The Civil War: 8 Strange and Obscure Facts You Didn't Know Past Imperfect
A heaping helping of food news, science and culture
Where paleontology meets pop culture
Meet the members of the tangled human family tree
How human ingenuity is changing the way we live
Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science
Cultural insights and practical advice from a globe-trotting journalist
The travel adventures of a nomad on the cheap
November 15, 2011
The Civil War: 8 Strange and Obscure Facts You Didn’t Know
Reenactors at the 150th anniversary of First Bull Run, July 2011. Courtesy of the author.
Gertrude Stein said it best: “There will never be anything more interesting in America than that Civil War.” And of course interest is high, now that we’ve begun commemorating the sesquicentennial anniversaries of the war’s key events. For the First Battle of Bull Run (or Manassas, to Southerners) last July, re-enactors descended upon Gainesville, Virginia, from as far afield as Germany, Uruguay, and Hawaii.
Even with the war’s vast bibliography—more than 60,000 books have been published since the last shot was fired, in June 1865—some of the odder coincidences and bizarre facts of the period are overlooked. Wilmer McLean became one of the legendary figures of the war merely by trying to escape it. (After his house was shelled during the First Battle of Bull Run, he moved—to Appomattox Court House, where General Lee surrendered to General Grant.) Here are some other noteworthy people and artifacts:
• The Unusual Bunker Brothers. Chang and Eng Bunker are best known as “the original Siamese Twins.” Natives of Siam (modern Thailand) and joined at the sternum, they became a popular attraction with traveling museum exhibitions.In 1839, they bought 110 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina and settled down. They married sisters, built a successful farm (with slave labor) and became naturalized citizens and devoted Confederates. In 1865, Union General George Stoneman raided North Carolina and decided to draft some of the locals, regardless of sympathies; the names of men over 18 were put into a lottery wheel. Eng’s name was drawn, but he resisted the draft. Since Chang’s name was not drawn, there was little General Stoneman could do; the brothers were not only joined at the sternum, their livers were fused. Neither one served in the war, but their eldest sons both enlisted and fought for the Confederacy.
The "rectal acorn." Courtesy of the Museum of the Confederacy.
• The secret hiding place. In 2009, a woman visited the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia, with an acorn-shaped object in hand. It was made of brass and had no inscriptions or markings. She that according to family lore, one of her ancestors (edit: whoops! thanks for the catch!), a Confederate soldier, used the device to smuggle secret messages, hiding it in his posterior until he reached his destination. Museum officials were intrigued by what she called a “rectal acorn,” but she declined to donate it.
• General Lee’s chicken. In 1862, a Virginia farmer gave Robert E. Lee a flock of chickens. Confederate General John Bell Hood’s men ate all of them—except for one, who had survived by making her roost in a tree overhanging Lee’s tent. Lee took a liking to the chicken. He named her “Nellie” and raised the flap of his tent so she could come and go as she pleased. She began laying eggs nearly every day under the general’s cot. On the eve of the Battle of the Wilderness, Lee invited a group of generals to dine with him, but his slave cook, William Mack Lee, couldn’t find sufficient food to make a meal. Although he “hated to lose her,” the cook said he “picked her good, and stuffed her with bread stuffing, mixed with butter.” He said it was the only time in four years that Lee scolded him. “It made Marse Robert awful sad to think of anything being killed,” he said, “whether ’twas one of his soldiers or his little black hen.”
• Mourning rituals. Wartime convention decreed that a woman mourn her child’s death for one year, a brother’s death for six months, and a husband’s death for two and a half years. She progressed through prescribed stages of heavy, full, and half mourning, with gradually loosening requirements of dress and behavior. Mary Todd Lincoln remained in deep mourning for more than a year after her son Willie’s death, dressing in black veils, black crepe and black jewelry. Flora Stuart, the widow of Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, remained in heavy morning for 59 years after the 1864 death of her husband, wearing black until she died in 1923. By contrast, a widower was expected to mourn for only three months, simply by displaying black crepe on his hat or armband.
• Glowing wounds. After the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, soldiers reported a peculiar phenomenon: glow-in-the-dark wounds. More than 16,000 soldiers from both armies were wounded during the battle, and neither Union nor Confederate medical personnel were prepared for the carnage. Soldiers lay in the mud for two rainy days, and many of them noticed that their wounds glowed in the dark. In fact, the injured whose wounds glowed seemed to heal better than the others. In 2001, two Maryland teenagers solved the mystery (and won a top prize at an international science fair). The wounded became hypothermic, and their lowered body temperatures made ideal conditions for a bioluminescent bacterium called Photorhabdus luminescens, which inhibits pathogens.
• The other Jefferson Davis. Union General Jefferson Davis shared a name with the Confederate president, a circumstance that didn’t cause as much confusion as might be expected—with one notable exception. During the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863, as darkness fell on Horseshoe Ridge, members of the 21st Ohio saw a swarm of men approaching but couldn’t tell if they were friend or foe. Most assumed they were Union reinforcements, but a few feared they were Confederates. As the troops grew closer, one Union soldier called out, “What troops are you?” The collective reply was “Jeff Davis’s troops.” The Ohio soldiers relaxed, believing they meant the Union general. A few moments later, they were staring down the muzzles and bayonets of the 7th Florida. The Ohioans surrendered. The Confederates won the battle.
Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
• Stonewall Jackson, hypochondriac. The Confederate general thought himself “out of balance.” Even under fire, he would raise an arm so the blood might flow down into his body and re-establish equilibrium. (His hand was wounded when he did this during the First Battle of Bull Run). His refused to eat pepper because it seemed to make his left leg weak. He sucked lemons, believing that they helped his “dyspepsia.” He was most comfortable standing upright so that all of his organs were “naturally” aligned. He suffered from poor eyesight, which he tried to treat by dunking his head into a basin of cold water, eyes open. And yet he once told a captain that he felt “as safe in battle as in bed.”
• The Things He Carried. After President Abraham Lincoln died, on April 15, 1865, his leather wallet was found to contain a $5 Confederate bill, imprinted with the image of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Lincoln may have gotten the bill when he visited Petersburg and Richmond earlier in the month.
SOURCES
Books: Andrew Ward. The Slaves’ War: The Civil War in the Words of Former Slaves. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008; Derek Smith. The Gallant Dead: Union and Confederate Generals Killed in the Civil War. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2005; Archibald Gracie. The Truth About Chickamauga. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911; Burke Davis. The Civil War: Strange and Fascinating Facts. New York: Fairfax Press, 1960; Drew Gilpin Faust. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.
Articles: “Mystery of Glowing Wounds Solved,” by Linda Searing. HealthScout News, June 11, 2001.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Civil War Judge Advocate/Provost Marshall (living history) (1)
Civil War Judge Advocate/Provost Marshall (living history) (1)
This unit will work closely with surrounding re-enactments and re-enactmentunits. Our main focus will be that of being assistance to those of the EasternRe-enactors Association located in western New York, Gabriel's Legion located inwestern and central New York, 36th Virginia-Echoes Through Time Civil War Museum & Learning Center located in Williamsville New York.
We will be at the submission to the overall commander of those units in the venue that they are working. This unit is to be one of leadership, proper onduct and control. It shall mirror those of the Corps. Used during the war. In other word...s, a small group which can attach itself to other Provost Marshall units if need be. Headed by an overall commander of which in my past there is always a lacking of.Such commander as per many times during the way, the Asst or Judge AdvocateGeneral. This is title and not rank. Rules and Regulations dictate the rank. Being that this is regimental size, Capt or Major is quite high enough.As for equipment. Provost Marshall badge, manacles (handcuffs) and leg irons, of course would be nice but I do believe (handcuffs) will survive.During re-enactments and when the battle scenarios are on, many times instead of being a part of the battle we are used for crowd control and other necessities which may be required of us. Or one can join in the battle. For me, being disabled, this works.At this point it is a southern impersonation but I do hope to be able togalvanize in the future and see no problem.I am also currently working on obtaining necessary paperwork, passes, leave requests, orders etc. to add to the realism of what we intend to do.There is no unit association as to a number as of this time other than we will be with the Army of Northern Virginia. There is also no necessity for a member to be Cavalry, Infantry or whatever. Anyone can be a provost.Contact me at anytime via emai
This unit will work closely with surrounding re-enactments and re-enactmentunits. Our main focus will be that of being assistance to those of the EasternRe-enactors Association located in western New York, Gabriel's Legion located inwestern and central New York, 36th Virginia-Echoes Through Time Civil War Museum & Learning Center located in Williamsville New York.
We will be at the submission to the overall commander of those units in the venue that they are working. This unit is to be one of leadership, proper onduct and control. It shall mirror those of the Corps. Used during the war. In other word...s, a small group which can attach itself to other Provost Marshall units if need be. Headed by an overall commander of which in my past there is always a lacking of.Such commander as per many times during the way, the Asst or Judge AdvocateGeneral. This is title and not rank. Rules and Regulations dictate the rank. Being that this is regimental size, Capt or Major is quite high enough.As for equipment. Provost Marshall badge, manacles (handcuffs) and leg irons, of course would be nice but I do believe (handcuffs) will survive.During re-enactments and when the battle scenarios are on, many times instead of being a part of the battle we are used for crowd control and other necessities which may be required of us. Or one can join in the battle. For me, being disabled, this works.At this point it is a southern impersonation but I do hope to be able togalvanize in the future and see no problem.I am also currently working on obtaining necessary paperwork, passes, leave requests, orders etc. to add to the realism of what we intend to do.There is no unit association as to a number as of this time other than we will be with the Army of Northern Virginia. There is also no necessity for a member to be Cavalry, Infantry or whatever. Anyone can be a provost.Contact me at anytime via emai
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Cherokee Nation Wishes for a Confederate Alliance
The Cherokee Nation Wishes for a Confederate Alliance
The land that is, in modern times, known as “Oklahoma” was, at the time of the Civil War, known only as “Indian Territory.” It was to Indian Territory that the Trail of Tears led in the 1830s. The Five Civilized Tribes (Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Creek) were forcibly relocated from the South to west of the Mississippi River. By 1861, the Nations, as they were known, were divided on how to react to the Civil War.
On one hand, it was the states in the South that lobbied for their forced relocation. On the other, many of the prominent chiefs of the Nations were slaveholders. Also, if the South was victorious, they thought, perhaps there was a chance to secede from the Union as well.
As per treaty obligations, the Federal Government was to make annuity payments to the Tribes, but had stopped in a supposed fear of the money falling into the pockets of the Confederates. For many natives, this was the last straw. The Choctaws and the Chickasaws threw in with the Confederacy. They even organized a regiment of dragoons to fight with the South. President Jefferson Davis agreed to take over the annuity payments, promised the Natives self-government within their borders, and even let the Nations send delegates to the Confederate Congress.
All was not as it seemed, however. Albert Pike, a newspaper editor sent by Davis to broker treaties in Indian Territory, had plans of his own. He wrote Davis of the territory’s good farming land, its natural resources and how the Confederacy could use them with or without the consent of the Indians. Pike saw the value of settling Indian Territory as a Confederate state with free whites and their slaves.
The Cherokees were divided on the matter. One faction, the more traditional, full-blooded and nonslave-holding Keetowahs were for remaining neutral. Countering them were the Knights of the Golden Circle, mostly made up of mixed-blood slaveholders, who wished to side with the South.
Representing the Keetowahs was John Ross, ironically a slaveholder who was only one-eighth Cherokee. The Knights were led by Stand Watie, a slave owner who was three-fourths Cherokee. Watie had already raised a mixed-blood cavalry regiment.
Ross was holding out for peace and neutrality as long as he could. “We do not wish to be brought into the feuds between yourselves and your Northern Brethren,” wrote Ross to the Confederacy’s Commissioner of Indian Affairs. “Our wish is for peace. Peace at home and Peace among you.”1
On this date, a Cherokee national conference was held at Tahlequah (sixty miles southeast of Tulsa). Four thousand Cherokees had assembled and John Ross, leader of the peaceful Keetowah faction, spoke.
Ross was nearly convinced that the South was about to win their independence. With victories at Bull Run and Wilson’s Creek, it was no wonder. In the past, said Ross, he was for neutrality. But now he was for unity within the Cherokee Nation.
“Union is strength; dissension is weakness, misery, ruin,” warned Ross. “In time of peace, enjoy peace together; in time of war, if war must come, fight together. As brothers live, as brothers die. While ready and willing to defend our firesides from the robber and murderer, let us not make war wantonly against the authority of the United or Confederate States, but avoid conflict with either, and remain strictly on our own soil.”
Ross, however, moved from his stance of neutrality to one of, what he viewed as, practicality. Indian Territory was bordered on three sides by the Confederacy, whose fate was linked to that of the Cherokee. “The time has now come,” concluded Ross, “when you should signify your consent for the authorities of the nation to adopt preliminary steps for an alliance with the Confederate States upon terms honorable and advantageous to the Cherokee Nation.”
The meeting at Tahlequah did not officially bind the Cherokee Nation with the Confederacy. In fact, the resolutions passed at the conference favored neutrality and friendship with people of all of the States, “particularly those on our immediate border.” Clearly, the Nation was paving a path that would soon lead them to an official alliance with the South.
Another of the resolutions addressed slavery. It was resolved: “That among the rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws we distinctly recognize that of property in negro slaves, and hereby publicly denounce as calumniators those who represent us to be abolitionists, and as a consequence hostile to the South, which is both the – land of our birth and the land of our homes.”
The meeting concluding by assuring that “the relations between the United and Confederate States of America… may render an alliance on our part with the latter States expedient and desirable.”((Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 3, p673-675.))
