Here Ella and I are offering a new David McCullough history title for January 2006 discussion. This book hones in on the year 1776, the year of our nation’s birth. The players include George Washington with his first command of an army and supporting players such as Nathaniel Greene and Henry Knox, apprentice Generals leading the new Nation’s Continental Army through events such as the Siege of Boston the forced evacuation of New York, and finally at the year’s end a brilliant Xmas crossing of the Delaware to gain a hard won victory at Trenton.

This book is a short, 300-page book, an easy reading history of the year, perfect for a short one-month, dead of winter discussion beginning Jan 2nd. It is available from virtually all public libraries or for purchase from B&N at an attractive discounted price (see the link above) or any bookseller. We will need four or five committed participants to make this discussion a reality. Will you be one? Just add your short post here indicating your commitment, get the book and be ready to begin the day after New Years.

Yes, Harold, here we are with another David McCullough book - much shorter than JOHN ADAMS! His books are always such a pleasure to read and I hope McCullough will be around for a long, long time. I believe he said in one interview that it takes him about 10 years to write a new one.

He will never run out of subjcects, of course, and I hope to see many old friends here and new ones when we open the book on Jan. 2nd.

Hi Ginny! Good to have you here. We discussed this book in the new book discussion we have here where I live and many people commented that it's amazing that we were able to win the war. Truly McCullough has shown us how close we came to defeat; our country has been fortunate so many times in having a good leader when we needed one.

We must, sometime, do a biography of George! He's rather a mysterious fellow to me, seems aloof somehow.

Harold and Ella I have "1776" coming as a Christmas present so would like to join the discussion. A couple of points from David Fishers "Washington's Crossing": Henry Knox developed a battle protocol at the battle of Trenton which decimated British troops, Knox kept numbers of cannon at the ready in mobile form and when the British troops massed to break through Continental lines Knox wheeled his cannons in position to repel British troops; the effects where devastating to the British troops. Also of great interest was after Washingtons end run from Trenton through the townships to Princeton and the successful American battle there Washington and his troops headed north to winter quarters at Jockey Hollow, Morristown NJ. During this period the New Jersey Militias totally disrupted British forts,outposts and road traffic. This was extremely effective however Washington did not approve of the tactics ( not in Queensbury rules?) however the milita was so effect Washington sent Continental troops to participate with the militias. The militia "Gorilla" warfare drove the British north to the Hudson river and the protection of Admiral Howe's shipboard cannons. New Jersey was secured for the Continental's.

Ok Potsherd, It will be good to discuss a history again with you.

Ok Potsherd, It will be good to discuss a history again with you. And also Ginny- this is starting out with quality participants.

Count me in, folks! I love McCullough and my husband bought me the book for a Christmas present. I can't wait to open it!

This discussion is perfectly timed to lead into the March discussion of Founding Mothers by Cokie Roberts which contains wonderful stories of the women in the lives of Founding Fathers we will read about in 1776. (Sign-up page to be available presently.)

Marni

Thank you Marni, We appreciate your support and presence in the coming discussion

Please include me in the discussion. Have the book!!!!!!!

Finally , this book has been waiting on my shelf for me since it first came out ..and what a great time to read it when the weather is cold and I limit my excursions outside the warmth of my home..I have kept from reading it knowing if I did I would enjoy it more when I could discuss it with everyone here ...anna

Welcome KIDSAL AND ANNA we're so happy to have you in the discussion; we have our quorum now so the discussion is on the front burner and we are looking forward to January.

So am I ...I bought the book as soon as it came out since I KNEW I would enjoy reading it and that someone would be leading a discussion of it ..looking forward to it .. anna

I'd love to join the discussion. May I ask how long you plan to take in reading the book? Thanks in advance.

SCOOTZ - we usually take a month to read a book, although if we want to take longer than that we can, of course. It all depends on what the participants want to do, it is you that make a discussion fun and one to remember!

McCullough has a bit to do with it also!! Such a good writer, he makes history come alive. The discussion I remember best is McCullough's JOHN ADAMS; I can still picture those founding fathers in my mind. That discussion lasted much more than a month - huge book!

We will be posting a Schedule in the heading soon and some sites on the Internet of interest.

Thanks for asking!

Hi Anna, I'm so happy you are joining us, this is a good one!

I picked up the book last night. I'll watch here for updates and info. Look forward to the discussion. This will be my first McCullough book.

It now looks like we have our quorum with Ginny, Potsherd Marni, Kidsal, Annafair and Scootz plus Ella and myself. Even so let’s leave this heading here as a proposed until the end of the coming week as an invitation to others to join. TWO, THREE OR MORE ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE MOST WELCOME.

Let me suggest that in reading the book in preparation we might look for 1776 events that McCullough either left out or that you as a reader feel should have been covered in greater (or possible lesser) detail. And what possible consequence good or bad might have resulted from these events. Also remember you don’t have to agree with McCullough or even like his writing or his book. We want you to express your view of the events covered to the book and your reaction to them.

I agree with Ella regarding schedule; This book is ideal for a single month discussion. We will finish by the end of January. Perhaps it will lead to another American History discussion in the spring. Lets keep this in mind as we discuss “1776.”

Ginny, I too had formed an impression that Washington was a rather staid individual, however David Hacketts "Washington's Crossing" dispelled that impression. His leadership was most democratic in his conferences and direction of the war with his staff. The marquis de Lafayette a familiar name in the war. I never realized how important he was and as close to Washington as he was. The Revolutionary war is of great interest to me having lived in NJ,PA, and DL.If I remember correctly New Jersey records the most engagements of the war. I and my girls( when they were young) have walked many of the battlefields and traced the routs of many battles. I look forward to 1776 it should be great read and discussion

Jean, I haven't read any of John McCullough's books. In the near future I hope to read John Adams. If you swoon, I will catch you.

I have my book, 1776. Harold and Ella May I lurk?

Hi Hats: We'd be delighted if you will lurk but I bet you can't resist posting a few messages along the way!

Mabel, I've always been in love with David McCullough, with the man himself (we saw him live in Washington, D.C. when a group of our "bookies" went to the first National Book Club Festival, maybe Ginny will put the picture here of a few of us with the MAN!) and his books. He's even in our age group somewhere - which is what? 55 or older plus? hahahahaaaa

I believe he has said he takes 10 years to research and write a book; I can believe that with John Adams but I think this book is not as complete with its characterization, but that will be a subject we will address when we begin.

Click here for a biography of David McCullough, what a smile!

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mcc2bio-1"

Wow!! That is a handsome smile.

What a cool photo of McCullough and SeniorNetters!! That's fun!!

I had never read anything by McCullough until I found out about him on SeniorNet. (Yay, SeniorNet!!) This year I read John Adams and The Path Between the Seas (about building the Panama Canal) which was incredibly interesting.

Marni

Thank you Mable and Hats for joining us here. Our Audubon group will now almost all continue here.

I'm here. I'm here. I've gotten the book (and started reading it) but forgot to post. I rashly volunteered to lead "Founding Mothers" in March and I know almost nothing about the Revolutionary War. I'm counting on you all and McCullough to enlighten me.

The two discussions should fit nicely. The wives of some of the lesser known but major figures in 1776 (like Knox) are major figures in "Founding Mothers". Between the two books, we should get a great picture of what I always wonder about with history: what was it like for ordinary people like us to live in those times?

--- your participation here carries over our core group from the Audubon biography discussion. You will like McCullough's writing and will get an interesting interpretation on some of the events occurring during the year of our nation's birth.

Discussion,

Late, as usual. I will be joining the Discussion. Have had the book for some time but will wait to read it along with the other participants.

Tiger Tom

I'm looking forward to this discussion, too, Ginny! Recently, I've become very interested in the American Revolution and the founding of our country. I don't know if it's just me or if there seems to be a whole slew of new books out in the last couple of years about the founding fathers. It's strange to me that after all these years, I've suddenly been reading up a storm about the period and people and discovering such fascinating stories that I have never heard of before. It amazes me that most of these stories were never taught in school despite the years of American History I had to take.

I think my dad's poor health has had an impact on my recent reading. He was always very interested in George Washington, Lafayette, Nathan Hale, and Benedict Arnold. He did a lot of research and gave speeches on them to various civic groups in CT. My dad has a large collection of books about the war and founding fathers. He is now blind and an invalid and particularly enjoys talking about his favorite historic events. So, I got hooked, started reading, and now we share many a wonderful discussion about history. We've grown closer and talk more together now than we ever did when I was young. It's great!

Marni

MARNI: you are wise. When I was older, I realized that both my parents enjoyed a lot of books that I didn't discover until they were gone. I would have loved to have talked about then with them.

Hi,

"1776" has been sitting on my shelf, and this is an excellent opportunity to read it with you. I love anything David McCullough writes, and I've read much of that explosion of American founding fathers history that has come out in the past few years. I'm ready!

Joseph Ellis has come out with a biography of George Washington and I must read it when I get a chance; I have a few ahead of that!!!

In 1998 we discussed Ellis' biography of Thomas Jefferson - An American Sphinx - one of our early book discussions led by a very favorite discussion leader - LJ Klein - who died of a heart attack. He was one of the best in the role of a DL and we will forever miss him.

Thanks for telling us about the American Sphinx discussion. I'm so happy to see that it's in the archives. I'll be reading it (the archives, i read the book a few years ago) until i get 1776 and have to start on that.....aarrggghhh! Why does it have to be the holiday season??? I need 36 hours in my day to get everything done i want to do......but it's so exciting.....thanks seniornet......jean

Ella: I think the Joseph Ellis novel about Washington you are referring to is His Excellency. I got it for Christmas last year. It is a wonderful biography! But, I have to admit, I enjoyed Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton better. What a book! I would highly recommend both of them, particularly the Hamilton. I would love it if we discussed the Chernow book in SeniorNet. I'm sure we will be discussing both of these fascinating men in our 1776 discussion.

---------------------------------------

Ginny: I'm not sure about my dad. Thank you very much for asking. He would be very pleased. I would have to pass everything on to our group since my dad can't read or write any longer. I don't have a laptop and my parents don't have a computer, so I'd have to hand write his comments with my arthritis. What I can certainly do is pass on tidbits if something comes up in our discussion and I ask my dad about it and he has something to add.

Hmmm...maybe a recording....

Marni

Make it a Proposed, Marni. In the meantime I'll read it on your recommendation. Ron Chernow's book on Hamilton. I keep looking at it. In the meantime I'm working on Jean Smith's JOHN MARSHALL, the great SC chief justice. What a great historical period.

Hi, The Middlemarch discussion is almost over and since I liked the John Adams book a lot I'll try 1776 since it too sounds like a fascinating read.. I learned so much about England in the Middlemarch discussion and with such a big group here it sounds as if it will be full of adventure (and fun too).

Judy

Marni, thank you for the recommendation.

I want to extend a belated welcome to both Tiger Tom and Scamper who have noted that they too plan to join us. We have a great group assembling here for discussion. Any one else out there are still welcome?

JUDY: great -- the fun goes on.

BUBBLE posted an interesting quote in SoC. As we go on, I'll be watching to see if we think it applies to the revolution:

""In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." -Leo Tolstoy, author (1828-1910)

One thing about this book is that it will raise issues involving many historical individuals and events worthy of subsequently discussions. Two of these mentioned in recent posts above include the Ellis biography of George Washington, and the biography of Alexander Hamilton that Marni mentioned. We must keep our eyes open looking for Book’s like these and others that will come up that might make popular follow-up discussions.

Our discussion of “1776” has made with a comfortable quorum of at least 11 participants, including Ginny, Potsherd, Mauni, Kidsal, Annafair, scooty, Mabel1915, Hats, JoanK Tiger Tom , and Scamper plus Ella and my self. We will begin as scheduled Jan 2, 2006. Meanwhile everyone have a happy Xmas and new year and reading of the book.

This book easily divides itself for discussion into 4 parts totaling 30 days of discussion with completion by the end of January. The following schedule should be considered tentative but it should be close to the schedule noted below

Proposed Discussion Schedule “1776” By David McCullough Jan 2nd – Jan 30, 2006



Part I: Chapters 1 & 2, Pages 1 – 69: Jan 2nd – Jan 8th (7-days).

