intention added to the ornaments of the human race, by awakening talents where they least wished or expected.'-Marquis de Chastellux. By stating without evidence that a historical figure is a liar, as done with Knox and Washington in this thread, is not a conclusion based on historical inquiry. It does, however, denote a bias towards those who fought for and won independence for the United States. Wouldn't that count as a narrow historical viewpoint? |
doc mcb | 25 Apr 2020 4:28 a.m. PST |
Kevin, surely you must admit that the French help required independence? No way they would have helped colonists secure their rights as Englishmen. No way they would help rebellious colonies who would eventually be reconciled to their mother country. Congress' action declaring independence -- which was highly complex and controversial -- was the sine qua non for the French alliance. |
doc mcb | 25 Apr 2020 4:30 a.m. PST |
Knox may well have believed what he wrote GW -- which makes him a hysteric, not a liar. |
doc mcb | 25 Apr 2020 4:31 a.m. PST |
a bias towards those who fought for and won independence for the United States Ridiculous. |
Brechtel198 | 25 Apr 2020 4:34 a.m. PST |
Knox may well have believed what he wrote GW -- which makes him a hysteric, not a liar. The letter is not hysterical by any means and the three character sketches posted do not present Knox's character here as 'hysterical.' Knox would not have been promoted to Washington's chief of artillery if he was an hysterical individual. You are wrong here. |
Brechtel198 | 25 Apr 2020 4:59 a.m. PST |
The Declaration of Independence was nothing but a piece of paper unless it was backed up by armed force, which Washington and the creation of the Continental Army provided. And the Continental Army was in existence as of 14 June 1775 (the birthday of the US Army) before the Declaration was written and approved. And long before the French Alliance in 1778 the French were supplying the Continental Army clandestinely (see Beaumarchais and the American Revolution by Brian Morton and Donald Spinelli as well as Improbable Patriot: The Secret History of Monsieur de Beaumarchais, the French Playwright Who Saved the American Revolution by Harlow Unger). And the Alliance was done because of the Continental Army's performance in the field. Without that, no alliance. And you have clearly demonstrated a bias against Washington and Knox and you haven't supported your contentions against them with any viable evidence. Your 'support' of the Articles of Confederation overlooks the fatal flaws in that document-no executive, no judicial branch, and no power to compel the states to do anything let alone levy taxes. And like it or not, governments need funding to function. |
Brechtel198 | 25 Apr 2020 8:10 a.m. PST |
Lastly, for now at least, you might want to take a look at the book How the French Saved America: Soldiers, Sailors, Diplomats, Louis XVI, and the Success of a Revolution by Tom Shachtman. In the prologue to the book, pages 1-9, the narrative states that Franklin and the Committee of Secret Correspondence, which included John Jay, were meeting secretly with a representative of the French government in Philadelphia concerning support for the American independence and war effort. This was in December 1775 while the siege of Boston was underway and Washington was in desperate need for arms and ammunition-and before the Declaration of Independence had been written. The French representative was the Chevalier Julien Alexandre Achard de Bonvouloir et Loyaute. Bonvouloir had been recommended to the French foreign minister Vergennes for the mission by the French ambassador to Great Britain, the Comte de Guines. And the Americans found that the French were willing to supply the Americans in their war effort. So, the bottom line is that French assistance was being offered before the Declaration of Independence which contradicts your idea of the Declaration being the precursor of French involvement and assistance to the US during the War of the Revolution. So much for 'sine quo non.' Quod Erat Demonstrandum |
Pages: 1 2
|