__________________
Two Generals Set Aright
Meanwhile, two Confederate generals were chastised by their respective commanders. In Missouri, General Polk admonished General Pillow for disobeying orders concerning the 4th Tennessee regiment. Polk wanted the 4th to occupy Island No. 10, but Pillow, who had no command over the Tennessee troops, ordered them to march north. As it was too late to recall them, Polk instead scolded Pillow for giving an order to a regiment not under his command and decided to report him to the War Department in Richmond.2
In Western Virginia, Generals Wise and Floyd were constantly bickering while marching towards the Federals at Gauley Bridge. All Floyd wanted was for Wise to hurry along and all Wise wanted was to keep his brigade, called Wise’s Legion, together. Intervening, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Wise, again explaining that since Floyd was the commanding officer, it was up to him where specific regiments were brigaded. Under Wise’s command were two Virginia regiments not in his Legion. Lee moved both to Floyd’s command, leaving Wise with only his Legion to head. Floyd was still in ful command of the Army of the Kanawha.3
A People’s History of the Civil War by Davis Williams, The New Press, 2005. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 3, p668. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 5, p799-800. [↩]
The land that is, in modern times, known as “Oklahoma” was, at the time of the Civil War, known only as “Indian Territory.” It was to Indian Territory that the Trail of Tears led in the 1830s. The Five Civilized Tribes (Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Creek) were forcibly relocated from the South to west of the Mississippi River. By 1861, the Nations, as they were known, were divided on how to react to the Civil War.
On one hand, it was the states in the South that lobbied for their forced relocation. On the other, many of the prominent chiefs of the Nations were slaveholders. Also, if the South was victorious, they thought, perhaps there was a chance to secede from the Union as well.
As per treaty obligations, the Federal Government was to make annuity payments to the Tribes, but had stopped in a supposed fear of the money falling into the pockets of the Confederates. For many natives, this was the last straw. The Choctaws and the Chickasaws threw in with the Confederacy. They even organized a regiment of dragoons to fight with the South. President Jefferson Davis agreed to take over the annuity payments, promised the Natives self-government within their borders, and even let the Nations send delegates to the Confederate Congress.
All was not as it seemed, however. Albert Pike, a newspaper editor sent by Davis to broker treaties in Indian Territory, had plans of his own. He wrote Davis of the territory’s good farming land, its natural resources and how the Confederacy could use them with or without the consent of the Indians. Pike saw the value of settling Indian Territory as a Confederate state with free whites and their slaves.
The Cherokees were divided on the matter. One faction, the more traditional, full-blooded and nonslave-holding Keetowahs were for remaining neutral. Countering them were the Knights of the Golden Circle, mostly made up of mixed-blood slaveholders, who wished to side with the South.
Representing the Keetowahs was John Ross, ironically a slaveholder who was only one-eighth Cherokee. The Knights were led by Stand Watie, a slave owner who was three-fourths Cherokee. Watie had already raised a mixed-blood cavalry regiment.
Ross was holding out for peace and neutrality as long as he could. “We do not wish to be brought into the feuds between yourselves and your Northern Brethren,” wrote Ross to the Confederacy’s Commissioner of Indian Affairs. “Our wish is for peace. Peace at home and Peace among you.”1
On this date, a Cherokee national conference was held at Tahlequah (sixty miles southeast of Tulsa). Four thousand Cherokees had assembled and John Ross, leader of the peaceful Keetowah faction, spoke.
Ross was nearly convinced that the South was about to win their independence. With victories at Bull Run and Wilson’s Creek, it was no wonder. In the past, said Ross, he was for neutrality. But now he was for unity within the Cherokee Nation.
“Union is strength; dissension is weakness, misery, ruin,” warned Ross. “In time of peace, enjoy peace together; in time of war, if war must come, fight together. As brothers live, as brothers die. While ready and willing to defend our firesides from the robber and murderer, let us not make war wantonly against the authority of the United or Confederate States, but avoid conflict with either, and remain strictly on our own soil.”
Ross, however, moved from his stance of neutrality to one of, what he viewed as, practicality. Indian Territory was bordered on three sides by the Confederacy, whose fate was linked to that of the Cherokee. “The time has now come,” concluded Ross, “when you should signify your consent for the authorities of the nation to adopt preliminary steps for an alliance with the Confederate States upon terms honorable and advantageous to the Cherokee Nation.”
The meeting at Tahlequah did not officially bind the Cherokee Nation with the Confederacy. In fact, the resolutions passed at the conference favored neutrality and friendship with people of all of the States, “particularly those on our immediate border.” Clearly, the Nation was paving a path that would soon lead them to an official alliance with the South.
Another of the resolutions addressed slavery. It was resolved: “That among the rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws we distinctly recognize that of property in negro slaves, and hereby publicly denounce as calumniators those who represent us to be abolitionists, and as a consequence hostile to the South, which is both the – land of our birth and the land of our homes.”
The meeting concluding by assuring that “the relations between the United and Confederate States of America… may render an alliance on our part with the latter States expedient and desirable.”((Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 3, p673-675.))
__________________
Two Generals Set Aright
Meanwhile, two Confederate generals were chastised by their respective commanders. In Missouri, General Polk admonished General Pillow for disobeying orders concerning the 4th Tennessee regiment. Polk wanted the 4th to occupy Island No. 10, but Pillow, who had no command over the Tennessee troops, ordered them to march north. As it was too late to recall them, Polk instead scolded Pillow for giving an order to a regiment not under his command and decided to report him to the War Department in Richmond.2
In Western Virginia, Generals Wise and Floyd were constantly bickering while marching towards the Federals at Gauley Bridge. All Floyd wanted was for Wise to hurry along and all Wise wanted was to keep his brigade, called Wise’s Legion, together. Intervening, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Wise, again explaining that since Floyd was the commanding officer, it was up to him where specific regiments were brigaded. Under Wise’s command were two Virginia regiments not in his Legion. Lee moved both to Floyd’s command, leaving Wise with only his Legion to head. Floyd was still in ful command of the Army of the Kanawha.3
A People’s History of the Civil War by Davis Williams, The New Press, 2005. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 3, p668. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 5, p799-800. [↩]
Friday, July 15, 2011
Hardtack Regiment: 154th New York
Hardtack Regiment: 154th New York
26th annual decendent reunion.
This year's reunion program will be "Adventures of a Civil War Historian" by Mark Dunkelman, author of four books of 154th New York history (with two more on the way). Mr. Dunkelman will present an overview of his forty-plus years of work on the 154th, with an emphasis on unusual events that have occurred along the way. He will also show artifacts related to the stories. The Cattaraugus County Museum will have special Civil War displays on exhibit in conjunction with the reunion
Cattaraugus County Museum, 9824 Route 16, Machias, NY 14101
Saturday, 16 July at 2 pm
26th annual decendent reunion.
This year's reunion program will be "Adventures of a Civil War Historian" by Mark Dunkelman, author of four books of 154th New York history (with two more on the way). Mr. Dunkelman will present an overview of his forty-plus years of work on the 154th, with an emphasis on unusual events that have occurred along the way. He will also show artifacts related to the stories. The Cattaraugus County Museum will have special Civil War displays on exhibit in conjunction with the reunion
Cattaraugus County Museum, 9824 Route 16, Machias, NY 14101
Saturday, 16 July at 2 pm
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Essential Fourth of July Trivia - Life123
Essential Fourth of July Trivia - Life123
Essential Fourth of July Trivia
By: Kristen Oliveri
This year, throw out some Fourth of July trivia to get your party started. You can cull the fun facts together ahead of time and print them out on red-, white- and blue- colored paper. Try pairing some music and food to go with your patriotic theme.
Fourth of July HistoryWe all assume that we know American history, but your trivia games can be a chance for people to brush up. For example, ask your guests who approved the Declaration of Independence. Nope, it wasn't George Washington. It was the Continental Congress who approved the declaration in 1776, and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and, of course, John Hancock were among the signers.Barbeque and Fireworks Stats and StatisticsHave you ever wondered how many barbeques take place on Fourth of July? Or how many fireworks are sold across the country? More than 66 million people strap on the aprons and grill up hamburgers and hot dogs on the Fourth, and over $135.6 million is spent on fireworks. Are you also curious to know where all those American flags come from? Oddly enough, they're imported from China, more often than not. According to the Census Bureau, that made China $5.2 million dollars in 2002.
The finalized DOI was NOT SIGNED on July 4th but rather August 8th
Another fun fact to toss out to friends is that there are 30 places in the nation with "liberty" in their name. Try asking guests if they can name a few, and then wow them with answers like Liberty, Missouri, and New Liberty, Iowa.
Fourth of July Music TriviaOf course you want to listen to some patriotic tunes while you're celebrating America's favorite holiday, and you can use that music for a game. First, load up your mp3 player with tunes to play outside. Make sure to have these few on the top of the list: "The Star Spangled Banner," "God Bless the USA," "My Country -tis of Thee," "Born in the USA," "Philadelphia Freedom" and "Yankee Doodle Dandy." Many famous musicians have covered these songs and have put their own spin on them, so check out a few different versions before settling on a play list. Then, quiz your guests to find out how many of them really know all the lyrics to "The Star Spangled Banner" and other patriotic tunes.
Essential Fourth of July Trivia
By: Kristen Oliveri
This year, throw out some Fourth of July trivia to get your party started. You can cull the fun facts together ahead of time and print them out on red-, white- and blue- colored paper. Try pairing some music and food to go with your patriotic theme.
Fourth of July HistoryWe all assume that we know American history, but your trivia games can be a chance for people to brush up. For example, ask your guests who approved the Declaration of Independence. Nope, it wasn't George Washington. It was the Continental Congress who approved the declaration in 1776, and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and, of course, John Hancock were among the signers.Barbeque and Fireworks Stats and StatisticsHave you ever wondered how many barbeques take place on Fourth of July? Or how many fireworks are sold across the country? More than 66 million people strap on the aprons and grill up hamburgers and hot dogs on the Fourth, and over $135.6 million is spent on fireworks. Are you also curious to know where all those American flags come from? Oddly enough, they're imported from China, more often than not. According to the Census Bureau, that made China $5.2 million dollars in 2002.
The finalized DOI was NOT SIGNED on July 4th but rather August 8th
Another fun fact to toss out to friends is that there are 30 places in the nation with "liberty" in their name. Try asking guests if they can name a few, and then wow them with answers like Liberty, Missouri, and New Liberty, Iowa.
Fourth of July Music TriviaOf course you want to listen to some patriotic tunes while you're celebrating America's favorite holiday, and you can use that music for a game. First, load up your mp3 player with tunes to play outside. Make sure to have these few on the top of the list: "The Star Spangled Banner," "God Bless the USA," "My Country -tis of Thee," "Born in the USA," "Philadelphia Freedom" and "Yankee Doodle Dandy." Many famous musicians have covered these songs and have put their own spin on them, so check out a few different versions before settling on a play list. Then, quiz your guests to find out how many of them really know all the lyrics to "The Star Spangled Banner" and other patriotic tunes.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Veterans Affairs Bans Mention of God at Funerals for Vets - Veterans Resources
Veterans Affairs Bans Mention of God at Funerals for Vets - Veterans Resources
HOUSTON, June 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Liberty Institute, on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars District 4, The American Legion Post 586, and the National Memorial Ladies, returned to federal court with new allegations of religious hostility and unlawful censorship by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and its director of the Houston National Cemetery. Last month, Liberty Institute successfully represented Houston pastor Scott Rainey in the same federal court after Houston VA officials tried to prevent him from praying in Jesus’ name at a Memorial Day ceremony.
“The hostile and discriminatory actions by the Veterans Affairs officials in Houston are outrageous, unconstitutional and must stop,” said Jeff Mateer, Esq., general counsel of Liberty Institute. “Government officials who engage in religious discrimination against citizens are breaking the law. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern of behavior at the Houston VA National Cemetery.”
Today, Liberty Institute amended its original lawsuit that states the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Director of the Houston National Cemetery, Arleen Ocasio, are engaging in religious viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by adding new incidents of religious hostility including:
VA Forbids Mention of God at Funerals for Veterans and Requires Families to Submit Prayer for Approval to the Government: For 30 years, the VFW District 4 burial team, at the request of the family of the deceased, has honored veterans by performing the VFW burial ritual during private burial services at the Houston National Cemetery. For 20 years, The American Legion Post 586 has honored our veterans by performing its burial ritual for fallen veterans. On at least four separate occasions, government officials told the burial teams that prayer and religious speech could no longer be included in the burial ritual unless the family submits a specific prayer or message in writing to Director Ocasio for her approval. Government official Jose Henriquez also told the VFW Honor Guard Commander, Junior Vice Commander and Chaplain that the word “God” is forbidden.
VA instructs the VFW and a Private Funeral Home that they may not present the option of prayer to families: American Heritage Funeral Home, which sits next to the Houston National Cemetery and specializes in veterans’ funerals, was instructed by government officials that the funeral home may not inform the families that they have the option of requesting prayer in the VFW burial ritual.
VA Tells Volunteers to Remove “God Bless” from Condolence Cards to Grieving Families: About a year ago, Director Ocasio instructed the president of the National Memorial Ladies that the words “God” and “Jesus” are forbidden and that “God Bless” could no longer be written in condolence cards to families. Volunteers also were banned from speaking a religious message when talking directly to veterans’ families on cemetery grounds.
VA Closes Cemetery Chapel; Uses it for Storage: The chapel where families used to gather, pray and reflect has been closed and is now called a “meeting facility” and used for storage. The chapel cross and Bible have been removed and the bells that once used to chime are no longer used.
“On March 15, Director Ocasio told me that I couldn’t say ‘May God grant you grace, mercy and peace’ to grieving families,” said Nobleton Jones, Honor Guard Junior Vice Commander. “Today we ask the government to make it right.”
“All we wanted was to give honor to fallen soldiers,” said Inge Conley, incoming VFW District 4 Commander.
Today’s hearing took place before Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes who had granted the original temporary restraining order preventing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs from censoring Pastor Rainey’s prayer in May. Judge Hughes gave the government until July 15 to respond to the new allegations and set a status hearing for July 21.
Liberty Institute works to uphold First Amendment freedoms in the courts, legislature and public square. Stay up to date on this case at www.libertyinstitute.org.
HOUSTON, June 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Liberty Institute, on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars District 4, The American Legion Post 586, and the National Memorial Ladies, returned to federal court with new allegations of religious hostility and unlawful censorship by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and its director of the Houston National Cemetery. Last month, Liberty Institute successfully represented Houston pastor Scott Rainey in the same federal court after Houston VA officials tried to prevent him from praying in Jesus’ name at a Memorial Day ceremony.
“The hostile and discriminatory actions by the Veterans Affairs officials in Houston are outrageous, unconstitutional and must stop,” said Jeff Mateer, Esq., general counsel of Liberty Institute. “Government officials who engage in religious discrimination against citizens are breaking the law. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern of behavior at the Houston VA National Cemetery.”