Part II: Chapters 3 & 4, Pages 70 –154, Jan 9th – Jan 15th (7-days)

Part III: Chapters 5 & 6, Pages 155 – 246 Jan 16th – Jan 25th (10 days)

Part IV: Chapter 7 & Conclusions, Pages 247 – 294, Jan 26th – Jan 31st (6 days)

Ella, If you have any changes to the above division, please make them after which they will be permanently linked in the heading.

Re: ""In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." -Leo Tolstoy

That's an interesting quotation. Right now, I don't think that I agree with it, if Tolstoy is including rebellions as wars. There have been many rebellions throughout history, and I don't think they were all hatched solely by governments. The American Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the English king and Parliamentary legislation. The American colonial governments were really British when the rebellion was hatched. The rebel leaders had to create a new government.

Marni

Marni - The colonists did rebel against the king and parliament, but first they protested the actions of legislating taxes and quartering troops, etc. Instead of the King and parliament negotiating w/ them, they sent troops to enforce their legislation. Those troops were sent against the will of most of the families whose members would make up those troops.

I guess the question is "when" did the war start? Did it start w/ the French and Indian War? It was because of that war that the British had so much debt and wanted the colonists to help pay for those debts and for their own protection on the frontier by the British soldiers. Did it start when parliament passed tax legislation to collect the money to pay those debts? Did it start w/ the "Boston Tea Party?" Did it start when the British troops marched out of Boston and were attacked by the Minute Men?

Each of those situations could be stated to be the start of the war and each would have a different "starter," depending on your perspective, we could say the war was started by the British gov't, or by the rebels. But the arguement could be made that could support Tolstory's statement, that it was the gov't who started it w/out any regard for the British citizens who were going to have to fund it and fight it.....jean

-- Marni, would you agree with the 1940's American poet (It must have been Stephen Vincent Benét in "Western Star") who characterized the action of the rebellious North Americans, as never more English? They had already staged their own revolution some 130 years earlier that had included the overthrow and execution of a King. The Tolstoy quotation included in message #47 does sound a bit extreme to me since I think some modern wars had much popular support; but these are topics we might explore in greater depth as our discussion unfolds.

Hi, My post (#41) probably didn't have enough stamps so you didn't receive it. Hope theres still room on your bus.

Judy

Jean: I think I am interpreting the word "hatched" in the Tolstoy quote as "deliberately created." I don't think the British deliberately tried to create a war when they stationed troops in Boston, passed the Quartering Act and all the various legislation that got the colonists agitated. I think they were just trying to protect their possession and show the colonists who was boss. Perhaps I'm incorrect in my interpretation.

Marni

I just watched David McCullough interviewed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on TV channel 54, 8:00 p.m. EST. McCullough talked about 1776, of course. It sounded as if Jon Stewart had actually read the book.

I would love to listen to McCullough speak for a much longer time. He is so interesting! The book sounds so good. I can't wait to get it for Christmas!!!

Somehow Judy I seem to have overlooked your Message #41. You are in for sure! Anybody else?

Let me add that new participants are always welcome even if they arrive late in the middle or even near the end of a discussion. It is, however desirable for people to indicate their interest in a discussion early during its "Proposal" period since a certain minimum (in this case 5) are necessary for the discussion to go forward. In the past we have had good book proposals abandoned for lack of what we call a quorum. In this case we have a definite healthy quorum, and all expectations are for an intense, interesting exchange of individual opinions and reactions to the events described in the book.

Any late arruvals will be welcome!

Harold: Re: "Would you agree with the 1940's American poet...who characterized the action of the rebellious North Americans, as never more English? They had already staged their own revolution some 130 years earlier that had included the overthrow and execution of a King."

It certainly was in the English tradition! I'm remembering, too, in 1215 King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, agreeing to be bound by law, agreeing to limitations on the king’s power, and giving 'freemen' inalienable rights, notably trial by jury. This was considered to be the beginning of constitutional government in England.

Marni

Some of the "interviews" by the "reporters" I could do w/out, but i love JOhn's interviews of the guests. It appears to me as though he has always read the books of the authors he's interviewing.

When I read McCullough I can always hear his voice "saying" the words i'm reading. It is such a good, calm, kind but authoratative, caring about his subject voice.

Do you think he would be willing to participate in our discussion in some way?.....jean

McCullough's voice IS like that, Jean! I loved the way you phrased it. And he is so knowledgeable and does seem to love his subject so much. McCoullough looks very kind and has a beautiful face and smile. He said on The Daily Show that the Revolution was the most important war in America's history and that it could have gone either way through the entire war. He said that some wars are fought for good reason and the Revolution was one of them.

Marni

David McCullough's writing style is mesmerizing. I started the first chapter. I could not stop reading. Obviously, he has a gift for writing about history. I would love to hear his voice.

On Booktv, Monday 8:45 a.m.EST they are replaying McCullough at the TExas Book FEstival talking about "1776" and at 5:20 p.m. the same day the author is talking about a book on Martha Washington.

HATS: " I would love to hear his voice."

My SIL tells me that David McCullough was the narrator on the Ken Burns series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS a few years ago. So if you've watched that, you've heard his voice. It is a wonderful voice (and a wonderful series -- do get hold of it and watch it if you can).

Joank, I missed it. Boo hoo.

As I was looking forward to reading 1776, I was thinking last night about another book I read about the Revolution - an older book that my dad gave me last year - Valley Forge, a novel by McKinley Kantor (author of Andersonville and Spirit Lake). Has anyone read it? My dad saved it because it was one of his favorite books. I just loved it. It was very moving. It's a story told from the viewpoint of various people involved in the war, people from all levels - from Washington to lowly soldiers who spent the winter at Valley Forge. I looked for it on the web last night and found it is no longer in print. I would highly recommend it for anyone who can get their hands on it and is interested in a fictionalized account of a famous part of the Revolution.

Marni

Marni,

I will check my library. Thank you for the title. I bet you have enjoyed some wonderful conversations with your dad.

P.S. My library does own a copy. I will write the title on my long list.

I didn't realize Andersonville still existed! Is it actually the original prison? Or a replica? What a horror of a prison in the Kantor book.

Prisons are an interesting topic. Prisons of the Revolutionary period will be something fascinating we can discuss in Jan.

Ginny, I have visited Mount Vernon. It was many years ago. I can still remember the beauty of the home and the property. I would have loved to see a light show.

In 1940 I only saw the Jefferson home , Monticello from the distance. We were on our way to D.C. and did not have time to stop. A few days later we visited Mount Vernon, but never made it back to Monticello. Again in 1993 in Washington, I again took the usual Grey Line tour, with Mount Vernon one of the major stops. These great 18th century homes are of course interesting places, but I don’t think many modern families would want to live in one today.

Tomorrow I will leave for Xmas with family in Dallas but will from time to time check in, I will return next Wednesday or Thursday.

Everyone have a Merry Christmas!

My husband and I visited Monticello last fall and enjoyed our tour immensely. It was a lovely sunny autumn day and beautiful on the mountaintop with the Blue Ridge off in the distance. Jefferson's house is fascinating - filled with him and his inventions and interests. His library, which he sold because of all his debts and which became the beginnings of our Library of Congress, has been replicated with the volumes he originally owned. The front hall is filled with Native American artifacts sent by Lewis and Clark. There is an interesting privy built over a stream which carried away the waste. His document copier is in a study - it's a gadget in which a pen is linked up to write a duplicate of what the writer writes. We visited Jefferson's grave in the Monticello cemetery.

Here's a link to an online house and plantation tour of Monticello:

http://explorer.monticello.org/index.html

The tour shows an unfurnished house, but the house is furnished today with Jefferson's actual possessions or, in some cases, replicas.

Marni

that was wonderful.....jean

can anyone tell me how i can sign in on someone else's computer? I will hate to miss the discussion, if i can't get in to SN......jean

mabel1015j - type www.seniornet.org/books un the address line of the browser. -- Click go and you will be taken to the Main Menu of Books & Literature.

In the upper right corner will be a box to login. Scroll down to find the book discussions you wish to read and post in.

For mystery story readers, Jane Langton has written a mystery that takes place in (modern) Monticello -- "Murder at Monticello". Not her best mystery, but gives a good feel for the house and grounds.

With Christmas behind me and my cookie factory closed ( I baked hundreds of cookies for my family gave away 8 13x9 inch disposable aluminum pans with a high plastic cover FULL of cookies My grandchildren ( say NANA makes the best cookies LOL Nana is the ONLY one who bakes cookies ) I started reading last night, What a treat ,, Mr McCullough has a way of making his books so alive ..you feel you are THERE ..this should be a fantastic discussion and am glad to be aboard with so many good discussees! if that isnt a word then we will just have to add it! Loved the posts about MT Vernon and Monticello When we moved to Virginia 35 years ago they were among the first places we visited and have been back a couple of times as we introduced our children to them. Looking forward to THE NEW YEAR and this discussion...anna

I agree with Anna's comments concerning McCullough’s writing. I too must make a quick switch from Xmas activities to the book discussion that in my case will require minimizing New Years activities.

I have been in Dallas over Xmas with family. On Tuesday some of us went to Fort Worth where we visited the Amos Carter and Kimberly Museums. At the Amos Carter, I saw the four original George Catlin Indian paintings. One of these was painted in Texas during his early 1840's trek into the Texas panhandle with a U.S. cavalry regiment to restore a Kiowa woman captive to her tribe. The expedition resulted in near 50% causalities from what was termed bilious fever (possibly yellow fever). Catlin was late in contacting the disease and made it back to the Arkansas base where he recovered in the post hospital.

At the Kimberly we saw a large collection of paintings by Paul Gauguin from his early impressionist period. My brother, sister-in-law and I left Fort Worth about 3:00 PM returning to Fredericksburg. We drove through the prairie fire zone that according to the morning news are still burning. I spent Tuesday night at Fredericksburg returning to San Antonio yesterday.

This may be my last post before our discussion begins Monday morning. At that time introductory statements from everyone including further initial individual assessment of the book will be welcome followed by general discussion of the subject matter included in the first five chapters.

Everyone please free to ask questions, answer question, and present topics important to you that you feel require discussion. Also all participants are encourage to raise for discussion any corollary points suggested to them as individuals reading the book even though the point is not directly raised in the book. Though we will follow the schedule, subject to it, the forum is open to all. We are an informal group of friends not always agreeing with one another, but always respectful of one another’s interpretations presented during the discussion.

Ella Do you have any comments or additions to add?

The Schedule for next week (Week 1) is Part I: Chapters 1 & 2, Pages 1 - 69. not Chapters 1 -5 as I said in my #77 post. That would be more than half the book..

The full schedule will be linked in the heading above shortly.

Ella I did not get your E-Mail. My best address is hhullar5@sbcglobal.net I check this in-box at least daily.

No, Harold? Well, just wanted to let you and everyone know that I'm ready to roll Monday; this is going to be a wonderful group and what a happy way to start the New Year. Nothing is better than a McCullough book, he just keeps getting better and better - long may he live!

You all have a safe and Happy New Year's Eve!

Harold: I hope those Texas fires are not near your neck of the woods. What a year!

I was interested in what you said about "bilious fever." So many people I've read about in the 18th century came down with it, whatever it was. I read that it bilious fever was a catch-all phrase in the early 19th century. Apparently, it could have been yellow fever, or malaria, typhoid, hepatitis, or jaundice from liver disease. James Madison had numerous attachs or bilious fever.

--- Tuesday some of us went to Fort Worth to the Amos Carter and Kimberly Museums. About 3:00 in the Afternoon in my brother's car we left Fort Worth by auto for Fredericksburg. As we left Fort Worth and for the next 100 miles we could see the smoke from the grass fires. The big smoke clouds originated miles west of us but they dominated the view. At no time was the fire close to us. Now I am concerned for the safety of my Guadalupe County property. Though so far there are no active fires, the grass is very dry, and what with New Years fireworks, anything could happen.

Regarding my comment on the bilious fever that killed so many of the troupes participating in the 1934 operation the painter George Catlin wrote about. I thought it was in the 1840, but I find I was wrong and 1834 appears to to the correct date. The mission was to show the flag to the Comanche’s and return a Kiowa woman that the Army had taken from other Indians who had captured her. It involved about 500 troops commanded by General Henry Leavenworth and a Colonel Dodge in a sweep across Indian Territory and what is now the Texas Panhandle. The General was one of the many causalities of the bilious fever that killed him and many of his soldiers.

Tuesday in Fort Worth I saw the four George Catlin Indian Paintings that are in the permanent collection of the Amos Carter Museum. Catlin painted one of these on the 1834 Comanche operation.

I started reading 1776 today and noticed on page 6 that George III's madness (20 years after the revolution) was caused by porphyria, an inherited physical disturbance. Here's some ino of porphyria, which I had never heard of:

Porphyria is a group of different disorders caused by abnormalities in the chemical steps leading to the production of heme, a substance that is important in the body. The largest amounts of heme are in the blood and bone marrow, where it carries oxygen. Heme is also found in the liver and other tissues.

Multiple enzymes are needed for the body to produce heme. If any one of the enzymes is abnormal, the process cannot continue and the intermediate products, porphyrin or its precursors, may build up and be excreted in the urine and stool.

The porphyria disorders can be grouped by symptoms—whether they affect the skin or the nervous system. The cutaneous porphyrias affect the skin. People with cutaneous porphyria develop blisters, itching, and swelling of their skin when it is exposed to sunlight. The acute porphyrias affect the nervous system. Symptoms of acute porphyria include pain in the chest, abdomen, limbs, or back; muscle numbness, tingling, paralysis, or cramping; vomiting; constipation; and personality changes or mental disorders. These symptoms appear intermittently.

The porphyrias are inherited conditions, and the genes for all enzymes in the heme pathway have been identified. Some forms of porphyria result from inheriting an abnormal gene from one parent (autosomal dominant). Other forms are from inheriting an abnormal gene from each parent (autosomal recessive). The risk that individuals in an affected family will have the disease or transmit it to their children is quite different depending on the type.

Attacks of porphyria can develop over hours or days and last for days or weeks. Porphyria can be triggered by drugs (barbiturates, tranquilizers, birth control pills, sedatives), chemicals, fasting, smoking, drinking alcohol, infections, emotional and physical stress, menstrual hormones, and exposure to the sun.

Porphyria is diagnosed through blood, urine, and stool tests. Diagnosis may be difficult because the range of symptoms is common to many disorders and interpretation of the tests may be complex. Each form of porphyria is treated differently. Treatment may involve treating with heme, giving medicines to relieve the symptoms, or drawing blood. People who have severe attacks may need to be hospitalized.

I am ashamed that I know so little about the Revolution and that period. I've done some reading about the Civil War, about none about the Revolution. My excuse was that, living most of my life around DC, I am surrounded by Civil War battlegrounds. But that excuse doesn't hold. Two of the battles McCullough describes took place in places where I have lived (Brooklyn and Princeton) and I had never heard of either of them!

Like Ginny, I find the focus on 1776 unfortunate for a first book -- I want to know how they got there.

Hi Ginny and Joan! DM could have gone into more detail of "what went before," of course; however, he chose to just details the events of 1776 but on Page 7 you will find a brief description of how it all started on April 19th, 1775. If you like, just go to the Internet and type in the Battle of Bunker Hill - or Lexington and Concord - you'll find plenty of material!

Thanks Scamper for that information, very interesting.

We can discuss the battles above in more detail when we begin Tuesday, if you like. I'm far from an authority on the subject and I just bet Harold knows more than any of us, his is an analytical mind far superior to my own; perhaps he'll come and summarize what you are asking.....

Here is an excellent site although there are many more:

The Revolutionary War

Even music - enjoy reading!

Did someone ask about how George Washington became the leader of the American forces; if not, I apologize, but here is a site that is very good also.

George Washington

Just one more...... HAROLD, if you look in here, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was John Adams who wanted to call dear George, when he was elected president, Your Excellency, and it was dear George himself who said no, no, I will be called Mr. President.

Something like that............

Otherwise, we might have more pomp and ceremony to the presidency tha a mere "Hail to the Chief" when he appears.

My John Adams book was loaned out to a friend after our discussion and it just never made it back home.

Our offical opening is Jan 2nd, tomorrow, so these posts are not much too early.

Actually Ella, John Adams proposed an even more resounding title for our President. As Vice President he proposed that the President should be addressed as “His Majesty, the President of the United States.” It just did not catch on. I think the 1st Congress by legislation set the proper address as: "his excellency” which appears from our book to be the way Washington was addressed in 1775 and 76 as Commander of the Army. Washington was very much the aristocrat and seems to have relished the laudatory address. Makes me wonder if perhaps he would really liked to have been King as Hamilton proposed.

I think the official title of address remains His/Her Excellency today but of course the more republican (small r) “Mr/Ms President is now always used.

Regarding King George III he was an interesting character. He had an extraordinary squeaky-clean married life. There is no record of mistresses common for most Royals of the day. His German princess queen bore him over a dozen children. His many sons quite the contrary all married to German royals produced only two legitimate children eligible to inherit the Throne. Yet by their commoner mistresses there was no shortage of bastard offspring.

The Prince of Wales who in 1812 became regent when the King became mad, and King George IV in 1820 when the old King fianlly died had one legitimate daughter, Charlotte, who would have become queen in 1830 when her father died. But she was already dead, having died in childbirth in 1817. Her unexpected death set off something of a contest among the Royal Princes who suddenly started to pay attention to their German wives. In 1819 a daughter named Victoria was born fathered by Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent. “It looks like I’ve won the Lottery,” the proud father boasted to his unsucessful brothers. Be that as it was, the Duke of Kent died the next year, but his daughter, Victoria became Queen in 1837.

The American Revolution Home Page is very useful. Here is a quick chronology, showing the passage of laws that inflamed the colonists:

TIMELINE

Thanks for those wonderful links. The three of them together give a great concise history of the colonies getting to 1776. If any of you reading these posts haven't gone to the links yet, it probably is easiest to understand if you read the "timeline" then "geo Washington" then "lexington and concord." It goes from the broad to the specific.

I'm reading an interesting book on Washington, "An Imperfect God: G.W, His Slaves, and the Creation of America" by Henry Wiencek. Has anyone read it or anything else by Wiencek? It's kind of rambling and i can't decide where the author stand on G.W. Maybe that's a good thing. Unlike McCullough who seems to fall in love w/ his subjects....jean

I think you all are correct in that McCullough gives a very brief sketch of the events leading up to where this book starts. I noticed somewhere that 1776 is advertised as a companion to McCullough's John Adams book, which does go in to these things in more detail. I'm one of those who without planning to have suddenly read a lot of excellent revolutionary history books in the past couple of years because so many good ones have come out on Adams (McCullough), Hamilton (Chernow), Washington (Ellis), Jefferson (Ellis), Franklin (Brand, Morgan, Isaacson), and just recently a new Brand book about Jackson. If this book sparks your interest in American History, you've got some excellent books to look forward to! Those posted links summarize things much better than I could, and hopefully they'll keep you on track for this smaller book!

I do see some repetition from John Adams and other books. I wasn't all that enthused about 1776 since I've read so much of this type of history lately, but I do love David McCullough and have read so many wonderful books he has written. It was wonderful to read The Path Between the Seas and then take a cruise through the Panama Canal!

McCullough does hone in on a very specific time period, making assumptions that we know the prior history leading up to the events of 1776. Once in awhile, he explains briefly prior incidents. I do like his focus, though. I'm learning many things about some important events and leaders that I knew almost nothing about, particularly Nathanael Greene, my new favorite hero of the Revolution. I had never even heard of him before last year! I'm going to have to read a biography of Greene. Wonderful stories and tidbits in this book. Has anyone read a good bio of Greene? Interesting that he was a fighting Quaker. Here's a very brief web bio of Greene with my favorite portrait of him:

http://members.aol.com/JonMaltbie/Biography.html

One thing that I'm finding a bit difficult in this book is the lack of decent maps to correspond to McCullough's battle descriptions. He goes into wonderful and fascinating detail, and he has included several old maps, but they are not enough. We'll have to find some other maps on the web, I think, to help in our discussion.

Thanks for the links!

Marni

You are just what my inept memory needs, HAROLD! It was a good day, a good idea, that we became co-discussion leaders way back when and I can always count on you for the historical facts which will keep all of us on the right track; whereas I tend to get just the general overview of it all.

It overwhelms me, SCAMPER, to think of reading all those books; one McCullough every two or three years is enough for me, but I want someday to read his PATH BETWEEN THE SEAS and if I live long enough I may. I have 3 other books I'm delving into on my bedside table right now.

No, MARNI, I haven't read anything about Greene, but I also found it fascinating that the man was a fighting Quaker. Thanks for the link.

GOLLY, GINNY, I JUST REALIZED IT IS JANUARY 2nd having glanced at the paper and we are to start our discussion today!

Were all of you as startled as I was to begin reading the book and discovering that McCullough starts this book with English history – and were you as delighted as I was that he did? He grabbed my attention from the outset with this unique approach to the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps several of you have read the history of England and their outlook on our rebellion but I never have and in looking over DM’s Source Notes and Bibliography I am – but shouldn’t be – amazed at the work he put into his research.

If you are interested in the history of how “God Save Great George Our King” became “My Country Tis of Thee” click here: Words and Lyrics The song, written by one Samuel Francis Smith who was translating it from a German music school book, had been around the world before it was first performed in the United States in 1831.

It must been devastating to the ego of England to have lost more than 1000 men at Bunker Hill, don't you think? We were the "rabble." As one British officer said in a published letter he wished that all those who were in favor of more vigorous action in America could see the slaughter.

What did all of you think of DM's approach to our Revolutionary War?

And England had to hire foreign troops? Why? And why Hessian soldiers? I mentioned this to a couple of friends and one said that in his family history there was a record of a German soldier having fought in the Revolution; he believes it was because the German government got a stipend for every soldier they produced for England and Germany needed the money at the time.

Does anyone know any more about this?

Back later, eg

--- the film, “The Madness of King George;” in England the title was “The Madness of King George III.” When it was released in the U.S. the distributor dropped the “III” from the title. The reason of course was obvious, American would interpret the “III” as its being the third sequel of a series and since it would appear that they had missed “I” and “II” they would not go to see the third.

And England had to hire foreign troops? Why? And why Hessian soldiers? I mentioned this to a couple of friends and one said that in his family history there was a record of a German soldier having fought in the Revolution; he believes it was because the German government got a stipend for every soldier they produced for England and Germany needed the money at the time.

They were Hessian because George III was also King of Hanover one of the major separate German states. This had been the case since George I of Hanover had inherited the English Throne in 1714. The preoccupation of the first two Georges in Hanover led to the increasing power of the House of Commons and the development of parliamentary government. Throughout his reign George III was an even more absolute ruler in Hanover than in England and it was the logical place to recruit soldiers for his army.

The English Monarch was King of Hanover until 1837 when William IV died and Victoria became Queen in England. Since Hanover followed the Continental rule that prohibited a woman from becoming sovereign, a younger son of George III, Frederick, became King of Hanover and the governance of the two nations was completely separated.

Welcome Scamper, Ginny, JoanK, Ella, Jean, and Marni. Still to check in are Potsherd, Kidsal, Annafaiar, Scooty, Hats, and Tiger Tom. Also any one else out there who is interested in this book or can offer comment on its subject matter are welcome.

Negotiations by London prior to the Battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill were being conducted with Hessian States who"s troops would control the American Colonies however the discussions failed because the " price was to high". The British then conducted negotiations with Russia,the Netherlands,the Moors from Morocco. The desperation of the government brought them back to the German States and agreements for 34,000 troops was consummated.The greatest number of Hessians(18,960) where from the State of Hesse-Cassel. The "solders trade" Typically started when a male child reached the age of 7 years old and was required to be registered with the state. When the boy reached 16 years of age he was reviewed before a board and if his work or education was found substandard he would start his military training. Why where the Hessians hired by the British. The language difference was a major consideration;thought to reduce fraternizing,also the Hessians had a great distain for the American Rebel rabble. Of the total 34,000 Hessian troops about 50% were killed and some remained in country with most in lancaster county, Pa.

I'm so excited to start this book discussion. I know it's going to be very informative and fun!

Thanks Marni for the Green site, he has been "getting some press" lately. Cokie Roberts includes his wife in her "Founding Mothers" book, which i understand we're going to read later in the year.

A few yrs ago I had a student who was a descendant of Daniel Morgan. I wish i had had a chance to talk more w/ her about him. Have to go find a book on him.

Several years ago i read a book about Queen Victoria, appropriately titled, or sub-titled "Grandmother of Europe." That is an amazing story of all the heads of state of the major European countries having some relationship to her, and for a couple generations. It might be an interesting book for discussion.