Today, Liberty Institute amended its original lawsuit that states the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Director of the Houston National Cemetery, Arleen Ocasio, are engaging in religious viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by adding new incidents of religious hostility including:
VA Forbids Mention of God at Funerals for Veterans and Requires Families to Submit Prayer for Approval to the Government: For 30 years, the VFW District 4 burial team, at the request of the family of the deceased, has honored veterans by performing the VFW burial ritual during private burial services at the Houston National Cemetery. For 20 years, The American Legion Post 586 has honored our veterans by performing its burial ritual for fallen veterans. On at least four separate occasions, government officials told the burial teams that prayer and religious speech could no longer be included in the burial ritual unless the family submits a specific prayer or message in writing to Director Ocasio for her approval. Government official Jose Henriquez also told the VFW Honor Guard Commander, Junior Vice Commander and Chaplain that the word “God” is forbidden.
VA instructs the VFW and a Private Funeral Home that they may not present the option of prayer to families: American Heritage Funeral Home, which sits next to the Houston National Cemetery and specializes in veterans’ funerals, was instructed by government officials that the funeral home may not inform the families that they have the option of requesting prayer in the VFW burial ritual.
VA Tells Volunteers to Remove “God Bless” from Condolence Cards to Grieving Families: About a year ago, Director Ocasio instructed the president of the National Memorial Ladies that the words “God” and “Jesus” are forbidden and that “God Bless” could no longer be written in condolence cards to families. Volunteers also were banned from speaking a religious message when talking directly to veterans’ families on cemetery grounds.
VA Closes Cemetery Chapel; Uses it for Storage: The chapel where families used to gather, pray and reflect has been closed and is now called a “meeting facility” and used for storage. The chapel cross and Bible have been removed and the bells that once used to chime are no longer used.
“On March 15, Director Ocasio told me that I couldn’t say ‘May God grant you grace, mercy and peace’ to grieving families,” said Nobleton Jones, Honor Guard Junior Vice Commander. “Today we ask the government to make it right.”
“All we wanted was to give honor to fallen soldiers,” said Inge Conley, incoming VFW District 4 Commander.
Today’s hearing took place before Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes who had granted the original temporary restraining order preventing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs from censoring Pastor Rainey’s prayer in May. Judge Hughes gave the government until July 15 to respond to the new allegations and set a status hearing for July 21.
Liberty Institute works to uphold First Amendment freedoms in the courts, legislature and public square. Stay up to date on this case at www.libertyinstitute.org.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Western Virginians Meet to Form a New State; War Against Missouri | Civil War Daily Gazette
estern Virginians Meet to Form a New State; War Against Missouri Civil War Daily Gazette
Following the defeat of the Rebels at Philippi, the movers and shakers in western Virginia politics met to decide the fate of their counties. They had met previously in May and resolved to hold a secession convention of their own, should Virginia leave the Union. Over 400 delegates met on May 13, many desirous for a state of their own. A contingent from Wood County flew a banner that read, “New Virginia, Now or Never!” Others, however, thought it best to wait, fearing they would be committing “triple treason” first against the United States, then Virginia and then the Confederate States.
At the First Wheeling Convention, a compromise was agreed upon. They would adjourn, wait for Virginia’s secession and, if it came, they would elect delegates to meet again on June 11
The thirty-nine counties of western Virginia were represented by seventy-seven representatives. Of the 44,000 western Virginia citizens who voted on June 4, 40,000 were against secession. In some counties along the Ohio River, the ratio was 22:1 against. Since Virginia had already left the Union, the only thing to do would be for western Virginia to form a new state and rejoin it.
On this date, they met in Washington Hall. While they officially met on June 11, no business, not even that of electing a Convention President, was decided. That would come the next day. For the time being, however, it was enough that they were in Wheeling, ready to secede from secession.2
__________________
This Means War!
While those in western Virginia wanted their part of Virginia as their own state, in Missouri, Union General Nathaniel Lyon wanted the whole state. After he wrangled General Harney out of his position as Commander of the Department of the West, Washington decided that Missouri would fair better as part of the Department of the Ohio, under General McClellan.
Though Lyon was still the new commander of the Department of the West, in Missouri, he was under the command of General McClellan. On this date, however, he was unaware of such a change.
After Missouri secessionist General Sterling Price learned of Harney’s removal, he sought a meeting with General Lyon to learn what his opinion upon the established truce between Union and Missouri forces.
Missouri’s Governor Jackson, an open secessionist, and General Price met with Lyon and Col. Francis Blair, brother of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, on this date in St. Louis at the Planter’s House hotel. The conference lasted for four hours.
Governor Jackson stated that he wanted a disarmament on both sides, for Missouri to be neutral and for Union troops to leave the state. However, General Price had already requested the Governor to seek Confederate help. The secessionist Missouri State Guard, at this point, was no match for the 11,000 Union troops under Lyon. The only way to avoid defeat was to avoid conflict.
Lyon countered Jackson’s proposal, saying that if the United States forces were removed, the secessionists would take over Missouri, and the rebellion would go unopposed in a supposedly “neutral” state. He then proposed that the only way to truly have peace was for both the State and Federal governments to join together to put down the insurrection. He, of course, knew that would never happen.
The Governor proposed that the meeting should adjourn and they should continue this discussion through written correspondence. Lyon, however, refused and stood up to leave.
As he was walking out, he turned around and said to Jackson and Price:
Rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter however important, I would see you, and you, and you and you, and every man, woman and child in the State, dead and buried! This means War!
Lyon stormed out. The Governor and General Price returned to Jefferson City.3
__________________
Don’t Forget Lew Wallace
Meanwhile, back east, Union Col. Lew Wallace (later author of Ben Hur) and his 11th Indiana Zouave Regiment, over 800 strong, arrived in Cumberland, Maryland from Grafton, western Virgina. Though there was a secessionist militia rumored to be near, he found his regiment to be “kindly and hospitably received.”
Because he was well in advance of the rest of General McClellan’s command, he wrote to General Patterson in Chambersburg, southern Pennsylvania, informing him of his whereabouts and plans. His men, said Wallace, were “keen for the contest.”
Worried that since his Zouaves were not under Patterson’s direct command, Wallace wrote “with an earnest expression of the hope that you will not forget me when you advance upon Harpers Ferry and Richmond, if such be your aim.”4
Semi-Centennial History of West Virginia by James Morton Callahan, 1913. [↩]
History of West Virginia by Virgil Anson Lewis, Hubbard Bros., 1887. [↩]
Gen. Nathaniel Lyon, and Missouri in 1861 by James Peckham, 1866. This book is very pro-Lyon to the point of worship. However, the report from the meeting can probably be trusted. The quote at the end, however, comes from Wilson’s Creek by Piston & Hatcher. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, p676. [↩]
Following the defeat of the Rebels at Philippi, the movers and shakers in western Virginia politics met to decide the fate of their counties. They had met previously in May and resolved to hold a secession convention of their own, should Virginia leave the Union. Over 400 delegates met on May 13, many desirous for a state of their own. A contingent from Wood County flew a banner that read, “New Virginia, Now or Never!” Others, however, thought it best to wait, fearing they would be committing “triple treason” first against the United States, then Virginia and then the Confederate States.
At the First Wheeling Convention, a compromise was agreed upon. They would adjourn, wait for Virginia’s secession and, if it came, they would elect delegates to meet again on June 11
The thirty-nine counties of western Virginia were represented by seventy-seven representatives. Of the 44,000 western Virginia citizens who voted on June 4, 40,000 were against secession. In some counties along the Ohio River, the ratio was 22:1 against. Since Virginia had already left the Union, the only thing to do would be for western Virginia to form a new state and rejoin it.
On this date, they met in Washington Hall. While they officially met on June 11, no business, not even that of electing a Convention President, was decided. That would come the next day. For the time being, however, it was enough that they were in Wheeling, ready to secede from secession.2
__________________
This Means War!
While those in western Virginia wanted their part of Virginia as their own state, in Missouri, Union General Nathaniel Lyon wanted the whole state. After he wrangled General Harney out of his position as Commander of the Department of the West, Washington decided that Missouri would fair better as part of the Department of the Ohio, under General McClellan.
Though Lyon was still the new commander of the Department of the West, in Missouri, he was under the command of General McClellan. On this date, however, he was unaware of such a change.
After Missouri secessionist General Sterling Price learned of Harney’s removal, he sought a meeting with General Lyon to learn what his opinion upon the established truce between Union and Missouri forces.
Missouri’s Governor Jackson, an open secessionist, and General Price met with Lyon and Col. Francis Blair, brother of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, on this date in St. Louis at the Planter’s House hotel. The conference lasted for four hours.
Governor Jackson stated that he wanted a disarmament on both sides, for Missouri to be neutral and for Union troops to leave the state. However, General Price had already requested the Governor to seek Confederate help. The secessionist Missouri State Guard, at this point, was no match for the 11,000 Union troops under Lyon. The only way to avoid defeat was to avoid conflict.
Lyon countered Jackson’s proposal, saying that if the United States forces were removed, the secessionists would take over Missouri, and the rebellion would go unopposed in a supposedly “neutral” state. He then proposed that the only way to truly have peace was for both the State and Federal governments to join together to put down the insurrection. He, of course, knew that would never happen.
The Governor proposed that the meeting should adjourn and they should continue this discussion through written correspondence. Lyon, however, refused and stood up to leave.
As he was walking out, he turned around and said to Jackson and Price:
Rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter however important, I would see you, and you, and you and you, and every man, woman and child in the State, dead and buried! This means War!
Lyon stormed out. The Governor and General Price returned to Jefferson City.3
__________________
Don’t Forget Lew Wallace
Meanwhile, back east, Union Col. Lew Wallace (later author of Ben Hur) and his 11th Indiana Zouave Regiment, over 800 strong, arrived in Cumberland, Maryland from Grafton, western Virgina. Though there was a secessionist militia rumored to be near, he found his regiment to be “kindly and hospitably received.”
Because he was well in advance of the rest of General McClellan’s command, he wrote to General Patterson in Chambersburg, southern Pennsylvania, informing him of his whereabouts and plans. His men, said Wallace, were “keen for the contest.”
Worried that since his Zouaves were not under Patterson’s direct command, Wallace wrote “with an earnest expression of the hope that you will not forget me when you advance upon Harpers Ferry and Richmond, if such be your aim.”4
Semi-Centennial History of West Virginia by James Morton Callahan, 1913. [↩]
History of West Virginia by Virgil Anson Lewis, Hubbard Bros., 1887. [↩]
Gen. Nathaniel Lyon, and Missouri in 1861 by James Peckham, 1866. This book is very pro-Lyon to the point of worship. However, the report from the meeting can probably be trusted. The quote at the end, however, comes from Wilson’s Creek by Piston & Hatcher. [↩]
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, p676. [↩]
Monday, June 6, 2011
D-Day June 6, 1944
D-Day June 6, 1944
The D-DJune 6, 1944, 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which “we will accept nothing less than full victory.” More than 5,000 Ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-Day invasion, and by day’s end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot- hold in Normandy. The D-Day cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded -- but more than 100,000 Soldiers began the march across Europe to ay cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded
The D-DJune 6, 1944, 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which “we will accept nothing less than full victory.” More than 5,000 Ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-Day invasion, and by day’s end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot- hold in Normandy. The D-Day cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded -- but more than 100,000 Soldiers began the march across Europe to ay cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Juneteenth. The facts behind the myth
JUNETEENTH (19 June, 1865) credit-ref to "ads by Google" JUNETEENTH’s our celebration of history, but is historically incorrect.
I am writing in regards to the Juneteenth. Last year, I found that our local news reporting quite interesting but somewhat historically inaccurate. The need to celebrate Juneteenth (June19, 1865) is aspiring and is a great thing for Americans of African ancestry and America as a whole but it need not be whitewashed or embellished with inaccuracies.
As for the facts behind Juneteenth.
Folks who helped sponsor the event in our area reported that Juneteenth was a celebration of the end of slavery by way of President Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation. This is historically incorrect and not fact.
Juneteenth occurred on June 19, 1865 in the state of Texas. This is when the slaves of Texas received news that the war had ended and slavery was going to be abolished. (13th Adm had not been signed). Up until that time it was still the law of the land. Slavery was not abolished by law until December 1865 with the passage of the 13th amendment although it was in the hands of congress from 1862 and during the later stages of 1865 while the war was still raging, congress took no action. Some states such as West Virginia did not ratify it until February 1866. Then still another amendment, the 14th, had to be passed to allow them the right that every American has and that is to vote.
President Lincoln’s proclamation was originally crafted in late 1862 and revised in January 1863, but he needed a platform or victory to announce it formally. It had been issued prior to that but the impact was not felt until late 1863. It was a political and military stroke of genius but in reality it failed to free any slaves. Fact the only slaves freed during this time were those on Washington City in 1862. The owners were given payment for thier loss.
Lincoln’s time came with victories in Vicksburg and Gettysburg. Without those victories and had Lincoln’s proclamation, it would have had no substance and would appear to be that of a nation in direr straights. In November of 1863, during the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, Lincoln makes his famous Gettysburg Address and during that time people sometimes recognize as the time the emancipation was formally announced. Fact is, it was issued effective Jan, 1863 when officially announced.
The facts behind the Emancipation were that it only freed slaves in the states currently in rebellion. That is the Confederate States of America. No slave states in the union (West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland or other Union lands) were mentioned. There were also several large areas in the Confederacy (i.e. counties in Virginia, all of West Virginia and New Orleans and areas there) that were exempt from the emancipation.
No other slaves were freed at anytime during the war and the proclamation did little from that standpoint but was a great political tool in the form of keeping England, France and Russia from supporting the Confederacy.
Lincoln is remembered as the great emancipator but as the war started his concern was that of saving the republic and not of abolishing slavery unless it also could save the nation. Although his personal writings reflect his personal discuss for slavery, his political feelings were that of the nation and its feelings. After all, slavery was the law of the land. It was not illegal or considered immoral to own another man.
This was a war which started over the argument of States Rights and Taxes.
The slavery issue was there but not the culminating factor until much later in the war. The union refused to recruit or allow for blacks to volunteer for federal service until in 1863. Even then blacks were segregate, treated with mistrust and for sometime not paid. While in the Confederate blacks were used as servants, bodyguards, teamsters while a small handful even fought for the south. The reasons vary but some former “Black Confederates” even received pensions after the war. Even freedmen who themselves owned slaves, supported the Confederacy.