I'm trying to read the posts and watch the Rose Bowl Parade. They are both just wonderful!......jean

Potsherd that is an interesting story of the Hessians that you gave above. I had assumed that they were from Hanover since it seemed logical by reason of its control by the English King. As you said this seems to have been a practice of long duration by the various princes who controlled the many little German states. Essentially it involved the sale by the petty princes of young peasant men as soldiers to fight in foreign wars.

Click Here for a long,detailed Web History of the practice or Click Here for a much shorter facts sheet with information about this source of foreign soldiers. This material indicates that Hanoverians were not involved.

One thing that is very interesting to me is finding out how the Revolution was our first civil war. For some reason, I hadn't really thought of it as civil war in my history courses long ago. It was not just British fighting Americans or Hessians fighting Americans; it was Americans fighting Americans. That made it a much more difficult war for the Americans. The rebels were literally surrounded by enemies from within and without.

McCullough shows the struggles of Americans trying to make up their minds which side to be on. What a big decision! The British had such a large army and it owned the seas with its splendid navy. Americans had relatives in Britain. They were dependent on Britain for many things. What an amazing story!

I've been particularly interested in the Revolution as a civil war since I found out about my husband's ancestry. He is of Dutch descent. His ancestors lived in New Netherland before the British arrived in New England and New York. They spelled their last name as "Lydekker." During the Revolution, some of the family remained loyal to King George. Others joined the rebellion. The loyalists were eventually forced to flee the country for their lives, going up to Canada. Those rebels who remained in America changed the spelling of their name to "Lydecker" to distinguish themselves from the loyalists.

It's interesting and horrifying to find out how the American loyalists and rebels treated one another during and after the war, torturing and killing each other, plundering homes, turning each other in to the "enemy."

Marni

King George III concerned about the crisis in America recognized he must act. Writing to Prime Minister Lord North indicating disobedience and unrest in the colonies must be addressed “ America must be made to obey.” In the House of lords when challenged as to” can we win a war in America” Lord Sandwich said” they are raw, undisciplined cowardly men. My analysis of Lord Sandwich statement would be:

RAW__ Yes, as far as formal military training and education. UNDISCIPLINED__yes, they emigrated to America for freedom, opportunity, denied them by the British system/hierarchy. COWARDLY MEN__ No, this was a gross misunderstanding of the British for which they would pay dearly.

Freedom, a foreign word In the Kings vocabulary however a word of major prominence in the Revolutionary war: a word so powerful it defeated the mighty British Empire. The King and the “Houses” simply referred to the British people in the Colonies with lots of derogatory words and statements. All of which some where probably uiiered to placate “King George III” The British army a well trained military force backed by the most powerful navy in the world. However the Colonial militias with men from the French and Indian war experience recoginized that against superior forces the Indian way of fighting using natural cover such as trees ,rock walls and fences a small force could raise havoic against superior forces: today this is known as guerilla fighting ( not much new is there) . In time French,German and Polish military officers provided formal military training to American troops. However I find most interesting the self taught Colonial milita such as Henry Knox, a Boston book seller who learned the art and science of the cannon and mortar from his military books. he endeared himself to General Washington when he and his brother in the dead of winter crossed the mountains to Lake George, recovered and brought back to Boston the cannon and mortars of Fort Ticonderoga. Knox in the second battle of Trenton,NJ rewrote the book for guys that play with cannons. Remarkable!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for all the links. It is interesting to read about the Naval power of Great Britain. Also, their total readiness to win this war quickly. I think the Americans must have looked like a raggedy bunch of country bumpkins in their eyes. Little did the Britains know, right? It amazes me that the Americans won the American Revolution. At times, I think George Washington must have felt victory was unlikely too. It seems, at times, more soldiers were dropping their guns and heading home than ones coming forth to fight.

I do have a question. I see the mention of "a new flag in honor of the birthday of the new army--" This is on page 69 in the last paragraph. More than once while growing up in Philadelphia my family or the schools visited Betsy Ross's house. During that time teachers taught that Betsy Ross sewed the first flag. Did Betsy Ross really make the first flag? If so, why is her name not mentioned in 1776? Is it because in modern times there is some dispute about who did make the first flag?

The likes of Knox, Greene and Washington himself as commanders of armies amazed me also Potsherd. The first two, both still in their 20’s, had had no previous military experience except maybe reading in books. In Knox’s case there must have also been an immense amount of Engineering skills involved in moving more than100,000 pounds of iron across Lake George and overland about 300 miles on sleighs over winter snow to Boston. McCullough does not tell us the details of how Knox recovered the heavy gun from the shallow water of Lake George after the barge carrying it sunk.

Regarding Washington as Commander of the army, he had been a mere major 20 years before in the French-Indian war, but a civilian planter after that until his sudden appointment to the high command. Can you imagine a WW I Major discharged to civilian life in 1919, being appointed to lead an army in Normandy? Not at all likely!

The flag mentioned on page 69 us not the Betsey Ross flag, rather it was an a new flag of the united 13 colonies. Call it the Union Jack and stripes since it was the British Union Jack in the upper corner with the alternating 13 red and white stripes. The stars and stripes were yet to come.

McCullough’s account in Chapter 2 is somewhat confusing since he is describing the Siege of Boston as it began in 1775. At the end of Chapter 2 he reaches Dec 1775 with the Boston winter and the Rebels eager to go home. At the time Sentiment for independence was growing but it would be another six months later before it became the announced objective of the struggle.

Wasn't the story of Knox moving the Fort Ticonderoga artillery to Boston the most amazing story!!!! Better than fiction!!! Sounds like it did take him and his men awhile to figure out how to use the guns, though, despite the book learning. Some guns blew up and some men were killed in the experimental stage.

Regarding the first flag - I read somewhere (this book???) that the first American flag had the red and white stripes, but the British flag in the upper left hand corner rather than the circle of stars. I read somewhere that John Paul Jones was honored to be the first to raise the new American flag on an American ship.

Here's an article about the American flag:

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/history.shtml

Marni

Marni, thank you for the link.

More interesting info about the American flag:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875838.html

http://www.usacitylink.com/usa/?file=/citylink/usa/history.html

Cowpens was an extremely important battle of the Revolution in 1781, starring Daniel Morgan and his crack shot riflemen and the British villain, Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, the most hated British officer of the Revolution, and his "Tarleton's Raiders" who "gave no quarter." There was a wonderful program about Cowpens on the History Channel this year.

Here's some info:

http://www.nps.gov/cowp/batlcowp.htm

Marni

This is my first real post on this new site. Although I knew much of the material in the first part which we read I had given little thought to the death by illness of so many troops. I began exploring that and although it might seem tangential I will report my findings.

First I wanted to understand the term "Bilious". It is a word generally made use of to express disorders which arise from a copious secretion of bile. Thus bilous colic, bilous fever etc. It is mainly used to describe Yellow Fever or Yellow Jaundice. This is a liver disorder and is highly contagious.

On a personal note I contracted this disease myself in 1953 while living in New Jersey where ther was a huge outbreak. It took three months to recuperate including a two week Hospital stay. I was left with a Liver that does not toleratre oily foods. This experience really gives me a feeling for what the troops suffered.

During the Rev. War smallpox was deadlier than combat.It could lay an army lower than anything in its enemies arsenal. The British knew this and began to purposely infect the Indian tribes as well as parts of the Boston population in an effort to halt the Revolution.There was a possibility of a primitive type of vaccination which Washington tried to enforce. However the few Doctors that volunteered very quickly became ill themselves since few knew how the disease was spread or the importance of sanitation.

Judy ( I have more material on this if anyone is interested)

I found another good timeline - events of the Revolution - on the Cowpens site:

http://www.nps.gov/cowp/Timeline.htm

Judy: I'd like to see that info. Thanks. Washington contracted smallpox on his one and only visit out of the country when he visited the West Indies with his brother when he was, I believe, a teenager. He was extremely concerned about smallpox and his army from the very first. When the British fled Boston and Washington's army took back the town, Washington wanted every man who had never had smallpox to be vaccinated first before they set foot in Boston because of the smallpox epidemic that raged there. This was before the days of using cowpox for vaccine and the smallpox vaccine was very dangerous. Some died from it. I think McCullough wrote about the Adams family getting innoculated in John Adams.

Marni

--- for your first post on the role of health and smallpox. etc. It was quite common in pre 20th century wars for more casualties from disease than from combat. In the McCullough John Adams book I remember Abigail had the children vaccinated against smallpox while John was away in Europe despite the great risk inherent in the primitive vaccine.

I was interested in the smallpox vaccine in the Revolution because I read a novel in which the wife of the British ambassador to Turkey (Lady Mary Wortley Montague) in the early 18th century brought back to England information about a smallpox vaccine invented by the Turks. She spent much time speaking about its benefits and trying to pursuade people to have it done.

If you're interested, here is an interesting article about smallpox and the development of vaccines.

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/vaccinehistory.htm

Marni

Ginny: You might be interested in this!! In the article about smallpox in my link in post #117, it says that the word "vaccination" comes from the Latin for cow. (Jenner's smallpox vaccine was made from fluid from people who had cowpox.)

Here I am checking in and am glad I delayed a bit with all of the extra bits provided ..Since my husbands family on both sides were prominent in America from the early days when we met I learned a lot .. they were part of the Morris line and each generation produced a Robert Morris and my husband was one..of course his last name was Alexander but from all the work by various descendents and a huge family tree I know a lot about some of the other people who became prominent in the Revolutionary war .. And when we went east I visted many of the places mentioned ..and of course I am only about 14 min from the Yorktown battle fields and the spot where Cornwallis surrended to Washington and Williamsburg where so many early Americans lived and served ..gee it is great to be in area where so much of our early history occured So I was caught up in McCullough story from the first word AND I am glad he started with how the English felt and how it was decided to take care of these poor subjects...

I thank everyone for the links which just enhances our discussion and am looking forward to knowing more. While I think there may have been some early Americans who might have thought we should perhaps become a monarchy I think the fact that so many came to America to be DIFFERENT that any one who felt that way would have been rebuffed and when you stop and think about it the idea of Being FREE has such a unique feeling ..

Well I am going to re read what I have read because I did go ahead a bit and I want to think about what every one has said ...and for that I need to re read ..GOOD FOR US though and thanks to DM for doing it again ..taking me with him with his story .. anna

Oh, I'm learning so much from all your posts. JUDY, I never knew yellow fever or yellow jaundice was contagious; isn't jaundice what some babies have when they are born and they must change their blood? And I thought yellow fever was what one caught from mosquitos? Tell me how wrong I am, please!

Some years ago, we took in an Elderhostel trip to historic Yellow Springs, PA - it was shortly after the surrounding neighbors had formed a trust to keep developers out of this area. It was one of the best we have ever been to, but I bring it to your attention because there are still the foundation stones where George Washington had a hospital built for the soldiers - the first military hospital in America. The land was given to him for that purpose and if you click here you can take a tour:

Historic Yellow Springs

I remember reading in one of the other revolution era books of recent vintage that Hessian soldier were hired because 1) the English were short-handed and need to hire extra help 2) Germany made it a practice to keep a large army and hire it out when they didn't need it 3) the English were friendly with the Germans (for obvious reasons of relations) 4) the Hessians were cheaper than some other soldiers for hire 5) they were pretty good fighters and 6) it was thought that the fact that they didn't speak English was a benefit - that way they wouldn't get to know the Americans and possibly be swayed to their cause!

Thank you very, very much for your information about the flag. I must apologize. Yesterday I missed your post. It is easy for my eyes to miss a post. I do go back over and over again to read and reread because each post is packed with information.

I have been thinking and rethinking of George Washington. What must it have been like to become the very first Commander in Chief? The title called for such weighty responsibilities. I think George Washington's quote at the beginning of the book really conveys the emotions he dealt with during the Revolutionary War.

"The reflection upon my situation and that of this army produces many an uneasy hour when all around me are wrapped in sleep.
Few people know the perdicament we are in."--General George Washington January 14, 1776

Thanks HATS and SCAMPER for your posts; those Hessian soldiers are of great interest to us aren't they? Why? Perhaps because we were taught that the war for freedom was fought between Americans and the British and now we learn that there were 34,000 Germans involved; that's quite a number.

In reading the lst chapter did you get the feeling that England was as divided in opinion as to the merits of fighting this war as we are today in fighting a war in the Middle East?

In re-reading the posts of yesterday, I am amused at Harold's statement that we would think that the movie THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE III was a sequel, hahahaa! Wouldn't it be tiresome though for the children of England to learn all the Kings and their titles.

That's a thrilling sentence POTSHERD - "Freedom, a foreign word In the Kings vocabulary, however, a word of major prominence in the Revolutionary war: a word so powerful it defeated the mighty British Empire." Those revolutionary soldiers and those courageous founders of our country would like to be remembered with that thought.

The word "macaroni" on page 17 intrigues me because I've always wondered what exactly it means. WE all know the song of Yankee Doodle Dandy in which it is used - did it come from the British? Does it mean "dandified?"

later, eg

Ginny__ Welcome aboard the World War II aircraft carrier USS Cowpens (CVL-25). The "Mighty Moo" was an Independence Class light fleet aircraft carrier (CVL) which saw duty in the Fast Carrier Task Force in the Pacific from 1943 to 1945. She was awarded twelve Battle Stars and a Navy Unit Commendation for service during World War II.

The Cowpens was named in honor of the Revolutionary War battle of January 17, 1781, fought seven miles north of the town of Cowpens, South Carolina. This battle was a victory in the campaign which led to the surrender of the British at Yorktown, Virginia. Ginny anyone who has studied the Revolutionary war as well as WWII naval ships and engagements knowns the word "Cowpens" well. regards........potsherd PS: I believe the number of battle stars cited for the USS Cowpens is in error. There were 12 battle stars awarded for the Pacific Campaign starting December 7,1941. The Cowpens saw active duty from 1943 to 1945 thus it would have been impossible to be awarded 12 battle stars.

Hey Hats, I made a mistake yesterday too. Remember I assumed the Hessians were from George III's domain in Hannover. Thank you Potsherd for putting me straight on that.

Ella, I suspect it is easier to learn the names of the Kings of England than the Presidents of the U.S, The kings all go by their first name and are conviently numbered. I find I can name them in order back to the end of the War of the Roses with the Henry VII) in the 1480's.

When I first read about the release of “1776” my first thought was that McCullough was using his “John Adams” research and reputation to produce another title for a quick profit. Looking at its content,it seems only to hone in on certain military events with little or no detail relative to major political and other events. For example there are only a few pages telling of the political events leading to the most momentous event of the year, the Declaration Of Independence.

But the thing that makes this story interesting and what I like most about it, is the coverage it gives to the individual participants. Reading it gives me the impression of actually meeting and knowing the individual actors be they British loyalists or American revolutionaries.. be they Generals, junior officer of soldiers from either side, or be they civilians, American fighting for freedom or American Tories loyal to their English roots. All seem to spring from the pages as real people telling the story of their experience. I think this prospective is what makes it interesting and saves it from being just another “cash cow” title hastily written from previous research and reputation.

HAROLD, I feel familiar with the individuals too. I think David McCullough spends a great deal of time telling each person's feelings about the Revolutionary War.

ELLA, From King George on down the line I can feel intense and opposing views about the war. King George is extremely focused. He believes the Americans have gone astray. Only through force, he feels, will these rebellious "children" learn their lesson.

Not all of the King's subjects agreed. For example, Duke of Grafton believed the harsh acts, like the Stamp Act, caused the problems. Without harsh taxation the people in the colonies would quiet down.

David McCullough writes about Duke of Grafton. "--he boldly proposed the repeal of every act concerning America since the incendiary Stamp Act of 1765."

It's almost like reading about war in Iraq and the present administration and the American people. All have a different opinion about one war. Thank goodness, the war we are disagreeing about is not one taking place on American soil.

or for anyone else who can enlighten me.......

On page 18 King G calls North his "sheet anchor." Is that a naval term and what is it? I've never heard it before. On pg 21, DM says the Greenes family interests included a "coasting sloop." To me that means a hill to go sledding on (LOL) but i'm sure there must be another explanation.....

On pg 22 DM says Greene "handsome, though an innoculation for smallpox had left a cloudy spot in his right eye." Does anyone understand that connection?

On pg 42 they mention Mt Vernon's purchases which included "limes by the hundred." I know they were used for fending off scurvy, but why is it always "limes" as opposed to other citrus, are they easier to get, keep, grow? Have more vit c per unit? I remember hearing that that was the reason the Enlish sailors were called "limeys." Can anyone verify that?

Repeating history: JAdams nominating GW as c-i-c and Lincoln choosing Johson as his v.p., also JFK choosing LBJ - all to "bring in the South" - we seem to keep needing the South in percarious times.

I have, since Viet Nam, always been struck by how similar the Rev'nary War and VN are. A little group of soldiers fighting against the greatest military in the world, using guerilla tactics as oppored to traditional military tactics, thousands of miles away from home, many of the professional soldiers did not want to be there. Was Ho Chi Min the GW of VN? Was he as concerned as GW about his chances of success?

And i am always struck by how young the leadership of the colonies was. Knox - 24!!! Do you know any present day 24 yr olds who would take on his task? Alex Hamilton was also early 20's and most of all the others were under 50 - except for good old Ben, of course, whose celebrating his 300th birthday this year.Come to Phila for the celebrating events. Most of today's leadership is over 50, does it make a difference?

I loved DM's pointing out that Knox' ideas could "get to" GW because of the informality of the military, which probably wouldn't happen today and wouldn't have happened in the English army. Sometimes being unsophisticated is beneficial.........jean

A sheet anchor would be an extra ,heavy, anchor used for emergencies.

I had to laugh reading about the "macaroni." I missed that word on my first reading. Charles James Fox wore high-heeled shoes. What made me laugh is that he wore different colored shoes at the same time! Now I would love to know the definition of a "macaroni." Maybe a "macaroni" is just a guy who dresses ahead of his time?? Maybe a macaroni is the one who sets the style for others???

I thought it was very interesting how the Continental Congress was avoiding creating a long-term standing army. There was a real fear of an internal standing army. Congress went a long way avoiding providing enough money for Washington to do the job. And for a long time, every decision he made, it seems, had to be approved by Congress. That could really slow things down. Washington was extremely careful about handling things politically with Congress in mind. I imagine Congress thought of other countries where standing armies eventually took over governments - military coups and all that.

Marni

GINNY, thank you for the links about Sacred Harp Singing and Early American composers. All of this is new and interesting information for me.

I would also like to know more about the fife too. I always picture a small boy leading the men out to battle playing a fife and/or a drum. I don't know where I got the idea about a young boy. That's the picture in my head. Is a fife different from a flute? Are fifes still played in our time? A fife had to make a very loud sound, didn't it?

To answer Mabels question What was a "Coasting sloop" It was George Washingtons Money maker/saver. They where small sailboats ( with oars) that preyed on British merchant ships. The 3,000 mile British supple line was a major negative factor for the "King". I am most familiar with the Jersey coast so will address that specific area. The small coastal sloops where fitted with center board keels rather than a fixed keel which allowed them to as we say " to sail on a wet meadow". They typically had a swivel cannon mounted in the bow of the boat, was fitted out with sails and oars. The Privateer as they were referred to would many time operate in force (many boats attack) overwhelming the merchant ship and crew. It was a lucrative business for the Privateer crews and it was a major problem for the British. Just north of present Atlantic city,NJ is a small hamlet of Port Republic that was burned and destroyed by British. A tall granite obelisk marks the battle of "the den of pirates "as the Brits called Port Republic".

I live in the oldest town in CT - Windsor. It is really into recreating scenes from the Revolution and has its own Windsor Fife and Drum Corps where members dress up in Revolutionary War costumes and march in all the parades. I think many towns in our vicinity do the same thing.

Here's a picture of the fifers and drummers marching:

http://www.windsorfifeanddrumcorps.com/

A fife is a small, high-pitched, transverse flute often accompanied by drums in a military fife and drum corps. A fife is similar to the piccolo, but louder and shriller due to its narrower bore. Fifes were commonly used for signaling on the battlefield in the U.S. Army and elsewhere until about the time of the Civil War because they are quite loud. Fifes were one of the most common musical instruments in America's Colonial period, more so than the violin or piano.

The fife originated in medieval Europe and is often used in military and marching bands. Someone who plays the fife is called a fifer. The word fife comes from the German Pfeife, or pipe, ultimately derived from the Latin word pipare.

Another Latin derivative!!!

Marni

Hi' In answer to Ellas Question re: Yellow Jaundice, babies and Adult varieties. Jaundice is caused by too many red blood cells retiring at once. The yellow is caused by bilurubin, a byproduct of old red cells. When you see yellow in a bruise you see bilurubin. The ordeal of birth causes many red blood cels to retire at once causing an overload on the babies liver and turning their skin and eyes slightly yellow.

The type I had, as did the many American Soldiers is a Viral form also known as Hepatitis A (there are also B, C, D, and E forms). This form of the disease (A) is spread through contaminated food or water which has come in contact with feces from an infected person. Thus the lack of cleanliness in the Revolutionary Camps made this disease prevalent in 1776. There is no cure but rest, huge amounts of fluids and time that will cure it or at least make it less lethal.

MARNI: For info on Smallpox go to Google and then write in "Revolutionary War + Smallpox". Fascinating !

Judy .

Here are pictures of drums and fifes. Click on the "Play fife and drum music" button to listen a fife and drum corps play music of the Revolution. Let the fife play for a minute, then the drums pick up. It goes on for quite awhile and is pretty cool.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/guco/gucomusic.html

Marni

Holy smokes, Judy! The first thing I found when I clicked on that was "Smallpox killed at least 130,000 North Americans during the Revolutionary War."

Yikes.

"macaroni" is a well-traveled dandy in 18th century Britain; an affected, foppish, young man who adpoted the fashions, manners and customs of the other countries he had visited. It's derived from 16th century Italian maccarone - meaning dumpling????? Our American English is so wonderfully full of words from the world's languages. I love it.

Hats: By putting a feather in his hat and calling it MACARONI, Yankee was proclaiming himself a country bumpkin. "Macaroni" was a fancy,overdressed dandy style of Italian clothing widely imitated in England of the time. The English regarded most Americans as exactly that: Upstart country bumpkins.

The music and words go back to 15th century Holland and went "Yanker dudel doodle down"......... A doodle is a dumb person and Yankee was a mispronunciation of the word "English" in the Dutch language.When I looked this up I came upon a verse of the song I had never heard before:

There was Captain Washington

Upon a slapping stallion

A-giving orders to his men

I guess there was a million.

Judy

and other music from the Rev'y period, I tho't you might like to see a lecture i give on that song for my U.S.History 101 course. I'd like to teach a whole course of U.S. History based on music, but i haven't had the time to do enough research yet, so i throw it in when i have the resources.

I don't yet know how to make the links, so I'll just post it here.

The first rich harvest of our American tunes (prior to this time the colonists were singing/playing European songs/hymns/classics/folk music) coincides with the Rev'n. Our first popular tune was Yankee Doodle and it is still one of the most important and popular "folk" songs. There has been a lot of discussion of where the tune came from, or how old it is, or when it was introduced into the colonies. Regardless, it became a rallying cry of the Rev'n. It crystallized a figure that had been slowly emerging in the yrs before the war - the "yankee," symbol of the new America; shrewd, dry of speech, lovable, he was at the same time fiercely independent, bowing his head to no one. (There are also many versions of how the term "yankee" came to use.)

The British first used the term yankee as a term of derision and doodle might have been a corruption of "do little," meaning a simpleton, but whatever its derivation, its use by the enemy was unmistakably derisive. Jms Warner in "Songs that made America" says the lyrics of YD were originally written by anonymous members of British Redcoats after the Boston Tea Party, and were meant to taunt and belittle the shabby, unmilitary appearance of the colonials. They sang it at the top of their voices at every occasion, even standing in front of churches. The Br soldiers under the command of Burgoyne, sang the song as they disembarked in the Boston Harbor. their mission was to put down the upstart Yankee dandies who were rattling sabers and throwing about careless talk of a break from England. When the Br marched out of Boston on on April night in 1775, bound for Lexington to capture John Hancock and Samuel Adams, they kept step to the strains of YD. At Concord the Br were routed with YD as well as Yankee fire, and forever after it was to be an American song.

It became the most popular marching tune of the American armies in 1777 and was played both for Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga and Conwallis at Yorktown. Adopting the Redcoat tune as their victory song, the American soldiers rewrote the lyrics as the sarcastic story of "Cornwallis' Country Dance" which includes the lines "Cornwallis led a country dance, the like was never seen, sir!....his music soon forgets to play, his feet no more can move, sir!...and all his bands now curse the day, they jigged to our shores, sir!"