Truly, this was a confusing time. A true understanding of the war and its elements is not taught in a modern day history class, as to give the student a real understanding and feeling of what these Americans went through.
Slavery was a horrific institution. The ending should be celebrated but the truth also needs to be celebrated. Freedom came with a price. Americans of African decent were often shunned and had their rights trampled on by both the former Confederate States but more surprising by Union states. After the war they were set adrift without any teaching or preparation for freedom. Many in the former union states who some say fought for the Negros freedom, hated them. Reconstruction and the death of Lincoln destroyed any chance for the Americans of African decent to bend in to American society for almost another 100 years. The reality was that before, during and after the war, many northerners who wanted freedom and equality for Negros wanted nothing to do with the struggle it would take to give them that.
We have failed our children. When we teach history and black history, but our children are not taught about Fredrick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Elizabeth Freedman or other great blacks of the Civil War era and before. Our kids have no idea what the 13th and 14th amendment mean. We need to teach history as it was and not as it is taught now. (Revisionist).
I am writing in regards to the Juneteenth. Last year, I found that our local news reporting quite interesting but somewhat historically inaccurate. The need to celebrate Juneteenth (June19, 1865) is aspiring and is a great thing for Americans of African ancestry and America as a whole but it need not be whitewashed or embellished with inaccuracies.
As for the facts behind Juneteenth.
Folks who helped sponsor the event in our area reported that Juneteenth was a celebration of the end of slavery by way of President Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation. This is historically incorrect and not fact.
Juneteenth occurred on June 19, 1865 in the state of Texas. This is when the slaves of Texas received news that the war had ended and slavery was going to be abolished. (13th Adm had not been signed). Up until that time it was still the law of the land. Slavery was not abolished by law until December 1865 with the passage of the 13th amendment although it was in the hands of congress from 1862 and during the later stages of 1865 while the war was still raging, congress took no action. Some states such as West Virginia did not ratify it until February 1866. Then still another amendment, the 14th, had to be passed to allow them the right that every American has and that is to vote.
President Lincoln’s proclamation was originally crafted in late 1862 and revised in January 1863, but he needed a platform or victory to announce it formally. It had been issued prior to that but the impact was not felt until late 1863. It was a political and military stroke of genius but in reality it failed to free any slaves. Fact the only slaves freed during this time were those on Washington City in 1862. The owners were given payment for thier loss.
Lincoln’s time came with victories in Vicksburg and Gettysburg. Without those victories and had Lincoln’s proclamation, it would have had no substance and would appear to be that of a nation in direr straights. In November of 1863, during the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, Lincoln makes his famous Gettysburg Address and during that time people sometimes recognize as the time the emancipation was formally announced. Fact is, it was issued effective Jan, 1863 when officially announced.
The facts behind the Emancipation were that it only freed slaves in the states currently in rebellion. That is the Confederate States of America. No slave states in the union (West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland or other Union lands) were mentioned. There were also several large areas in the Confederacy (i.e. counties in Virginia, all of West Virginia and New Orleans and areas there) that were exempt from the emancipation.
No other slaves were freed at anytime during the war and the proclamation did little from that standpoint but was a great political tool in the form of keeping England, France and Russia from supporting the Confederacy.
Lincoln is remembered as the great emancipator but as the war started his concern was that of saving the republic and not of abolishing slavery unless it also could save the nation. Although his personal writings reflect his personal discuss for slavery, his political feelings were that of the nation and its feelings. After all, slavery was the law of the land. It was not illegal or considered immoral to own another man.
This was a war which started over the argument of States Rights and Taxes.
The slavery issue was there but not the culminating factor until much later in the war. The union refused to recruit or allow for blacks to volunteer for federal service until in 1863. Even then blacks were segregate, treated with mistrust and for sometime not paid. While in the Confederate blacks were used as servants, bodyguards, teamsters while a small handful even fought for the south. The reasons vary but some former “Black Confederates” even received pensions after the war. Even freedmen who themselves owned slaves, supported the Confederacy.
Truly, this was a confusing time. A true understanding of the war and its elements is not taught in a modern day history class, as to give the student a real understanding and feeling of what these Americans went through.
Slavery was a horrific institution. The ending should be celebrated but the truth also needs to be celebrated. Freedom came with a price. Americans of African decent were often shunned and had their rights trampled on by both the former Confederate States but more surprising by Union states. After the war they were set adrift without any teaching or preparation for freedom. Many in the former union states who some say fought for the Negros freedom, hated them. Reconstruction and the death of Lincoln destroyed any chance for the Americans of African decent to bend in to American society for almost another 100 years. The reality was that before, during and after the war, many northerners who wanted freedom and equality for Negros wanted nothing to do with the struggle it would take to give them that.
We have failed our children. When we teach history and black history, but our children are not taught about Fredrick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Elizabeth Freedman or other great blacks of the Civil War era and before. Our kids have no idea what the 13th and 14th amendment mean. We need to teach history as it was and not as it is taught now. (Revisionist).
Our media along with us need to assimilate history and truth from a journalistic and news forum standpoint and I hope that you will use this information that I have provided. Please feel free to contact our groups at anytime.
http://www.dixieresearch.com/
Echoes Through Time Civil War Museum and learning center
As seen on WGRZ's Daybreak
“Echoes Through Time”
C/o Program Director
PO Box 1333 / Buffalo, NY 14220
C/o Program Director
PO Box 1333 / Buffalo, NY 14220
(716) 870-0174
Program Director
director @ echoesthroughtime . com
director @ echoesthroughtime . com
var userTo = 'director'; var domainTo = 'echoesthroughtime.com'; var userCC = ''; var domainCC = ''; var userBCC = ''; var domainBCC = ''; var subject = ''; var body = ''; document.write('director @ echoesthroughtime . com'); var ssDiv = document.getElementById("spamspoiler_ph1"); ssDiv.style.display="none"; director @ echoesthroughtime . com
The E.P. credit the history blogMonday, May 16, 2011
Confederate and Union Conscription
The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first placeUnder the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists and teachers.On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination and gave birth to the common expression, "We're poor boys fighting the rich man's war!"
Many Southerners, including the governors of Georgia and North Carolina, were vehemently opposed to the draft and worked to thwart its effect in their states. Thousands of men were exempted by the sham addition of their names to the civil servant rolls
The natural obligation of every able-bodied man to defend his hearth, home and country against foreign aggression has been assumed for as long as agricultural implements could effectively be used as weapons. The Greek and Roman city militias, and the Anglo-Saxon fyrd compelled men into service by natural right and tradition, with no limit of term of service.
An army of drafted men was the norm in the 19th century, and the United States and Great Britain were alone among the great powers in not embracing that. Napoleon won all his brilliant victories with conscripted armies -- France drafted 2,613,000 men in 13 years beginning in 1800. That set the tone for the century's military strategy: "God marches with the biggest battalions."
What the Confederacy (and the United States) did differently when calling out its volunteers in 1861 was to set a limit on their terms of contract. This was done obviously with an eye to politics, and it came back to haunt both sides: the South a few months sooner and more severely than the North.
In the initial upwelling after Sumter, the South, expecting a quick victory or a European intervention, mustered in most of its volunteers for only one year. But the North was even more short-sighted (and also constrained by a militia law that dated from the Whisky Rebellion) and only called its men to three months' duty. Three years was a more common term of enlistment for a conscripted man in Europe (Prussia, for example). It may not have been short-sightedness at all, of course: if you tell a young man you're going to take him away from his family, his farm, his sweetheart, his education, his trade for three years and more, he's likely to feel his ardor for your cause grow a bit chilly.
Albert B. Moore, in "Conscription and Conflict in the Confederacy," seems to regard the South's great mistake was not in turning to conscription, but in relying at first on volunteers. "[C]onscription would have been less odious if it had been made the exclusive policy of raising armies at the outset. It might then have been regarded as a scientific way of allocating the man power of the country and distributing fairly the burdens of war. But the volunteer system was tried the first year, and after conscription was adopted volunteering was still allowed. This made conscription appear to be a device for coercing derelicts, hence the taint that attached to the conscript."
The North was fortunate in a way it never could have foreseen, because three months gave it just enough time to get the boys in uniform, give them big parades, and send them off into one battle, where they got chased off the field. Most of the three-month men in the regiments I've studied immediately signed up again. They had something to prove, having lost once, and they had had enough of a taste of army life (all of it in the late spring and early summer) to make it seem like a grand hunting trip.
Furthermore, the pressure on the Northern homefront to enlist (or reenlist) in July 1861 was enormous: the Union's defenses had melted in the wake of the first Bull Run, and the people were being told that the national capital, and their own homes beyond it, lay wide open to rapacious Rebel hordes. The panic was over in a few weeks, but those happened to be the crucial weeks in which Lincoln called for, and got, 500,000 troops. And he got them for three years.
Thus the North was able to postpone its enlistment crisis. The South was not so lucky. It rested on the laurels of Bull Run, confident that the war was won, and awaited European recognition. It wasted the summer and fall, and by the time it prepared for action again the enlistments were running out and the boys in arms, who had done their duty well, were eager to see home again.
Perhaps the proper model for the Southern rebels of 1861, in terms of their logistical and political challenge in fielding an army, is not to the North in the same year, but the American colonies of 1776. The historical comparison would point up some valuable lessons in the frustrations of maintaining a large-scale rebellion through several agrarian cycles in a sprawling, diverse country.
Even before the Confederate Congress decreed a re-enlistment, there were mass voluntary re-enlistments by company and regiment and even brigade that spring. Yet these units were supposedly, if we read the "lack-of-will" writers, utterly demoralized and disgusted. Some soldiers complained that manipulation was involved; others knew that the CSA's Congress would probably find a way to keep them there anyhow. But historian Gary Gallagher concludes that "most reenlistments in early 1864 seem to have been motivated by patriotism."[2] And the event was widely applauded across the South, in newspapers as well as private correspondence, as a "contrast to the bribes & threats & false pretences of our enemy!"
There's a sort of weary determination to stick it out in the letter soldier Benjamin Freeman of the 44th N.C. wrote home on Feb. 19, 1864, during a later re-enlistment drive:
"Pa we have all Reinlisted for the 'War.' We had to do it and I thought I would come on as a patriot soldier of the South. We are soldiers and we have to stay as long as there is any 'war.' There is no way to escape it."
The manpower crisis facing the Confederate armies in the spring of 1862 was a result of legislative incompetence, specifically, the Confederate Provisional Congress' foolish re-enlistment law of Dec. 11, 1861. The "bounty and furlough act" demonstrated, in the words of historian John C. Ropes, that "the difference between an army and a congeries of volunteer regiments was not appreciated." Every soldier who re-enlisted for three years or for the duration of the war was promised a bounty of $50 and a 60-day furlough. He could choose his arm of the service, and if he did not like his company, he could join a new one. Men could elect their own officers, "rewarding those who curried favor by laxity and demoting those who had enforced discipline," in the words of Douglas S. Freeman.
Freeman wrote, in "Robert E. Lee": "A worse law could hardly have been imposed on the South by the enemy. Its interpretation was confusing, its effect was demoralizing, and it involved nothing less than a reconstruction of the entire land forces of the Confederacy in the face of the enemy." He cites Union general and military historian Emory Upton, who wrote later that the bounty and furlough law should have been styled "an act to disorganize and dissolve the provisional army." The CSA Congress only made matters worse when it passed a series of hurried measures, designed to dangle more bait for re-enlistments.
When the permanent Congress took its seats shortly after this, it reversed the course and put the army on a firm, professional basis. It did so just in time, for that summer by means of drafts and threats of drafting, and by hefty bounties, the North would mobilize its manpower, which of course was vastly greater than the South's, for a long war. The Civil War was the last war that Americans tried to fight with volunteer minuteman patriotism. By the end of it, both sides had armies built up largely through conscription, threat of conscription, and (in the case of the North) offering a small fortune in bonuses to enlistees.
"In the army," Freeman wrote, "those who had intended not to re-enlist on the expiration of their terms grumbled and charged bad faith on the part of the government, but those who were determined to carry on the war to ruin or independence rejoiced that those who had stayed at home were at last to smell gunpowder. In the well-disciplined commands, men who went home at the expiration of their twelve months and returned as conscripts soon settled down to army routine." William D. Rutherford, adjutant of the 3rd South Carolina regiment, wrote home on April 18, 1862, approving the conscription bill. His only regret was that, "[t]o those who are loyal and brave, it is somewhat mortifying that their services cannot be voluntarily offered to their Country."
Confederate draft legislation was also far-sighted in attempting to provide exemptions that would allow skilled workers in essential trades to stay home and further the war effort on the job, something most other nations didn't adopt until after World War I. As it turned out, though, this provision was not used by the South as efficiently as it could have been. The exemptions are sometimes blamed because they increased the social tensions in the South. But in fact they were a progressive feature.
Historians of warfare also praise the Confederate conscription act of 1862, specifically for its exemptions. They call it the first modern draft in the world, because it recognized that industry and agricultural leadership, and organization behind the lines were as important to a national war effort as armies were. The goal of a draft isn't just to shovel as many men as possible into uniforms; it's to get the best soldiers there, and leave the best workers at their jobs. The combatants in World War I failed to realize this, and they fought each other with universal conscription, huge armies, and losses of millions of men. World War I proved "it was nothing less than a national, let alone military crime to conscript all classes of men as if they were one class and of equal value, and to fill the trenches, which were little more than altars of human sacrifice to a discredited god, with highly skilled mechanics, miners and professional men."[3] Of course, the men who go to war always resent the men who do not. But that resentment does not necessarily make for the wisest policy when trying to guide a nation to freedom out of war.
The flaws of the Southern draft were functions of all conscripted armies and prevailed in the North as well as in Europe: overzealous draft officers; the host of exemptions, widely abused, however well regulated in theory; and the ease with which the richer class of men of military age avoided service.
Not surprisingly, the Rebel soldiers hated the Conscript Law. It was unfair, and they knew it. It took the glory out of the war, and the war was never the same for them. Sam R. Watkins, my second-favorite rebel, serving in the First Tennessee regiment under Braxton Bragg, had this to say about it:
"[S]oldiers had enlisted for twelve months only, and had faithfully complied with their volunteer obligations; the terms for which they had enlisted had expired, and they naturally looked upon it that they had a right to go home. They had done their duty faithfully and well. They wanted to see their families; in fact, wanted to go home anyhow. War had become a reality; they were tired of it. A law had been passed by the Confederate States Congress called the conscript act. ... From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a machine, a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war, we cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy. "A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable, and there was raised the howl of 'rich man's war, poor man's fight.' The glory of the war, the glory of the South, the glory and pride of our volunteers had no charms for the conscript."[4]That was how he felt, and how his companions felt, in the spring of 1862. It was a low point of the war. They would have walked away from it, but they couldn't, so they didn't. They went back to the business of war, of being an army, which is a highly illogical business, after all, as Sophocles knew. The war went on, and their lives went on, and things looked different. Of the invasion of Kentucky that summer, Watkins wrote:
"I remember how gladly the citizens of Kentucky received us. I thought they had the prettiest girls that God ever made. They could not do too much for us. They had heaps and stacks of cooked rations along our route, with wine and cider everywhere, and the glad shouts of 'Hurrah for our Southern boys!' greeted and welcomed us at every house. Ah, the boys felt like soldiers again. The bands played merrier and livelier tunes. It was the patient convalescing; the fever had left him. he was getting fat and strong; his step was buoyant and proud; he felt ashamed that he had ever been 'hacked'; he could fight now. It was the same old proud soldier of yore. ... New recruits were continually joining our ranks. ...[O]ur pride was renewed and stood ready for any emergency; we felt that one Southern man could whip twenty Yankees."[5]And after many more hills and valleys, high points and low points, it ended. Sam R. Watkins went home and wrote a beautiful little book about it. He thinks secession was justified. He despised the conscription and the men who ordered it. He didn't own slaves or hate black folks. He seems to have liked them better than most Yankees did. He was proud to have been in that army, and proud of how his regiment fought, and mourned his companions who died. He liked being an American. He thinks secession was legal. He uses "rebel," invariably, as a good word. He uses the phrase "Lost Cause" without a hint of shame.
And I'm willing to bet the Rebel army, like the Yankee one, was full of hundreds of thousands of Sam R. Watkinses. I see the same sentiments in personal writings on both sides: contempt for military bureaucracy, for politicians, for the stay-at-home men who made fortunes and danced with the gals that the boys in uniform left behind.
The more than one-year lapse between the Confederate conscription act, approved April 16, 1862, and the Conscription Act that passed the U.S. Congress on March 3, 1863, is often cited as evidence of different abilities or enthusiasm on opposite sides in the Civil War. This ignores that fact that in at least five states in the North an extensive draft took place in the fall of 1862. In fact, the drive to draft in the North began less than three months after the Confederate conscription act.
Volunteerism failed during the American Revolution, when much of the countryside was under direct attack by British armies. States like Pennsylvania had to draft all their able-bodied men into the militia not once but twice during the 1777 invasion, and Massachusetts and Virginia resorted to conscription in 1777 to fill their thinning line regiments.
In fact, on Feb. 6, 1778, the Continental Congress recommended that all the states adopt this policy. George Washington wrote to the president of the Continental Congress in 1778 that, "I believe our greatest and only aid will be derived from drafting, which I trust may be done by the United States." Only the French aid averted the necessity of following this plan.
Likewise during the War of 1812, again with invaders on the national soil, volunteerism failed to fill up the depleted American regiments, and Congress turned to conscription, but the sudden end of the war prevented the plan from going into action.
Nor does America offer the only example. Take France in 1791: facing invasion on all sides, the revolutionary government called up line regiments, with a militia as a supplemental force. It also sought a National Guard for home defense. In short order, France found itself with more than 2.5 million "National Guards" and only 60 of the 169 battalions of volunteers it had hoped to raise.
As the erudite British military historian Maj. Gen. John Frederick Charles Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., observed in writing about conscription through the ages, "the majority of the people are naturally adverse to risking their skins."
America has fought its post-Civil War conflicts with overwhelmingly drafted armies. Roosevelt started beefing up the U.S. military by a draft in late 1940, even before America was at war. Here's what he said about it:
"On this day more than sixteen million young Americans are reviving the three-hundred-year-old American custom of the muster. They are obeying that first duty of free citizenship by which, from the earliest colonial times, every able-bodied citizen was subject to the call for service in the national defense. "It is a day of deep and purposeful meaning in the lives of all of us. For on this day we Americans proclaim the vitality of our history, the singleness of our will and the unity of our nation. ... In the days when our forefathers laid the foundation of our democracy, every American family had to have its gun and know how to use it. Today we live under threats, threats of aggression from abroad, which call again for the same readiness, the same vigilance. Ours must once again be the spirit of those who were prepared to defend as they built, to defend as they worked, to defend as they worshipped. The duty of this day has been imposed upon us from without. ... [T]hose who have created the name and deed of total war-have imposed upon us and upon all free peoples the necessity of preparation for total defense."A year later, he even extended the terms of men who were already in service, just like the Confederacy did. Here's what he said about it in his message to Congress describing the step:
"I realize that personal sacrifices are involved in extending the period of service for selectees, the National Guard and other reserve components of our army. ... Nevertheless, I am confident that the men now in the ranks of the army realize far better than does the general public, the disastrous effect which would result from permitting the present army, only now approaching an acceptable state of efficiency, to melt away and set us back at least six months while new units are being reconstituted from the bottom up and from the top down with new drafts of officers and men."The historian James W. Geary writes:
"Despite the North's fundamental differences in the approach to drafting, especially in determining whether men were liable on a selective or a universal basis, it would later experience many of the same difficulties that plagued the Confederate conscription system. In raising and sustaining an army, both regions had much in common. Many of the same influences that motivated Northern men to enter the ranks in the early days of the war also had encouraged Southern men to do likewise. Not only did they share a common heritage and culture, but men in both areas believed they were fighting for 'freedom,' although they defined it differently."[7]The North's crisis might have come even sooner, but the Lincoln administration dodged a bullet when a friendly court upheld its legally dubious Spring 1861 call-up of troops. Among those to answer that call were the First Minnesota Volunteers, who went into service with mix of enlistments ranging from three months to three years. Poorly led at Bull Run, they suffered more casualties than any other Federal regiment in the field. Amid dislike for commanding officers and dawning realization of what three years away from home would mean to their families, farms, and jobs, some of the 1st Minn. attempted to have their enlistments nullified, on the grounds that proper procedure hadn't been followed. This led to United States v. Colonel Gorman, which upheld the constitutionality of the legislation of Aug. 3, 1861, which retroactively authorized the May 3 call-up. And it upheld the validity of the three-year enlistments.
"Fortunately for Union authorities, the legality of their recruiting methods was upheld early in the war and they did not have to consider other alternatives, such as arbitrarily extending the enlistment terms of their soldiers, as the South did in the spring of 1862," Geary wrote.
2. Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War, Boston: Harvard University Press, 1997.
3. J.F.C. Fuller, Conscription entry in Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 6, p.282-6, London, 1941. Fuller, the great military historian, also wrote The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant.
4. Sam R. Watkins, Co Aych, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1962.
5. ibid.
6. Fuller, op. cit.
7. James W. Geary, We Need Men: The Union Draft in the Civil War, Northern Illinois University Press, 1991.
8. ibid.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm
Friday, April 1, 2011
Secession and what the 10th amendment and the Constitution really say
The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
beyond the Tenth Amendment, the Founding Fathers were attempting to create a “perpetual,” “more perfect union,” and not just some voluntary contract between states. Mackubin Thomas Owens writes for the Claremont Institute:
That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period. For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that Constitution as a form of government.
Andrew Jackson made the same point in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina” during the nullification crisis. The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States. The States “retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.” And Madison, who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession.
Lincoln argued that the Union created the States, not the other way around and that the States had no other legal status than that which held in the Union. Harry V. Jaffa has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Revolutionary generation universally understood the separation of 13 colonies from Great Britain and the union among them to have been accomplished simultaneously. Colonial resolutions called for both independence and union. According to Jefferson and Madison in 1825, the Declaration of Independence constituted an “act of Union of the States.”
The Articles of Confederation (a document that begins and ends with the assertion that the Union is perpetual) was an unsuccessful attempt to govern the Union created by the Declaration of Independence. It failed because the central government lacked the necessary power to carry out its obligations. The Constitution was intended to rectify the problems of the Articles — to create “a more perfect Union.” As George Washington wrote in his letter transmitting the Constitution to Congress, “In all our deliberations we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, perhaps our national existence.”
beyond the Tenth Amendment, the Founding Fathers were attempting to create a “perpetual,” “more perfect union,” and not just some voluntary contract between states. Mackubin Thomas Owens writes for the Claremont Institute:
That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period. For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that Constitution as a form of government.
Andrew Jackson made the same point in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina” during the nullification crisis. The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States. The States “retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.” And Madison, who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession.
Lincoln argued that the Union created the States, not the other way around and that the States had no other legal status than that which held in the Union. Harry V. Jaffa has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Revolutionary generation universally understood the separation of 13 colonies from Great Britain and the union among them to have been accomplished simultaneously. Colonial resolutions called for both independence and union. According to Jefferson and Madison in 1825, the Declaration of Independence constituted an “act of Union of the States.”
The Articles of Confederation (a document that begins and ends with the assertion that the Union is perpetual) was an unsuccessful attempt to govern the Union created by the Declaration of Independence. It failed because the central government lacked the necessary power to carry out its obligations. The Constitution was intended to rectify the problems of the Articles — to create “a more perfect Union.” As George Washington wrote in his letter transmitting the Constitution to Congress, “In all our deliberations we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, perhaps our national existence.”
United States Constitution
Article I
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or CONFEDERATION; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
As soon as the Constitution was drafted and put into place, the very people who helped draft it began to disagree over its meaning. Both [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison were on the drafting committee, and these two guys were at loggerheads for years over what exactly the document meant.
Certainly, there is nothing in the Constitution that in any way explicitly sanctifies secession. I call secession a constructed right. You have to interpret the Constitution in very specific ways to come up with that. In fact, you have to engage in the very sort of Constitutional activism that neo-Confederates would otherwise abhor in interpreting the Constitution.
It's not really much of an argument. It's flatly asserted and opinions to the contrary are simply dismissed.
The notion of the Constitution as a contract between states, which has to be the basis of the secessionist argument, falls apart because it only covers the initial 13 signers.
After the original 13, the only thing that came close to an independent contracting agent was Texas, which was a republic before it became a state. But Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi were not states until they joined the United States. They were territories. So how does this argument apply to states that joined the Union after ratification of the original document?
The Court ruled that in Texas; Tx vs WhiteSTATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)
transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
There is a minority of folks who never really understood the Union, never really understood what The United States of America meant. It took a Civil War, the suppression of a rebellion, and even then, even today actually, many still do not understand, or we wouldn’t be talking about it. While on the other hand many think
that the Constitution has the clear and precise language and structure of the Constitution, along with the ratification provisions of several States, and most importantly, the Tenth Amendment, leave no doubt whatsoever that the States have an unfettered constitutional right to withdraw from the Union without cause or interference.
that the Constitution has the clear and precise language and structure of the Constitution, along with the ratification provisions of several States, and most importantly, the Tenth Amendment, leave no doubt whatsoever that the States have an unfettered constitutional right to withdraw from the Union without cause or interference.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Museum of the Confederacy, telling the history of the American Civil War
The Museum of the Confederacy / credit-ref http:/www.moc.org/site/PageServer While on my Civil War quest of the past few years and staying in the Richmond/Petersburg Virginia area we found upon the Museum of the Confederacy. Now to the untrained or sometimes basis’ person, one may think that this was a place of Confederate Lost Causers or sympathizers but it was far from that. This is a truly world class museum loaded with information and articles pertaining to the American Civil War. It is not just dedicated to the preservation of such but also to the history of the area and to the preservation of the Confederate White House.
Our tour was one of the most informative in nature and recommended to anyone who has an interest in Civil War history. I also felt honored to have been offered an oppretunity to volunteer at the museum while there.
In the 1890s, the former Confederate White House was saved by a group of Richmond women, who formed the Confederate Memorial Literary Society. The White House of the Confederacy opened as the Confederate Museum on February 22, 1896. The organization promptly became the premier national repository of Confederate artifacts, acquiring the majority of its world-famous collection between 1896 and World War I. Learn more about the history of the Museum and the Civil War or find out more about our exciting events! Become a member and support Richmond’s oldest museum organization.
The Museum of the Confederacy’s mission is to serve as the preeminent world center for the display, study, interpretation, commemoration, and preservation of the history and artifacts of the Confederate States of America, United States of America and the American Civil War in general.
Come explore the Museum's three floors of galleries containing the world's most comprehensive collection of artifacts, manuscripts, and photographs from the Confederate States of America. Be transported back in time as you wander past "Stonewall" Jackson's forage cap, J.E.B. Stuart's LeMat pistol, and Robert E. Lee's field tent. Learn about lesser-known topics like the daily lives of common soldiers, life on the home-front, and the Confederate Navy.
The centerpiece of the museum complex is a separate structure a few yards north of the museum building, across a shady, peaceful garden. The White House of the Confederacy was where Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his family lived from 1861-1865. Visitors today can tour 11 restored rooms in this early 19th-century mansion, one of the most richly appointed and historically accurate sites remaining from this dramatic period in American history.
The Museum organizes and sponsors a variety of lectures and other special events and programs, inviting the public to join us in our exploration of American society in the 1800s. Please explore what’s happening at the Museum for more information on our schedule of these activities and their content.
The Museum of the Confederacy Magazine, a 32-page color quarterly publication combines articles about the collection with Museum events and news.The only way to receive this magazine is to become a Museum member so Join Today! The Museum has also published several catalogues and journals based on our popular collections and exhibitions. These publications are available for purchase through our online store. You can also sign up for the monthly e-newsletter to stay up to date with Museum news.
If you are doing research or simply looking to experience the past face to face in a visit to Richmond, you’ll find the Museum is truly the place to meet the people of the Confederacy!
The Museum and White House of the Confederacy is a registered 501(c)(3) organization. All financial contributions made to the Museum are tax-deductible. You can view the Museum of the Confederacy's Form 990
Monday - Saturday: 10:00 am to 5:00 pm
Sunday: Noon to 5:00 pm
Closed: Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day, Closing at 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
The White House is closed in January for cleaning and restoration.