On Oct 19, 1781, the new Americanized version was played as the final, vengeful touch during the ceremony in which Cornwallis and his officers officially surrendered their swords to the American troops.

YD is one of the best marching tunes ever written, particularly effective on fifes & drums, as in the celebrated picture, The Spirit of '76. Its vitality is amazing, & it is the unique example of a humorous national air. Politicians used the song in many campaigns, including Lincoln, "YD does as well as anybody can, sir, and like the ladies he's for Abe and Union to a man, sir." It's an easy song to make up lyrics for and everybody knows the tune. Dvorak suggests the tune in the finale of his "New World Symphony." The music appears in almost every medley of Am'n tunes and is more characteristic of Am'n people in its comic nonchalance and quiet effrontery than many of the more serious national airs. The "offical" version today is the one established by Sousa in his "National Airs"(1890)

YD was a completely Am'n song by 1776 and it has become more and more "Am'n" thruout its long and acitve life. It is one of the best examples of what we mean by the term "popular music.".

(I love the story of the song almost as much as i love the song. You have to say Americans are - if nothing else - creatively humorous. ............Jean

What a wonderful, diverse group of experts we have in this discussion. We're all going to learn a lot in the next month!

Potsherd - thanks for the naval expertise. I know practically nothing about that area.

All the links have been great!

Ginny - my husbands' cousin was married to a man from "96" and we always wondered how a town got that name AND here it is in the Rev'n!We had no idea it was that old.

Can you imagine being a cmdr and never knowing how many soldiers you will have for a battle? That continues to happen to GW all thru the war. How did we win this thing? (that's a rhetorical question, i'm sure we'll get to the answer before the discussion is over).....jean

WE MUST HAVE THE MUSIC NOW - and the words are below, keep scrolling down the page.

Yankee Doodle Dandy

This is SO FUN!!! Thanks, Jean, Judy and Ella!!

Did you see all of the songs you can listen to by clicking on the bottom of Ella's Yankee Doodle Dandy page?

Tuesday Afternoon is my day of volunteer work at the S.A. Missions National Historical Park so I’ve been out of touch since noon. But no difference as I see you have been doing fine with out me, having fun talking about the book and 18th century military music.

Thank you jean for mentioning the use of the Sheet anchor term and Potsherd for providing an answer. I’m impressed with the King’s nimble use of the phrase to describe his minister, Lord North on who he relied.. The King seems to have been quite capable of verbal expression.

Regarding Jean’s mention of Green's Eye cloudy spot, it appears to be saying that some reaction to the vaccine caused the Eye condition. And limes of course had vitamin C that fends off scurvy. I don’t know why limes were used over other citrus fruits, but I suspect economics and availability had something to do with it.

Hats, there were a substantial group of liberal politicians and intellectuals in England who were sympathetic and even supportive of Home rule for the colonies. Ben Franklin had proposed a home rule plan at a Conference in Albany in 1755 that was essentially the plan approved by the Parliament in the 1830’s granting home rule in Canada. Franklin spent many years in London in the 1760’s and until 1775 representing the Colonies and lobbying for such a plan. He was certainly not with out support, but in the end the effort failed and Franklin returned to America to become and advocate of Independence. I guess his plan came some 60 years before its time.

Wow, what fun.

The only time I'd heard a fife and drum unit was -- at the White House.

I managed to wangle a ticket to be part of the audience on the South Lawn when President Clinton greeted Nelson Mandela for the first time as a head of state. Part of the ceremony was a fife and drum corps that marched out and played (including Yankee Doodle, as I remember). It was very nice, except for one detail: they were dressed in Revolutionary War uniforms, including skin-tight white tights. Not everyone can wear skin-tight white tights gracefully, and I'm afraid they were not among that group. But hey, I'm not either.

I wonder what Mr. Mandela made of this? I assume they do it for every head of state. They also gave a seventeen gun salute. (I always wondered if the guns fire together or separately. They go together).

JoanK, I would love to meet Nelson Mandela personally. What a wonderful experience. He is one more person who knows the price of freedom. I remember the day Mr. Mandela was released from prison. I watched on tv. My husband and I just felt so much joy and happiness for Nelson Mandela and Africa.

I had the chance to visit the White House. I treasure that experience. I would love to go again. Unfortunately, I never had the chance to take my children. I also would love to visit the White House at Christmas time.

HAROLD, thank you for the information about Ben Franklin and home rule. I always think of Ben Franklin as a man with a magnificent mind, a thinker far ahead of his time.

ELLA, thank you for the link. Now I am in a patriotic spirit. Discussions like this, I think, make our blood run hot or cold. My blood is running hot with a patriotic spirit.

Marni, that fife is a beautiful sounding instrument. I love it without the drums. Then, when the drums chimed in my feet started tingling and one wiggled a bit. I love the fife. This is my first time hearing one. If asked, I would have picked the Harpischord or the piano as the most common instruments during the Colonial years. I would never have said the fife.

Mabel and Judy, thank you for all the information about Macaroni. Isn't that interesting about the Italian derivation? I never will call a person a doodle, simpleton.

Judy, I didn't know all of that about Yellow Jaundice either. I am in a hurry to read the Smallpox link.

This discussion is as YUMMY as eating a piece of chocolate. HAROLD and ELLA thank you.

I might note two very different methods of selecting officers between the American and British forces. In the British system the lower rank officer commissions went to the aristocratic or landed gentry class. Higher rank went by purchase a method on the surface a method designed for disaster. Yet in practice there must have been some controlling factor that kept the gross incompetent generals in the background since as a matter fact some of their high command officers were quite good (Wellington and Nelson for example).

In the American army lower rank officers were often elected by the troops. Again this is certainly not the best method to choose officer material. High command seems to have went to the man who happened to be at the right place at the right time with military experience not a prime prerequisite (Washington, Greene. and Knox). Perhaps they were all that was available, and in any case America was lucky and they won.

Incidentally the British system of purchasing high command rank positions continued until the disaster of the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade. I remember reading an interesting 1950's book by Cecil Woodham-Smith entitled “The Reason Why” that detailed the reforms that resulted, Click Here.

1 The State of the Americah Army sieging Boston- Supplies, living conditions, Health, Dicipline etc., Pages 28 -33.

2.Indians and Blacks serving in the Army. Washingtonn's position. Pages 36 -37.

3. Washingtons Headquarter. His way of conducting Business, The role of his secretary, Joseph Reed (Did Reed stay through the Winter?). Notable visitors including Benjamin Rush etc, Pages 41 -44.

4.Washington's style of Military Plannig. His "Councils of War" Was the Plan to attack Canada while the Siege of Boston was pending, a wise one? Pages 50 - xx

5 Why did the Americans Fight (according to Greene)? Page 54

Hey, Harold, I emailed you, do answer!

Good questions, but first I want to go to Boston! Anyone want to travel back in time? Have you been there? I was there years and years ago and walked the Freedom Trail: Freedom Trail I was so impressed and I saw my very first helicopter land in Boston Commons - true!!!!! Am I telling my age!!!!

Let's set the scene for the Battle of Boston, of which DM begins his tale and which took place in June, 1776. Nathaniel Greene, whom we all admire, is the commander of the Army which is camped on Prospect Hill.

Just a few words about Greene before we start the battle - this young man who "laments the want of a liberal education." And yet he has read Caesar and Horace, Swift, Pope, Locke, Euclid - would you want to be discussing any of those here online? I would be frightened at the prospect of a conversation with him, although if we could stay off those weighty subjects I would have loved a "merry jest or tale" or a comic imitation of characters and he liked to dance!!!

What a guy!

"The first of all qualities of a general is courage. Without this the others are of little value, since they cannot be used. The second is intelligence, which must be strong and fertile in expedients. The third is health."

Well, how and where does one obtain all those qualities? How does one psyche(sp?) oneself up for battle? Does it just come when you are faced with an enemy who is going to kill you if you don't kill him first? I don't know.

Perhaps this site will give us a better understanding of the battle: Battle of Boston - particularly the following two paragraphs:

"The, British, taught by the experience of this day to respect their rustic adversaries, contented themselves with taking post at Bunker's Hill, which they fortified. The Americans, with the enthusiasm of men determined to be free, did the same upon Prospect Hill, a mile in front. It was here that General Putnam regaled the precious remains of his army, after their fatigues, with several hogsheads of beer. Owing to some unaccountable error, the working parties, who had been incessantly labouring the whole of the preceding night, were neither relieved nor supplied with refreshment, but left to engage under all these disadvantages.

This battle was generally admitted, by experienced officers of the British army who witnessed it, and had served at Minden, Dettingen, and throughout the campaigns in Germany, to have been unparalleled for the time it lasted and the numbers engaged. There was a continued sheet of fire from the breastwork for nearly half an hour, and the action was hot for about double that period. In this short space of time, the loss of the British, accortfing to General Gage, amounted to one thousand and fifty-four, of whom two hundred and twenty-six were killed; of these nineteen were commissioned officers, including a lieutenant-colonel, two majors, and seven captains; seventy other officers were wounded."

The map shows Bunker Hill in the backgroun - put your mouse on the hill to the right, and to the front of the hill is Prospect Hill.

Oh, I must go for now - later, eg

We must get to Harold's questions - someone start us off.

Beautiful Ginny! Thank you so much for that, we are posting together and I'm in a hurry, but reading your words this struck me:

Even when we feel that we have discovered a place where peace and gentle joy reign, we must remember that it will end, and that all will vanish."

So sad, so true! Gotta go!

Ella, Thank you so much for the site on The Battle of Boston. Actually on the side of that was a list of articles and I was curious about the one titled "The opening of the Revolution". This gives a history of deprivations before the war began. I was shocked to read that England did much offf its distressing restrictions because of Spanish influence. Re; England's decisions:

"The unsure policy of oppressing her own subjects to oblige foreigners were complained by the people of England as well as by Americans."

"Ministers (in England) were equally chagrined and astonished to find that a great portion of the British nation espoused the cause of America."

I know this has nothing to do with Harolds questions but you all are giving me so much to think about and investigate further that I must discipline myself to look with serious contemplation at his questions. I will though.

Judy

ELLA, thank you for the link to the Freedom Trail. It is very good to see Crispus Attucks remembered with the other Patriots. These words are from the link.

"Five men were killed in this clash of Patriots and Redcoats on March 5, 1770, including Crispus Attucks, the first African-American to die in the Revolution."

HAROLD, I hope the above words from Ella's link can answer a little bit of question two, although the information is not from those pages.

GINNY, thank you for your link with the Arcadian painting and the information. The information is all new for me. The painting is beautiful. Reading the article helped me understand the meaning of the word "Arcadia." After reading the article I understood why ELLA wrote the quote.

These words are from the article.

" From Poussin's painting, Arcadia now takes on the tinges of a melancholic contemplation about death itself, about the fact that our happiness in this world is very transitory and evanescent. Even when we feel that we have discovered a place where peace and gentle joy reign, we must remember that it will end, and that all will vanish."

I might have quoted the same words as ELLA. Duuuh.

Re: "Was the Plan to attack Canada while the Siege of Boston was pending, a wise one?"

No, the Americans did not have enough men to serve in the army as it was, forget about sending a portion of the army off to make war on Canada. The attack on Canada was a complete and total disaster. But, it wasn't the only time it happened. Some Americans really desired Canada. They wanted to conquer it so that it expanded the American territory. Americans did it again in the War of 1812.

Hats: I can just picture your foot tapping away to the military music!! That was so cute!

Marnie - where in the book does DM discuss attacking Canada, I missed that, but that would have made a nice addition to America - hahahahaaaa!

Black powder - does anyone know of a place on the Delaware River (I think) where 2-3 Frenchmen made black powder - was it the Duponts? Years ago, over East, we toured a historical site where it was made and they have kept all the original buildings, it was neat! They were so careful about sparks setting off explosions - they had several at the site - and even the horses they used had mittens on their shoes. I'll look that up.

Were you surprised that in Puritan America the British were "appalled to find prostitution so in evidence" and the drinking that went on? "for without New England rum, a New England army could not be kept together" - hmmmm

And wine and brandy sling and even something called "flip."