.
New Prices Effective July 1, 2011
Combo Museum White House Adults $12.00 $9.00 $9.00 Seniors 62 and older $11.00 $8.00 $8.00 Youth 7-13 $7.00 $5.00 $5.00 Members, children under 7, and active duty military (with ID) are free. AAA members receive discounted admission.
Pre-booked groups of 10 or more receive a discount. The Museum is also available for rental for special events and parties. White House tours are limited to 20 people and are about 40 minutes long. Larger groups are accommodated on two or more tours. The Museum building takes about 1+ hours to go through thoroughly.
The Museum is currently participating in the Richmond Civil War Pass which includes three great Richmond sites for the low price of $15. You can buy a pass here or at the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar
The MOC Facebook page is
http://www.facebook.com/MuseumoftheConfederacy?ref=ts#!/MuseumoftheConfederacy
The MOC main web page is;
http://www.moc.org/site/PageServer
For more info;
Our tour was one of the most informative in nature and recommended to anyone who has an interest in Civil War history. I also felt honored to have been offered an oppretunity to volunteer at the museum while there.
In the 1890s, the former Confederate White House was saved by a group of Richmond women, who formed the Confederate Memorial Literary Society. The White House of the Confederacy opened as the Confederate Museum on February 22, 1896. The organization promptly became the premier national repository of Confederate artifacts, acquiring the majority of its world-famous collection between 1896 and World War I. Learn more about the history of the Museum and the Civil War or find out more about our exciting events! Become a member and support Richmond’s oldest museum organization.
The Museum of the Confederacy’s mission is to serve as the preeminent world center for the display, study, interpretation, commemoration, and preservation of the history and artifacts of the Confederate States of America, United States of America and the American Civil War in general.
Come explore the Museum's three floors of galleries containing the world's most comprehensive collection of artifacts, manuscripts, and photographs from the Confederate States of America. Be transported back in time as you wander past "Stonewall" Jackson's forage cap, J.E.B. Stuart's LeMat pistol, and Robert E. Lee's field tent. Learn about lesser-known topics like the daily lives of common soldiers, life on the home-front, and the Confederate Navy.
The centerpiece of the museum complex is a separate structure a few yards north of the museum building, across a shady, peaceful garden. The White House of the Confederacy was where Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his family lived from 1861-1865. Visitors today can tour 11 restored rooms in this early 19th-century mansion, one of the most richly appointed and historically accurate sites remaining from this dramatic period in American history.
The Museum organizes and sponsors a variety of lectures and other special events and programs, inviting the public to join us in our exploration of American society in the 1800s. Please explore what’s happening at the Museum for more information on our schedule of these activities and their content.
The Museum of the Confederacy Magazine, a 32-page color quarterly publication combines articles about the collection with Museum events and news.The only way to receive this magazine is to become a Museum member so Join Today! The Museum has also published several catalogues and journals based on our popular collections and exhibitions. These publications are available for purchase through our online store. You can also sign up for the monthly e-newsletter to stay up to date with Museum news.
If you are doing research or simply looking to experience the past face to face in a visit to Richmond, you’ll find the Museum is truly the place to meet the people of the Confederacy!
The Museum and White House of the Confederacy is a registered 501(c)(3) organization. All financial contributions made to the Museum are tax-deductible. You can view the Museum of the Confederacy's Form 990
Monday - Saturday: 10:00 am to 5:00 pm
Sunday: Noon to 5:00 pm
Closed: Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day, Closing at 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
The White House is closed in January for cleaning and restoration.
.
New Prices Effective July 1, 2011
Combo Museum White House Adults $12.00 $9.00 $9.00 Seniors 62 and older $11.00 $8.00 $8.00 Youth 7-13 $7.00 $5.00 $5.00 Members, children under 7, and active duty military (with ID) are free. AAA members receive discounted admission.
Pre-booked groups of 10 or more receive a discount. The Museum is also available for rental for special events and parties. White House tours are limited to 20 people and are about 40 minutes long. Larger groups are accommodated on two or more tours. The Museum building takes about 1+ hours to go through thoroughly.
The Museum is currently participating in the Richmond Civil War Pass which includes three great Richmond sites for the low price of $15. You can buy a pass here or at the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar
The MOC Facebook page is
http://www.facebook.com/MuseumoftheConfederacy?ref=ts#!/MuseumoftheConfederacy
The MOC main web page is;
http://www.moc.org/site/PageServer
For more info;
The Museum of the Confederacy
1201 E. Clay Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-649-1861 ~ (fax) 644-7150
1201 E. Clay Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-649-1861 ~ (fax) 644-7150
Monday, February 21, 2011
History of Presidents Day and just who was the first president?
Presidents Day / credit-ref http:/www.boysofspring.com We have all grown up with the notion that General George Washington was out first president. Well yes and no... There is a history behind the title that many do not know.
But first.....let us re-discover the real meaning and intent of the holiday that we now know as "Presidents Day".
To some it is just another three day weekend, but for those who want to understand our history better, the day holds a more interesting meaning. Public Law 90-363 also known as the "Monday Holiday Law," changed the observance of Washington's Birthday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Because it occurs so soon after Lincoln's Birthday, many states such as Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—combine the two holidays and call it Presidents' Day or Washington-Lincoln Day .
Some regard it as a day to honor all former presidents of the United States which is somewhat incorrect and the intended reason.
First titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.
The first attempt to create a Presidents' Day occurred in 1951 when the "President's Day National Committee" was formed by Harold Stonebridge Fischer of Compton, California, who became its National Executive Director for the next two decades. The purpose was not to honor any particular President, but to honor the office of the Presidency. It was first thought that March 4, the original inauguration day, should be deemed Presidents' Day. However, the bill recognizing the March 4th date was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which had authority over national holidays). That committee felt that, because of its proximity to Lincoln's and Washington Birthdays, three holidays so close together would be unduly burdensome. During this time, however, the Governors of a majority of the individual states issued proclamations declaring March 4 to be Presidents' Day in their respective jurisdictions.
An early draft of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln, which would explain why the chosen date falls between the two, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on 28 June 1968, kept the name Washington's Birthday.
By the mid-1980s, with a push from advertisers, the term "Presidents' Day" began its public appearance.Although Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was never a federal holiday, approximately a dozen state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday observances as "Presidents' Day", "Washington and Lincoln Day", or other such designations. However, "Presidents' Day" is not always an all-inclusive term.
It is not the same in all the states either. In Massachusetts, the state officially celebrates "Washington's Birthday" on the same day as the Federal holiday. State law also directs the governor to issue an annual "Presidents Day" proclamation on May 29 honoring the presidents with Massachusetts roots: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. Alabama uniquely observes the day as "Washington and Jefferson Day", even though Thomas Jefferson's birthday is in April. In Connecticut, Missouri and Illinois, while Washington's Birthday is a federal holiday, Abraham Lincoln's birthday is still a state holiday, falling on February 12 regardless of the day of the week. In Washington's home state of Virginia, the holiday is legally known as "George Washington Day.
Now as for who was this countries first president & nation's chief executive ?
General George Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president.
As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him?
Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775)
When delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, they promptly elected the former King's Attorney of Virginia as the moderator and president of their convocation. He was a propitious choice. He was a legal prodigy—having studied at the Inner Temple in London, served as his native colony's Attorney General, and tutored many of the most able men of the South at William and Mary College—including the young Patrick Henry. His home in Williamsburg was the gathering place for Virginia's legal and political gentry—and it remains a popular attraction in the restored colonial capital. He had served as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and had been a commander under William Byrd in the colonial militia. He was a scholar of some renown—having begun a self-guided reading of the classics when he was thirteen. Despite suffering poor health served the Continental Congress as president twice, in 1774 from September 5 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23. He never lived to see independence, yet was numbered among the nation's most revered founders.
Henry Middleton (1717-1784)
America's second elected president was one of the wealthiest planters in the South, the patriarch of the most powerful families anywhere in the nation. His public spirit was evident from an early age. He was a member of his state's Common House from 1744-1747. During the last two years he served as the Speaker. During 1755 he was the King's Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was a member of the South Carolina Council from 1755-1770. His valor in the War with the Cherokees during 1760-1761 earned him wide recognition throughout the colonies—and demonstrated his cool leadership abilities while under pressure. He was elected as a delegate to the first session of the Continental Congress and when Peyton Randolph was forced to resign the presidency, his peers immediately turned to Middleton to complete the term. He served as the fledgling coalition's president from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775. Afterward, he was a member of the Congressional Council of Safety and helped to establish the young nation's policy toward the encouragement and support of education. In February 1776 he resigned his political involvements in order to prepare his family and lands for what he believed was inevitable war—but he was replaced by his son Arthur who eventually became a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, served time as an English prisoner of war, and was twice elected Governor of his state.
John Hancock (1737-1793)
The third president was a patriot, rebel leader, merchant who signed his name into immortality in giant strokes on the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The boldness of his signature has made it live in American minds as a perfect expression of the strength and freedom—and defiance—of the individual in the face of British tyranny. As President of the Continental Congress during two widely spaced terms—the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786—Hancock was the presiding officer when the members approved the Declaration of Independence. Because of his position, it was his official duty to sign the document first—but not necessarily as dramatically as he did. Hancock figured prominently in another historic event—the battle at Lexington: British troops who fought there April 10, 1775, had known Hancock and Samuel Adams were in Lexington and had come there to capture these rebel leaders. And the two would have been captured, if they had not been warned by Paul Revere. As early as 1768, Hancock defied the British by refusing to pay customs charges on the cargo of one of his ships. One of Boston's wealthiest merchants, he was recognized by the citizens, as well as by the British, as a rebel leader—and was elected President of the first Massachusetts Provincial Congress. After he was chosen President of the Continental Congress in 1775, Hancock became known beyond the borders of Massachusetts, and, having served as colonel of the Massachusetts Governor's Guards he hoped to be named commander of the American forces—until John Adams nominated George Washington. In 1778 Hancock was commissioned Major General and took part in an unsuccessful campaign in Rhode Island. But it was as a political leader that his real distinction was earned—as the first Governor of Massachusetts, as President of Congress, and as President of the Massachusetts constitutional ratification convention. He helped win ratification in Massachusetts, gaining enough popular recognition to make him a contender for the newly created Presidency of the United States, but again he saw Washington gain the prize. Like his rival, George Washington, Hancock was a wealthy man who risked much for the cause of independence. He was the wealthiest New Englander supporting the patriotic cause, and, although he lacked the brilliance of John Adams or the capacity to inspire of Samuel Adams, he became one of the foremost leaders of the new nation—perhaps, in part, because he was willing to commit so much at such risk to the cause of freedom.
Henry Laurens (1724-1792)
The only American president ever to be held as a prisoner of war by a foreign power, Laurens was heralded after he was released as "the father of our country," by no less a personage than George Washington. He was of Huguenot extraction, his ancestors having come to America from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes made the Reformed faith illegal. Raised and educated for a life of mercantilism at his home in Charleston, he also had the opportunity to spend more than a year in continental travel. It was while in Europe that he began to write revolutionary pamphlets—gaining him renown as a patriot. He served as vice-president of South Carolina in1776. He was then elected to the Continental Congress. He succeeded John Hancock as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777. He served until December 9, 1778 at which time he was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands. Unfortunately for the cause of the young nation, he was captured by an English warship during his cross-Atlantic voyage and was confined to the Tower of London until the end of the war. After the Battle of Yorktown, the American government regained his freedom in a dramatic prisoner exchange—President Laurens for Lord Cornwallis. Ever the patriot, Laurens continued to serve his nation as one of the three representatives selected to negotiate terms at the Paris Peace Conference in 1782.
John Jay (1745-1829)
America's first Secretary of State, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of its first ambassadors, and author of some of the celebrated Federalist Papers, Jay was a Founding Father who, by a quirk of fate, missed signing the Declaration of Independence—at the time of the vote for independence and the signing, he had temporarily left the Continental Congress to serve in New York's revolutionary legislature. Nevertheless, he was chosen by his peers to succeed Henry Laurens as President of the United States—serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. A conservative New York lawyer who was at first against the idea of independence for the colonies, the aristocratic Jay in 1776 turned into a patriot who was willing to give the next twenty-five years of his life to help establish the new nation. During those years, he won the regard of his peers as a dedicated and accomplished statesman and a man of unwavering principle. In the Continental Congress Jay prepared addresses to the people of Canada and Great Britain. In New York he drafted the State constitution and served as Chief Justice during the war. He was President of the Continental Congress before he undertook the difficult assignment, as ambassador, of trying to gain support and funds from Spain. After helping Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Laurens complete peace negotiations in Paris in 1783, Jay returned to become the first Secretary of State, called "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" under the Articles of Confederation. He negotiated valuable commercial treaties with Russia and Morocco, and dealt with the continuing controversy with Britain and Spain over the southern and western boundaries of the United States. He proposed that America and Britain establish a joint commission to arbitrate disputes that remained after the war—a proposal which, though not adopted, influenced the government's use of arbitration and diplomacy in settling later international problems. In this post Jay felt keenly the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the first to advocate a new governmental compact. He wrote five Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution, and he was a leader in the New York ratification convention. As first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jay made the historic decision that a State could be sued by a citizen from another State, which led to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. On a special mission to London he concluded the "Jay Treaty," which helped avert a renewal of hostilities with Britain but won little popular favor at home—and it is probably for this treaty that this Founding Father is best remembered.
Samuel Huntington (1732-1796)
An industrious youth who mastered his studies of the law without the advantage of a school, a tutor, or a master—borrowing books and snatching opportunities to read and research between odd jobs—he was one of the greatest self-made men among the Founders. He was also one of the greatest legal minds of the age—all the more remarkable for his lack of advantage as a youth. In 1764, in recognition of his obvious abilities and initiative, he was elected to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The next year he was chosen to serve on the Executive Council. In 1774 he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court and, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, was acknowledged to be a legal scholar of some respect. He served in Congress for five consecutive terms, during the last of which he was elected President. He served in that off ice from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781. He returned to his home in Connecticut—and as he recuperated, he accepted more Counciliar and Bench duties. He again took his seat in Congress in 1783, but left it to become Chief Justice of his state's Superior Court. He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1785 and Governor in 1786. According to John Jay, he was "the most precisely trained Christian jurists ever to serve his country."
Thomas McKean (1734-1817)
During his astonishingly varied fifty-year career in public life he held almost every possible position—from deputy county attorney to President of the United States under the Confederation. Besides signing the Declaration of Independence, he contributed significantly to the development and establishment of constitutional government in both his home state of Delaware and the nation. At the Stamp Act Congress he proposed the voting procedure that Congress adopted: that each colony, regardless of size or population, have one vote—the practice adopted by the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and the principle of state equality manifest in the composition of the Senate. And as county judge in 1765, he defied the British by ordering his court to work only with documents that did not bear the hated stamps. In June 1776, at the Continental Congress, McKean joined with Caesar Rodney to register Delaware's approval of the Declaration of Independence, over the negative vote of the third Delaware delegate, George Read—permitting it to be "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States." And at a special Delaware convention, he drafted the constitution for that State. McKean also helped draft—and signed—the Articles of Confederation. It was during his tenure of service as President—from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782—when news arrived from General Washington in October 1781 that the British had surrendered following the Battle of Yorktown. As Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, he contributed to the establishment of the legal system in that State, and, in 1787, he strongly supported the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, declaring it "the best the world has yet seen." At sixty-five, after over forty years of public service, McKean resigned from his post as Chief Justice. A candidate on the Democratic-Republican ticket in 1799, McKean was elected Governor of Pennsylvania. As Governor, he followed such a strict policy of appointing only fellow Republicans to office that he became the father of the spoils system in America. He served three tempestuous terms as Governor, completing one of the longest continuous careers of public service of any of the Founding Fathers.
John Hanson (1715-1783)
He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots—his great grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny. As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca—both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter—his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon—began to espouse the cause of the patriots. In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation—and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Elias Boudinot (1741-1802)
He did not sign the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He did not serve in the Continental Army with distinction. He was not renowned for his legal mind or his political skills. He was instead a man who spent his entire career in foreign diplomacy. He earned the respect of his fellow patriots during the dangerous days following the traitorous action of Benedict Arnold. His deft handling of relations with Canada also earned him great praise. After being elected to the Congress from his home state of New Jersey, he served as the new nation's Secretary for Foreign Affairs—managing the influx of aid from France, Spain, and Holland. The in 1783 he was elected to the Presidency. He served in that office from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783. Like so many of the other early presidents, he was a classically trained scholar, of the Reformed faith, and an anti-federalist in political matters. He was the father and grandfather of frontiersmen—and one of his grandchildren and namesakes eventually became a leader of the Cherokee nation in its bid for independence from the sprawling expansion of the United States.
Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)
By an ironic sort of providence, Thomas Mifflin served as George Washington's first aide-de-camp at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and, when the war was over, he was the man, as President of the United States, who accepted Washington's resignation of his commission. In the years between, Mifflin greatly served the cause of freedom—and, apparently, his own cause—while serving as the first Quartermaster General of the Continental Army. He obtained desperately needed supplies for the new army—and was suspected of making excessive profit himself. Although experienced in business and successful in obtaining supplies for the war, Mifflin preferred the front lines, and he distinguished himself in military actions on Long Island and near Philadelphia. Born and reared a Quaker, he was excluded from their meetings for his military activities. A controversial figure, Mifflin lost favor with Washington and was part of the Conway Cabal—a rather notorious plan to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. And Mifflin narrowly missed court-martial action over his handling of funds by resigning his commission in 1778. In spite of these problems—and of repeated charges that he was a drunkard—Mifflin continued to be elected to positions of responsibility—as President and Governor of Pennsylvania, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the highest office in the land—where he served from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784. Most of Mifflin's significant contributions occurred in his earlier years—in the First and Second Continental Congresses he was firm in his stand for independence and for fighting for it, and he helped obtain both men and supplies for Washington's army in the early critical period. In 1784, as President, he signed the treaty with Great Britain which ended the war. Although a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he did not make a significant contribution—beyond signing the document. As Governor of Pennsylvania, although he was accused of negligence, he supported improvements of roads, and reformed the State penal and judicial systems. He had gradually become sympathetic to Jefferson's principles regarding State's rights, even so, he directed the Pennsylvania militia to support the Federal tax collectors in the Whiskey Rebellion. In spite of charges of corruption, the affable Mifflin remained a popular figure. A magnetic personality and an effective speaker, he managed to hold a variety of elective offices for almost thirty years of the critical Revolutionary period.
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794)
His resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," approved by the Continental Congress July 2, 1776, was the first official act of the United Colonies that set them irrevocably on the road to independence. It was not surprising that it came from Lee's pen—as early as 1768 he proposed the idea of committees of correspondence among the colonies, and in 1774 he proposed that the colonies meet in what became the Continental Congress. From the first, his eye was on independence. A wealthy Virginia planter whose ancestors had been granted extensive lands by King Charles II, Lee disdained the traditional aristocratic role and the aristocratic view. In the House of Burgesses he flatly denounced the practice of slavery. He saw independent America as "an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose." In 1764, when news of the proposed Stamp Act reached Virginia, Lee was a member of the committee of the House of Burgesses that drew up an address to the King, an official protest against such a tax. After the tax was established, Lee organized the citizens of his county into the Westmoreland Association, a group pledged to buy no British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. At the First Continental Congress, Lee persuaded representatives from all the colonies to adopt this non-importation idea, leading to the formation of the Continental Association, which was one of the first steps toward union of the colonies. Lee also proposed to the First Continental Congress that a militia be organized and armed—the year before the first shots were fired at Lexington; but this and other proposals of his were considered too radical—at the time. Three days after Lee introduced his resolution, in June of 1776, he was appointed by Congress to the committee responsible for drafting a declaration of independence, but he was called home when his wife fell ill, and his place was taken by his young protégé, Thomas Jefferson. Thus Lee missed the chance to draft the document—though his influence greatly shaped it and he was able to return in time to sign it. He was elected President—serving from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785 when he was succeeded by the second administration of John Hancock. Elected to the Constitutional Convention, Lee refused to attend, but as a member of the Congress of the Confederation, he contributed to another great document, the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the formation of new States from the Northwest Territory. When the completed Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, Lee opposed it as anti-democratic and anti-Christian. However, as one of Virginia's first Senators, he helped assure passage of the amendments that, he felt, corrected many of the document's gravest faults—the Bill of Rights. He was the great uncle of Robert E. Lee and the scion of a great family tradition.
Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796)
Another self-made man, Gorham was one of the many successful Boston merchants who risked all he had for the cause of freedom. He was first elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1771. His honesty and integrity won his acclaim and was thus among the first delegates chose to serve in the Continental Congress. He remained in public service throughout the war and into the Constitutional period, though his greatest contribution was his call for a stronger central government. But even though he was an avid federalist, he did not believe that the union could—or even should—be maintained peaceably for more than a hundred years. He was convinced that eventually, in order to avoid civil or cultural war, smaller regional interests should pursue an independent course. His support of a new constitution was rooted more in pragmatism than ideology. When John Hancock was unable to complete his second term as President, Gorham was elected to succeed him—serving from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. It was during this time that the Congress actually entertained the idea of asking Prince Henry—the brother of Frederick II of Prussia—and Bonnie Prince Charlie—the leader of the ill-fated Scottish Jacobite Rising and heir of the Stuart royal line—to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarch in America. It was a plan that had much to recommend it but eventually the advocates of republicanism held the day. During the final years of his life, Gorham was concerned with several speculative land deals which nearly cost him his entire fortune.
Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818)
Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland during the tumultuous days of the final Jacobite Rising and the Tartan Suppression, St. Clair was the only president of the United States born and bred on foreign soil. Though most of his family and friends abandoned their devastated homeland in the years following the Battle of Culloden—after which nearly a third of the land was depopulated through emigration to America—he stayed behind to learn the ways of the hated Hanoverian English in the Royal Navy. His plan was to learn of the enemy's military might in order to fight another day. During the global conflict of the Seven Years War—generally known as the French and Indian War—he was stationed in the American theater. Afterward, he decided to settle in Pennsylvania where many of his kin had established themselves. His civic-mindedness quickly became apparent: he helped to organize both the New Jersey and the Pennsylvania militias, led the Continental Army's Canadian expedition, and was elected Congress. His long years of training in the enemy camp was finally paying off. He was elected President in 1787—and he served from February 2 of that year until January 21 of the next. Following his term of duty in the highest office in the land, he became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory and the founder of Cincinnati. Though he briefly supported the idea of creating a constitutional monarchy under the Stuart's Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a strident Anti-Federalist—believing that the proposed federal constitution would eventually allow for the intrusion of government into virtually every sphere and aspect of life. He even predicted that under the vastly expanded centralized power of the state the taxing powers of bureaucrats and other unelected officials would eventually confiscate as much as a quarter of the income of the citizens—a notion that seemed laughable at the time but that has proven to be ominously modest in light of our current governmental leviathan. St. Clair lived to see the hated English tyrants who destroyed his homeland defeated. But he despaired that his adopted home might actually create similar tyrannies and impose them upon themselves.
Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796)
Like Peyton Randolph, he was trained in London's Inner Temple to be a lawyer—and thus was counted among his nation's legal elite. Like so many other Virginians, he was an anti-federalist, though he eventually accepted the new Constitution with the promise of the Bill of Rights as a hedge against the establishment of an American monarchy—which still had a good deal of currency. The Articles of Confederation afforded such freedoms that he had become convinced that even with the incumbent loss of liberty, some new form of government would be required. A protégé of George Washington—having worked with him on several speculative land deals in the West—he was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during his term in the office of the Presidency—the last before the new national compact went into effect—that ratification was formalized and finalized. He served as the nation's chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789
But first.....let us re-discover the real meaning and intent of the holiday that we now know as "Presidents Day".
To some it is just another three day weekend, but for those who want to understand our history better, the day holds a more interesting meaning. Public Law 90-363 also known as the "Monday Holiday Law," changed the observance of Washington's Birthday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Because it occurs so soon after Lincoln's Birthday, many states such as Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—combine the two holidays and call it Presidents' Day or Washington-Lincoln Day .
Some regard it as a day to honor all former presidents of the United States which is somewhat incorrect and the intended reason.
First titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.
The first attempt to create a Presidents' Day occurred in 1951 when the "President's Day National Committee" was formed by Harold Stonebridge Fischer of Compton, California, who became its National Executive Director for the next two decades. The purpose was not to honor any particular President, but to honor the office of the Presidency. It was first thought that March 4, the original inauguration day, should be deemed Presidents' Day. However, the bill recognizing the March 4th date was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which had authority over national holidays). That committee felt that, because of its proximity to Lincoln's and Washington Birthdays, three holidays so close together would be unduly burdensome. During this time, however, the Governors of a majority of the individual states issued proclamations declaring March 4 to be Presidents' Day in their respective jurisdictions.
An early draft of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln, which would explain why the chosen date falls between the two, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on 28 June 1968, kept the name Washington's Birthday.
By the mid-1980s, with a push from advertisers, the term "Presidents' Day" began its public appearance.Although Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was never a federal holiday, approximately a dozen state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday observances as "Presidents' Day", "Washington and Lincoln Day", or other such designations. However, "Presidents' Day" is not always an all-inclusive term.
It is not the same in all the states either. In Massachusetts, the state officially celebrates "Washington's Birthday" on the same day as the Federal holiday. State law also directs the governor to issue an annual "Presidents Day" proclamation on May 29 honoring the presidents with Massachusetts roots: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. Alabama uniquely observes the day as "Washington and Jefferson Day", even though Thomas Jefferson's birthday is in April. In Connecticut, Missouri and Illinois, while Washington's Birthday is a federal holiday, Abraham Lincoln's birthday is still a state holiday, falling on February 12 regardless of the day of the week. In Washington's home state of Virginia, the holiday is legally known as "George Washington Day.
Now as for who was this countries first president & nation's chief executive ?
General George Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president.
As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him?
Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775)
When delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, they promptly elected the former King's Attorney of Virginia as the moderator and president of their convocation. He was a propitious choice. He was a legal prodigy—having studied at the Inner Temple in London, served as his native colony's Attorney General, and tutored many of the most able men of the South at William and Mary College—including the young Patrick Henry. His home in Williamsburg was the gathering place for Virginia's legal and political gentry—and it remains a popular attraction in the restored colonial capital. He had served as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and had been a commander under William Byrd in the colonial militia. He was a scholar of some renown—having begun a self-guided reading of the classics when he was thirteen. Despite suffering poor health served the Continental Congress as president twice, in 1774 from September 5 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23. He never lived to see independence, yet was numbered among the nation's most revered founders.
Henry Middleton (1717-1784)
America's second elected president was one of the wealthiest planters in the South, the patriarch of the most powerful families anywhere in the nation. His public spirit was evident from an early age. He was a member of his state's Common House from 1744-1747. During the last two years he served as the Speaker. During 1755 he was the King's Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was a member of the South Carolina Council from 1755-1770. His valor in the War with the Cherokees during 1760-1761 earned him wide recognition throughout the colonies—and demonstrated his cool leadership abilities while under pressure. He was elected as a delegate to the first session of the Continental Congress and when Peyton Randolph was forced to resign the presidency, his peers immediately turned to Middleton to complete the term. He served as the fledgling coalition's president from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775. Afterward, he was a member of the Congressional Council of Safety and helped to establish the young nation's policy toward the encouragement and support of education. In February 1776 he resigned his political involvements in order to prepare his family and lands for what he believed was inevitable war—but he was replaced by his son Arthur who eventually became a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, served time as an English prisoner of war, and was twice elected Governor of his state.