For all its filth, open latrines, camp fever, etc.. DM tells us the army was well fed and the troops were in good spirits although they didn't understand the necessity of order or obedience. "They simply had had little experience with other people telling them what to do every hour of the day."

What is the old saying - an army travels on its stomach?

No doubt what GW did to restore order and obedience has been studied through the years - what a job it must have been.

Where is everyone this morning?

Here is a site about the Duponts and black powder, but it came after the Revolution - Black powder

It was an impressive place to visit. Here is a paragraph from that site:

"Pierre’s son, Eleuthere Irenee Dupont, had studied powdermaking as a young man in France, and was impressed at the lack of quality domestic powder in the young American nation. Urged on by Thomas Jefferson, whom the family knew from Jefferson’s tenure as ambassador to France, and who understood the importance of domestic powder production to the country’s independence from both the British and the French, Eleuthere Irenee established the E.I. du Pont de Namours Company in 1802, and began construction of the powderworks on the Brandywine Creek."

MARNI - I see that Harold has clearly and conveniently given us the page numbers for his questions so I shall do more reading in the book later today. The thought is tantalizing though! Is Jonathan around? He would have something to say about this, I'm sure.

Ella, I would suspect you visited the DuPont powder mills on the Brandywine river in present Wilmington Delaware. The gun powder buildings are constructed of three stone walls (rear and both sides)The roof and front of the building was wood construction. Reason for this strange design was when an accidental explosion occurred the blast force, "took the easy way out" with the blast forces destroying the wood structures rather than the stone walls. The on site Hagley Museum is renown for their research library and in particular early American industries.

Discussion,

Eyes have been playing up since late December. Two Laser Surgeries have not corrected problem. So damn many things wrong with them Now they continue to drain all of the time making it difficult to read anything. Also have Calcium deposits coming back to complicate the Cataracts. So, I will be with you in spirit but cannot do the reading, yet.

I am writing this thorugh a veil of drainage.

Tiger Tom

Re gunpowder - The Americans were terribly short of gunpowder, as we've seen in 1776. I've read that gunpowder was one of the very important contributions of the French in our Revolution, once they got involved in the war. But, I also read somewhere that gunpowder was manufactured in colonial....Pennsylvania?? somewhere...but the manufacturers guarded the process closely so they cornered the market?

I remember reading about Paul Revere and gunpowder. Revere was quite a handyman. It seems he could look at something being built or manufactured and remember all of the steps and then do it himself. He was sent to this gunpowder plant where he watched the manufacturing process, memorized the steps and ingredients, and then came back to Massachusetts and was able to make gunpowder for the war effort and explain the process to the army.

I'm going to have to try to find something about this on the web.

Marni

Here's an interesting article about Paul Revere and stuff he was involved in, including manufacturing gunpowder:

http://www.copper.org/innovations/1998/03/revere.html

I have not yet been able to find where he found the process.

Marni

Copper was one of the most important items that Paul Revere produced - such as copper sheathing for ship bottoms to prevent the growth of barnacles.

This year I visited Old Newgate Prison in Granby, CT, one of many national historic sites in CT. What an interesting history of the prison. Originally, it was a copper mine which produced copper ore for the colonies. I had been wondering if it had been one of the sources of copper for Paul Revere's works.

Apparently, it went out of business as a copper mine because King George demanded that all of its copper ore be exported directly to England where English plants would handle the smelting, etc. They didn't want the colonies to do it.

So, the mine was turned into a prison - I think it was the first state penal institution. During the American Revolution, Newgate Prison was used to imprison captured British soldiers and loyalists. I read on the internet that this was the prison where Ben Franklin's son, William, was interred for years after being arrested. (Turns out this was wrong; it was another prison in Litchfield, CT. William Franklin had been the Royal Governer of New Jersey and the rebels put him in prison for years. His dad never helped him out, either.)

I toured Old Newgate Prison and it was absolutely horrifying. It was literally a mine underground - rock tunnels dripping with moisture, dark and damp. What a horrible experience that must have been for prisoners there.

DM just momentarily touches upon prisons in our book and doesn't get further into them, but they are one of most interesting things about the Revolution.

Marni

I found the story about how Paul Revere discovered how to make gunpowder. It was in Philadelphia:

"...A committee of the Provincial congress, which had been appointed to inquire into the condition of manufactures in Massachusetts, reporting, December 8, 1774, “that gunpowder is also an article of such importance, that every man among us who loves his country, must wish the establishment of manufactories for that purpose; and as there are the ruins of several powder mills, and sundry persons among us who are acquainted with that business, we do heartily recommend its encouragement by repairing on or more of said mills, or erecting others, and renewing said business as soon as possible.”

Bust the “sundry persons” acquainted with the gunpowder business do not appear to have responded very generously to this suggestion that their services would be in demand, and the Provincial congress accordingly was moved to commission a capable man to go to Philadelphia, where the only powder mill known to be in actual operation was located. For this mission Paul Revere was selected.

Revere made the journey to Philadelphia in ten days. He, no doubt, called at once on John Hancock, who was in attendance on the Continental Congress, and communicated his mission, obtaining a letter of introduction from Robert Morris to the proprietor of the powder mill, a Mr. Oswell Eve:

[PhiladA Novr 21st 1775]

“Mr. OSWELL EVE

“SIR

“I am requested by some honorable Members of the Congress to recommend the bearer hereof Mr. Paul Revere to you. He is just arrived from New England where it is discovered they can manufacture a good deal of Salt Petre in consequence of which they desire to erect a Powder Mill & Mr. Revere has been pitched upon to gain instruction & knowledge in this branch. A Powder Mill, in New England cannot in the least degree affect your manufacture nor be of any disadvantage to you, therefore these Gentlm and Myself hope you will cheerfully & from Public Spirited motives give Mr. Revere such information as will enable him to construct the business on his return home. I shall be glad of any opportunity to approve myself.”

“Sir

“Your very obed Servt

“Robert Morris”

“P.S. Mr. Revere will desire to see the Construction of your mill & hope you will gratify him on that point.”

The note was endorsed by John Dickinson, but its appeal, as it proved, was not made to a man of generous heart and instincts; for Mr. Oswell Eve was a fair type of the thrifty patriot who is to be found in every great crisis when the country’s welfare, or even its life, is at stake, and who does not scruple to coin her distress into personal gain.

In this case neither the character of Revere’s mission upon which he had traveled hundreds of miles at the instance of the Massachusetts miles at the instance of the Massachusetts Congress, nor the pleas of Morris and Dickinson, could induce Eve to part with The secrets of gunpowder-making. He had, he thought, a monopoly of what in modern commercial terminology would have been regarded as “a good thing,” and he proposed to keep it so that the war managers would be obliged to pay him his own price.

So he flatly refused to give Revere the desired facilities for acquiring information relative to the manufacture of powder. Fortunately, however, he softened to the extent of condescending to permit his visitor to pas through his establishment, not reckoning upon retributive justice defeating the ends of private greed.

For Revere was no ordinary sight-seer. If not allowed to ask questions and receive informing answers he kept his eyes wide open, and filed a mental note-book with the results of his observations. This he was able to do intelligently, for he had a good practical knowledge of chemistry, gained from reading and experience, as well as a familiarity with mechanics. So, when he reached home, he was ready to put his skill at even the dangerous business of powder-making to the test."

http://earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/chapt4/

Marni

Why did the Americans fight according to Greene?

To summarize his reasons:1) "to defend our common rights." 2)" to repel the hated invaders". 3)"neither glory nor extent of territory, but a defense of all that is dear and valuable in life".

However the same article which I quoted previously "The Opening of the Revolutionary War" claims the following:

"Great Britain had given cause of complaint to her colonies by restricting each province to the use of its own manufactures, and preventing the reciprocal importation of their respectrive fabrics -thus completely discouraging all manufactures. To prevent a whole people from following any branch of Industry, is a measure which human nature cannot bear with tame submission."

"...the orders of Parliament (1755) , restricting the American trade with the West Indies, which had hitherto been a source of large revenue. The prohibition of so profitable a commerce shook the vitals of American prosperity......"

Like all Wars there is an economic component which can easily be overlooked when the more easily acceptable ideas of pariotism, freedom and liberty are thrown into the arena. My most excellent H.S. teacher made us learn what "Taxation without Representation" really meant and the lesson remains till today .

Judy

MARNI: fascinating!

I note the first link talks about Paul Revere's famous ride without mentioning that he never got there. He was captured, and someone else spread the warning.

Did you notice Revere's bulging forehead in the picture? That was generally held in those days to be a mark of genius. Whether from his forehead or some other cause, Revere possibly was a mechanical genius. (One of my grandsons has that forehead. We'll see!)

JoanK: That bulging forehead thing reminds me of how people used to think every bump on the head meant something. Wasn't there a science of this? I don't remember the country or the name of the science, though.

Judy: I think the story of the Newgate Copper Mine is a good example of this very thing about economics in the colonies and reasons for going to war - Connecticut wasn't allowed to smelt the copper ore and make copper items from the ore. They had to export the copper ore to England where it was smelted and made into copper items. Then the colonies had to import any copper items needed. It probably cost them much more to import than to pay for things made right in the colonies.

Marni

MARNI, thank you for all the very interesting information.

RE:2.Indians and Blacks serving in the Army. Washingtonn's position. Pages 36 -37.

It seems many Native Americans and Blacks served in the Massachusetts Regiments. General John Thomas the commander of the Roxbury troops wrote about the beneficial services of these men.

"...Many of them have proved themselves very brave."

George Washington, a southerner, at first did not want Black men to serve in the Revolutionary army. However, when he needed men desperately to fill the ranks, he changed his mind. Free Blacks immediately volunteered their services. George Washington's new order allowed all men to contribute their services.

Hats: I thought that was interesting, too, about the native Americans and blacks in the Revolution.

I found out something interesting recently from my dad. He went to Hamilton College in upstate New York his first year of college. I read about the school in Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, an immigrant from the island of Nevis in the West Indies, believed strongly in freeing the slaves and in educating native Americans to make them a viable part of American society.

Hamilton College was founded in 1793, 10 years after the war ended, by Samuel Kirkland, a missionary to the Oneida Indians, to educate native Americans. Alexander Hamilton sponsored Hamilton College, which was originally named the Hamilton-Oneida Academy, and he was a member of the school's first Board of Trustees. The school was chartered in 1812 as Hamilton College. It's the third oldest college established in New York State.

I think Alexander Hamilton was interesting in helping to educate the poor and downtrodden because he had been poor as a youth, the illegitimate son of a man who had left Hamilton's mother, dependent on the help of others. Recognizing Hamilton's brilliance, some families on Nevis chipped in and raised money to send Hamilton to King's College (now Columbia) in New York, which he attended until the Revolution disrupted his studies and he joined the army. The rest is history!

Marni

MARNI,

It is so interesting how little I know about these Founding Fathers. What you have written about Alexander Hamilton makes me very interested in reading his biography. I am glad you have given the author too. I like what you share about your father too.

I Just returned from my local auto mechanic who diagnosed and repaired an elusive engine problem. Total Cost was $300 but an annoying tendency for the engine to studder on acceleration now appears to be cured..

Ella Washington’s two part plan was outlined on Page 50. It involved capture of Boston and the invasion of Canada. Some of the initial unfortunate results of the Canadian operation are mentioned on following pages. One, General Benedict Arnold led the American offensive into Canada (no relation, He was English, My Arnold is German). The probe was met with effective resistance and many American causalities. We will discuss more about the American operations aimed at Canada in next week’s reading including an order to Washington from Congress to send regiments from the pending New York defense to aid the Canadian probe.

That is interesting language that you used ,in post #158; “ that would have made a nice addition to America – hahahahaaaa!" How wonderfully those words describe the American motive. Also how wonderfully similar words would describe one, A.Hitler’s interest in 1940’s Russian real estate.

Judy, I think you are right as your research indicates the reasons why Americans fought . They went far beyond the limited summary attributed to Greene in our book. Thank you for the specific economic grievances mentioned in your Post #166. Come to think of it the Declaration of Independence contains an even longer list of specific grievances.

Marni; Another Comment on black Powder is that during the mid 19th century and Civil War years it was manufactured at a site near San Antonio at the New Braurnfeles, Comal Springs. The manufacture process apparently is quite simple but it required large quantities of Bat guano for nitrogen and perhaps water, both of which were available there.

Black Powder seems to have been in short supply throughout the siege of Boston. I’m not sure McCullough ever really explained where the supply came from that permitted heavy use of the cannons.