John Hancock (1737-1793)
The third president was a patriot, rebel leader, merchant who signed his name into immortality in giant strokes on the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The boldness of his signature has made it live in American minds as a perfect expression of the strength and freedom—and defiance—of the individual in the face of British tyranny. As President of the Continental Congress during two widely spaced terms—the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786—Hancock was the presiding officer when the members approved the Declaration of Independence. Because of his position, it was his official duty to sign the document first—but not necessarily as dramatically as he did. Hancock figured prominently in another historic event—the battle at Lexington: British troops who fought there April 10, 1775, had known Hancock and Samuel Adams were in Lexington and had come there to capture these rebel leaders. And the two would have been captured, if they had not been warned by Paul Revere. As early as 1768, Hancock defied the British by refusing to pay customs charges on the cargo of one of his ships. One of Boston's wealthiest merchants, he was recognized by the citizens, as well as by the British, as a rebel leader—and was elected President of the first Massachusetts Provincial Congress. After he was chosen President of the Continental Congress in 1775, Hancock became known beyond the borders of Massachusetts, and, having served as colonel of the Massachusetts Governor's Guards he hoped to be named commander of the American forces—until John Adams nominated George Washington. In 1778 Hancock was commissioned Major General and took part in an unsuccessful campaign in Rhode Island. But it was as a political leader that his real distinction was earned—as the first Governor of Massachusetts, as President of Congress, and as President of the Massachusetts constitutional ratification convention. He helped win ratification in Massachusetts, gaining enough popular recognition to make him a contender for the newly created Presidency of the United States, but again he saw Washington gain the prize. Like his rival, George Washington, Hancock was a wealthy man who risked much for the cause of independence. He was the wealthiest New Englander supporting the patriotic cause, and, although he lacked the brilliance of John Adams or the capacity to inspire of Samuel Adams, he became one of the foremost leaders of the new nation—perhaps, in part, because he was willing to commit so much at such risk to the cause of freedom.
Henry Laurens (1724-1792)
The only American president ever to be held as a prisoner of war by a foreign power, Laurens was heralded after he was released as "the father of our country," by no less a personage than George Washington. He was of Huguenot extraction, his ancestors having come to America from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes made the Reformed faith illegal. Raised and educated for a life of mercantilism at his home in Charleston, he also had the opportunity to spend more than a year in continental travel. It was while in Europe that he began to write revolutionary pamphlets—gaining him renown as a patriot. He served as vice-president of South Carolina in1776. He was then elected to the Continental Congress. He succeeded John Hancock as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777. He served until December 9, 1778 at which time he was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands. Unfortunately for the cause of the young nation, he was captured by an English warship during his cross-Atlantic voyage and was confined to the Tower of London until the end of the war. After the Battle of Yorktown, the American government regained his freedom in a dramatic prisoner exchange—President Laurens for Lord Cornwallis. Ever the patriot, Laurens continued to serve his nation as one of the three representatives selected to negotiate terms at the Paris Peace Conference in 1782.
John Jay (1745-1829)
America's first Secretary of State, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of its first ambassadors, and author of some of the celebrated Federalist Papers, Jay was a Founding Father who, by a quirk of fate, missed signing the Declaration of Independence—at the time of the vote for independence and the signing, he had temporarily left the Continental Congress to serve in New York's revolutionary legislature. Nevertheless, he was chosen by his peers to succeed Henry Laurens as President of the United States—serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. A conservative New York lawyer who was at first against the idea of independence for the colonies, the aristocratic Jay in 1776 turned into a patriot who was willing to give the next twenty-five years of his life to help establish the new nation. During those years, he won the regard of his peers as a dedicated and accomplished statesman and a man of unwavering principle. In the Continental Congress Jay prepared addresses to the people of Canada and Great Britain. In New York he drafted the State constitution and served as Chief Justice during the war. He was President of the Continental Congress before he undertook the difficult assignment, as ambassador, of trying to gain support and funds from Spain. After helping Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Laurens complete peace negotiations in Paris in 1783, Jay returned to become the first Secretary of State, called "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" under the Articles of Confederation. He negotiated valuable commercial treaties with Russia and Morocco, and dealt with the continuing controversy with Britain and Spain over the southern and western boundaries of the United States. He proposed that America and Britain establish a joint commission to arbitrate disputes that remained after the war—a proposal which, though not adopted, influenced the government's use of arbitration and diplomacy in settling later international problems. In this post Jay felt keenly the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the first to advocate a new governmental compact. He wrote five Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution, and he was a leader in the New York ratification convention. As first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jay made the historic decision that a State could be sued by a citizen from another State, which led to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. On a special mission to London he concluded the "Jay Treaty," which helped avert a renewal of hostilities with Britain but won little popular favor at home—and it is probably for this treaty that this Founding Father is best remembered.
Samuel Huntington (1732-1796)
An industrious youth who mastered his studies of the law without the advantage of a school, a tutor, or a master—borrowing books and snatching opportunities to read and research between odd jobs—he was one of the greatest self-made men among the Founders. He was also one of the greatest legal minds of the age—all the more remarkable for his lack of advantage as a youth. In 1764, in recognition of his obvious abilities and initiative, he was elected to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The next year he was chosen to serve on the Executive Council. In 1774 he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court and, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, was acknowledged to be a legal scholar of some respect. He served in Congress for five consecutive terms, during the last of which he was elected President. He served in that off ice from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781. He returned to his home in Connecticut—and as he recuperated, he accepted more Counciliar and Bench duties. He again took his seat in Congress in 1783, but left it to become Chief Justice of his state's Superior Court. He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1785 and Governor in 1786. According to John Jay, he was "the most precisely trained Christian jurists ever to serve his country."
Thomas McKean (1734-1817)
During his astonishingly varied fifty-year career in public life he held almost every possible position—from deputy county attorney to President of the United States under the Confederation. Besides signing the Declaration of Independence, he contributed significantly to the development and establishment of constitutional government in both his home state of Delaware and the nation. At the Stamp Act Congress he proposed the voting procedure that Congress adopted: that each colony, regardless of size or population, have one vote—the practice adopted by the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and the principle of state equality manifest in the composition of the Senate. And as county judge in 1765, he defied the British by ordering his court to work only with documents that did not bear the hated stamps. In June 1776, at the Continental Congress, McKean joined with Caesar Rodney to register Delaware's approval of the Declaration of Independence, over the negative vote of the third Delaware delegate, George Read—permitting it to be "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States." And at a special Delaware convention, he drafted the constitution for that State. McKean also helped draft—and signed—the Articles of Confederation. It was during his tenure of service as President—from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782—when news arrived from General Washington in October 1781 that the British had surrendered following the Battle of Yorktown. As Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, he contributed to the establishment of the legal system in that State, and, in 1787, he strongly supported the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, declaring it "the best the world has yet seen." At sixty-five, after over forty years of public service, McKean resigned from his post as Chief Justice. A candidate on the Democratic-Republican ticket in 1799, McKean was elected Governor of Pennsylvania. As Governor, he followed such a strict policy of appointing only fellow Republicans to office that he became the father of the spoils system in America. He served three tempestuous terms as Governor, completing one of the longest continuous careers of public service of any of the Founding Fathers.
John Hanson (1715-1783)
He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots—his great grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny. As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca—both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter—his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon—began to espouse the cause of the patriots. In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation—and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Elias Boudinot (1741-1802)
He did not sign the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He did not serve in the Continental Army with distinction. He was not renowned for his legal mind or his political skills. He was instead a man who spent his entire career in foreign diplomacy. He earned the respect of his fellow patriots during the dangerous days following the traitorous action of Benedict Arnold. His deft handling of relations with Canada also earned him great praise. After being elected to the Congress from his home state of New Jersey, he served as the new nation's Secretary for Foreign Affairs—managing the influx of aid from France, Spain, and Holland. The in 1783 he was elected to the Presidency. He served in that office from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783. Like so many of the other early presidents, he was a classically trained scholar, of the Reformed faith, and an anti-federalist in political matters. He was the father and grandfather of frontiersmen—and one of his grandchildren and namesakes eventually became a leader of the Cherokee nation in its bid for independence from the sprawling expansion of the United States.
Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)
By an ironic sort of providence, Thomas Mifflin served as George Washington's first aide-de-camp at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and, when the war was over, he was the man, as President of the United States, who accepted Washington's resignation of his commission. In the years between, Mifflin greatly served the cause of freedom—and, apparently, his own cause—while serving as the first Quartermaster General of the Continental Army. He obtained desperately needed supplies for the new army—and was suspected of making excessive profit himself. Although experienced in business and successful in obtaining supplies for the war, Mifflin preferred the front lines, and he distinguished himself in military actions on Long Island and near Philadelphia. Born and reared a Quaker, he was excluded from their meetings for his military activities. A controversial figure, Mifflin lost favor with Washington and was part of the Conway Cabal—a rather notorious plan to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. And Mifflin narrowly missed court-martial action over his handling of funds by resigning his commission in 1778. In spite of these problems—and of repeated charges that he was a drunkard—Mifflin continued to be elected to positions of responsibility—as President and Governor of Pennsylvania, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the highest office in the land—where he served from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784. Most of Mifflin's significant contributions occurred in his earlier years—in the First and Second Continental Congresses he was firm in his stand for independence and for fighting for it, and he helped obtain both men and supplies for Washington's army in the early critical period. In 1784, as President, he signed the treaty with Great Britain which ended the war. Although a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he did not make a significant contribution—beyond signing the document. As Governor of Pennsylvania, although he was accused of negligence, he supported improvements of roads, and reformed the State penal and judicial systems. He had gradually become sympathetic to Jefferson's principles regarding State's rights, even so, he directed the Pennsylvania militia to support the Federal tax collectors in the Whiskey Rebellion. In spite of charges of corruption, the affable Mifflin remained a popular figure. A magnetic personality and an effective speaker, he managed to hold a variety of elective offices for almost thirty years of the critical Revolutionary period.
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794)
His resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," approved by the Continental Congress July 2, 1776, was the first official act of the United Colonies that set them irrevocably on the road to independence. It was not surprising that it came from Lee's pen—as early as 1768 he proposed the idea of committees of correspondence among the colonies, and in 1774 he proposed that the colonies meet in what became the Continental Congress. From the first, his eye was on independence. A wealthy Virginia planter whose ancestors had been granted extensive lands by King Charles II, Lee disdained the traditional aristocratic role and the aristocratic view. In the House of Burgesses he flatly denounced the practice of slavery. He saw independent America as "an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose." In 1764, when news of the proposed Stamp Act reached Virginia, Lee was a member of the committee of the House of Burgesses that drew up an address to the King, an official protest against such a tax. After the tax was established, Lee organized the citizens of his county into the Westmoreland Association, a group pledged to buy no British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. At the First Continental Congress, Lee persuaded representatives from all the colonies to adopt this non-importation idea, leading to the formation of the Continental Association, which was one of the first steps toward union of the colonies. Lee also proposed to the First Continental Congress that a militia be organized and armed—the year before the first shots were fired at Lexington; but this and other proposals of his were considered too radical—at the time. Three days after Lee introduced his resolution, in June of 1776, he was appointed by Congress to the committee responsible for drafting a declaration of independence, but he was called home when his wife fell ill, and his place was taken by his young protégé, Thomas Jefferson. Thus Lee missed the chance to draft the document—though his influence greatly shaped it and he was able to return in time to sign it. He was elected President—serving from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785 when he was succeeded by the second administration of John Hancock. Elected to the Constitutional Convention, Lee refused to attend, but as a member of the Congress of the Confederation, he contributed to another great document, the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the formation of new States from the Northwest Territory. When the completed Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, Lee opposed it as anti-democratic and anti-Christian. However, as one of Virginia's first Senators, he helped assure passage of the amendments that, he felt, corrected many of the document's gravest faults—the Bill of Rights. He was the great uncle of Robert E. Lee and the scion of a great family tradition.
Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796)
Another self-made man, Gorham was one of the many successful Boston merchants who risked all he had for the cause of freedom. He was first elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1771. His honesty and integrity won his acclaim and was thus among the first delegates chose to serve in the Continental Congress. He remained in public service throughout the war and into the Constitutional period, though his greatest contribution was his call for a stronger central government. But even though he was an avid federalist, he did not believe that the union could—or even should—be maintained peaceably for more than a hundred years. He was convinced that eventually, in order to avoid civil or cultural war, smaller regional interests should pursue an independent course. His support of a new constitution was rooted more in pragmatism than ideology. When John Hancock was unable to complete his second term as President, Gorham was elected to succeed him—serving from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. It was during this time that the Congress actually entertained the idea of asking Prince Henry—the brother of Frederick II of Prussia—and Bonnie Prince Charlie—the leader of the ill-fated Scottish Jacobite Rising and heir of the Stuart royal line—to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarch in America. It was a plan that had much to recommend it but eventually the advocates of republicanism held the day. During the final years of his life, Gorham was concerned with several speculative land deals which nearly cost him his entire fortune.
Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818)
Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland during the tumultuous days of the final Jacobite Rising and the Tartan Suppression, St. Clair was the only president of the United States born and bred on foreign soil. Though most of his family and friends abandoned their devastated homeland in the years following the Battle of Culloden—after which nearly a third of the land was depopulated through emigration to America—he stayed behind to learn the ways of the hated Hanoverian English in the Royal Navy. His plan was to learn of the enemy's military might in order to fight another day. During the global conflict of the Seven Years War—generally known as the French and Indian War—he was stationed in the American theater. Afterward, he decided to settle in Pennsylvania where many of his kin had established themselves. His civic-mindedness quickly became apparent: he helped to organize both the New Jersey and the Pennsylvania militias, led the Continental Army's Canadian expedition, and was elected Congress. His long years of training in the enemy camp was finally paying off. He was elected President in 1787—and he served from February 2 of that year until January 21 of the next. Following his term of duty in the highest office in the land, he became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory and the founder of Cincinnati. Though he briefly supported the idea of creating a constitutional monarchy under the Stuart's Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a strident Anti-Federalist—believing that the proposed federal constitution would eventually allow for the intrusion of government into virtually every sphere and aspect of life. He even predicted that under the vastly expanded centralized power of the state the taxing powers of bureaucrats and other unelected officials would eventually confiscate as much as a quarter of the income of the citizens—a notion that seemed laughable at the time but that has proven to be ominously modest in light of our current governmental leviathan. St. Clair lived to see the hated English tyrants who destroyed his homeland defeated. But he despaired that his adopted home might actually create similar tyrannies and impose them upon themselves.
Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796)
Like Peyton Randolph, he was trained in London's Inner Temple to be a lawyer—and thus was counted among his nation's legal elite. Like so many other Virginians, he was an anti-federalist, though he eventually accepted the new Constitution with the promise of the Bill of Rights as a hedge against the establishment of an American monarchy—which still had a good deal of currency. The Articles of Confederation afforded such freedoms that he had become convinced that even with the incumbent loss of liberty, some new form of government would be required. A protégé of George Washington—having worked with him on several speculative land deals in the West—he was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during his term in the office of the Presidency—the last before the new national compact went into effect—that ratification was formalized and finalized. He served as the nation's chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)