Marni, Was there a Newgate Prison in England? I remember somewhere in Audubon’s “1826 Journal” he describes a visit to a prison that I remember was so named. It was either in Liverpool of Manchester. It is not mentioned in the index and I don’t have time to manually scan for it page by page. Audubon was quite impressed with the design of this Prison that minimized the possibility of escape and maximized the efficiency of its operation

Hats; thank you Hats for your comments on Black soldiers serving in the Revolution. As you say Washington being from the South was at first not inclined to accept them and had issued an order to that effect. Later, according to McCullough. he rescinded the prohibitory order with a new order permitting their enlistment. Looking ahead to next week we will read more concerning Washington’s changing attitude toward Black Americans.

Incidentally Washington does not seem initially to have been real enthusiastic about the ability of New England troops either, and attitude that seemed to change as the siege of Boston resulted in victory.

--- I am distressed to hear of your continuing eye problem that keeps you from reading. Please feel free to have someone read the posts for you and to post any general comments that you might care to make even if your can not read the book

Ginny: That's it! Phrenology! What an interesting article. I remember the Nazi's were really interested in this.

A decade or so ago i read a great biography of the Duponts of Deleware. Just now when i went to Amazon to see if i could find the author, the first listing was "the duponts; a SATANIC dynasty" aluding to the freemasons, of course. There is such a fasination w/ the freemasons, it keeps popping up time after time; were they just a men's organization? ( many of hte founding fathers were members, including GW and Franklin) or were/are they a conspiratorial group who are controlling the country covertly?

Alexander Hamilton is one of the most fascinating founders IMO. At age 12 in Nevis, he was given the responsibility of running an export/import warehouse by the owner while the owner went to Europe! Yep! That is not a typo - age 12!!! He was sent to the colonies at age 16 by a group of Presbyterian ministers to go to college. He wanted to go to Princeton, but he wanted to start as a junior, since he felt he knew the basics, but Princeton refused to allow him to do that, so he went to Columbia as a junior. (I believe I am remembering the college names correctly.) Then he became "a son" to WAshington as his aide-de-camp at about 19 yrs of age.

DM gives a list of the lives/occupations of the soldiers indicative of their being a hard working lot, but it interested me in that each group's title could be the surname of families today:"shoemakers, saddlers, carpenters, wheel(wrights), black(smiths), coopers, tailors(taylors), ship(chandlers.) There could be so many more: painter, carter, wheeler, mason, sailor, cook, weaver, all the German"machers" ex. Fenstermacher which is window maker, gardener", etc. etc. I'm sure you can all come up w/ many more.........jean

Benedict Arnold, Henry Knox, General Cornwallis, John Hancock, Lafayette, General Israel Putnam, Paul Revere, and John Paul Jones were freemasons. From what I've read about the Masons at that time, it seemed to be a men's club that people joined in order to make contacts. If you were a member of the Masons, an international organization, you could go anywhere, find a Mason, and have a place to stay and be introduced to society.

Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code draws heavily on Masonic lore and symbolism. He wrote that the pyramid and the "all-seeing eye" were masonic symbols. Look at a picture of our American dollar bill and find the pyramid and the all-seeing eye:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/All_Seeing_Eye.htm

Here's info about Freemasonry from Wikipedia:

"Freemasonry is a worldwide fraternal organisation. Its members are reportedly joined together by shared ideals of both a moral and metaphysical nature, and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being. Freemasonry is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public, but it is not an occult system, and in recent years, it has become less and less a "secret society" than a "society with secrets".....

A Lodge is the basic organisation of Freemasonry. Every new Lodge must be warranted by a Grand Lodge, but is subject to its direction only in enforcing the published Constitutions. A candidate for freemasonry must apply to a Lodge and be elected by its subscribing members after due enquiry; a single black ball (adverse vote) will often suffice to exclude a candidate. Once initiated, a freemason must take further degrees in his "Mother Lodge" before he is certified as a full Master Mason. At least in theory, a Master Mason is generally entitled to visit any Lodge, provided that he hails from a jurisdiction that is "in amity" with that of the host Lodge.

Freemasonry has been said to be an institutional outgrowth of the medieval guilds of stonemasons, a direct descendant of the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem" (the Knights Templar), an offshoot of the ancient Mystery schools, an administrative arm of the Priory of Sion, the Roman Collegia, the Comacine masters, intellectual descendants of Noah, and many other various and sundry origins. Others claim that it dates back only to the late 17th century in England, and has no real connections at all to earlier organizations.....

The origins of Freemasonry are unknown. The Masonic ritual claims that the fraternity was founded by the workmen who built King Solomon’s Temple but there is no documentary basis for this claim, and Freemasons themselves will admit that this ritualistic foundation myth is allegorical rather than factual....the first appearance of the word 'Freemason' occurs in the Statutes of the Realm enacted in 1495 by Henry VII...

Because of the sometimes secret nature of its rituals and activities, Freemasonry has long been suspected by both church and state of engaging in subversive activities. Due to the appearance of secrecy, and the possibility it might be implicated in rebellion, Freemasonry inserted words into its ritual that say to the newly initiated Freemason (similar to), '... you are to be a quiet and peaceable citizen, true to your government, and just to your country; you are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority, and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live.' In similar manner, a promise made by a Mason before being made Master of his lodge is to, '... pay a proper respect to the civil magistrates....'

Nowadays, the main theme of anti-Masonic criticism involves the idea that Masons involve their organisation in covert political activities. This assumption has been influenced by the assertion of Masons that many political figures in the past 300 years have been Masons. Opinions vary concerning this: some say the Masons constantly plot to increase their power and wealth, while others say the Masonic Brotherhood is engaged in a plot to produce a new world order of a type different (and usually more sinister) than the existing world order...."

More Widipedia's info about masons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

Here's a list of people who were Masons. Scroll down and you'll a section of people in the American Revolution who were Masons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons

Here's info about Masonry and the American Revolution:

http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_mabook_revolution.html

Marni

Having the list of Masons from the Amer Rev'n starting out w/ Andre and ARnold doesn't bode well for the Masons, does it?

Thomas Paine lived in Bordentown, NJ, near Trenton,NJ about 1/2 hour from here. They have T P tours 2 Saturdays a month. I live right in the middle of this book. Moorestown, NJ is a 1/2 hour from PHila and 45 minutes from Trenton and Washington's Crossing, and the soldiers of both sides marched thru, and camped in, Moorestown. For those of you who were in the JJ Audubon discussion, Ed Harris' house was one of the houses that was used for officer hdqts by both sides.....jean

Jean: You're so lucky to live there in the middle of history! I can't wait to visit some of those sites.

Thomas Paine was an interesting character. I want to find out more about him. I read that his Common Sense was one of the most popular writings that was ever published - translated into a number of languages in his time. It made a lot of money for him and, I read, he donated his earnings from it to buy socks (or was it mittens?) for the soldiers in the American Revolution.

My computer has been acting up and I have had a terrible time with it ..I guess I need to more computer literate ..so many things to consider ,so many links ..I can see everyone is enthusiastic about this book and learning more about the Revolionary war .. Yellow Jaundice I had when I was about 6-7 but what it turned out I really had was malaria and the jaundice was associated with that. I never really knew what it was so I am now informed..one think I recall no one seemed particularly concerned and I have no idea why my mother took me to the doctor who diagnosed malaria ...

Freemasonary ,,my oldest brother was one and also my husband ( who really only becamse one and was never really active because his grandfather had been one ) I do know there is a lot of secrecy in the organization but wonder if part of that wasnt due to the times when it became organized here in early America ..they did and do help each other and that helped members in business etc, And they do help each other if needed > My older brother went with me to take care of some business years ago ..the person I was dealing with was being a bit difficult My brother laid his hand on the counter so his Masonic ring was visible and immediately the person I was talking to helped me resolve whatever it was ..I even commented on it afterwards and my brother told me that the man was a Mason and as soon as he showed his membership with the ring I recieved the help I needed..In some ways I sort of resent that ..shouldnt every one try to be as helpful as possible to everyone regardless of what organization you belong to???

But the fact that is was secret might have been because they really didnt want Tories as members. All of my husbands ancestors were Masons and it has different levels and from the portraits etc I recall they were in the higher levels of the organization Whatever that means. I do know that young people are not joining as they did years ago and so I have a feeling in some ways it is not the same as in the beginning ...

Back To David McCullough .. we all seem to agree he has written just the kind of book we can learn a lot from and he has a way as someone said bringing History ALIVE ..I know for the first time I feel I really do understand and KNOW the men who fought and were the leaders of that time..Even with all of my previous interest in this time frame I am seeing it as ALIVE and real ...back to my book and if there is a COMPUTER entity I need to know how to placate it so my computer behaves...anna

Why did the Howe brothers when retreating from Boston go north rather then directly to New York? I believe there are a number of reasons as follows:

1.General Howe recognized he could not leave the large number of the Kings loyal subjects in Boston. The number of families evacuated probably taxed the capacity of many ships. Also with the upcoming battles of New York: Howe may also had concerns for the Loyalists safety if allowed to remain shipboard. 2.The British troops had suffered from poor food and living conditions and needed an opportunity to recover their physical health and repair equipment 3. The evacuated families would be settled into the Halifax area where they would be more protected than Boston.

That was a novel i found in our library several years ago that was a fun read about Boston, BFranklin, and the "two Georges" - Washington and the III, of course. I remembered now because there was a theme of the Freemasons running thru it.

I'm going to be away for a week, I hope i can get on a computer and at least read your postings, but i don't know if i'll be able to post, but I'll be lurking........jean

.Marni Phrenology involves the study of the shape and protuberances of the skull that were thought to reveal the character and mental capacity of individuals. The theory is now discredited. I seem to remember Audubon discussing the theory with an Edinburgh practitioner in the 1826 Journal, but again it is not in the index and all I can find now is a casual one sentence reference to the theory on page 278 that is not the Incident I was thinking of.

Regarding Free Masons It was and is a secret fraternal organization that has been and still is popular world wide. I think my father was a member though he was not active and never spoke of it. I know several of my late friends were members a fact I discovered when they died and the Funeral service involved a Mason led ritual. Masonic connections also appear connecting many prominent historical Americans and Europeans to the organization.



A google search yields many hits. Click Here for one.

Click Here for a better, more connected to our subject, site entitled “Free Masonry.” and the American Revolution”. In summary it notes that most of the stellar Revolutionary names such as Washington, Jefferson and Adams were not masons. Of the 56 signers of the D of I only eight or nine were Masons

One notable exception was Benjamin Franklin who apparently was not an ardent member since he is quoted as answering a Family member's question about possible membership with something like, “one fool in the family is enough.” Another Mason was Lafayette who apparently joined in France possible after the Revolution was over

To enter the “1776” discussion from a strange computer open the Web browser and do the following:

(1) Click File/open (2) Enter http://www.seniornet.org (3) Click Books and L:iterature from the menu near the top of the page. (4) Click Books from the menu near the center of the screen. This will be our books menu so scroll down the “!776” and Click. To read and post

Remember to take your seniorsnet name and password.

I had thought, until I read in Wikipedia, that Alexander Hamilton was a Mason. Apparently not. But, I had been wondering about it. I visited his grave in April and his gravestone has a pyramid on top of it. I don't know if this was common. It just struck me. The pyramid is a Masonic symbol, as on the dollar bill. (Maybe too many thoughts of The Da Vinci Code!)

Here's a photo of Hamilton's gravestone at old Trinity Church in NYC. What do you think?



Marni
(resized)

AS someone said, this is a whale of a lot of fun and we're learning, too!! What else can you ask of a discussion on Seniornet. Thanks everybody for all your posts, what a treat to come in and find so much to read.

I don't know where to start tonight; there is so much to absorb in this book that we could take 2 months to talk about every character from Benedict Arnold, Major General Charles Lee, Colonel Henry Knox and numerous others but what strikes me in these first two chapters and, of course, you too is George Washington - he is the man of whom David McCullough is writing about - do you feel that way?

On and on he describes the qualities of George W., both positive and negative, but the positive images far outweigh any other. I've learned just enough that I must read a biography of the man; for example, I never knew he had a brother named John did you? (p.51) Did he have any sisters? Am I the only one that notices all the many references to George and who feels as I do?

And, Harold, there is our old friend, John Adams, warning about the prejudices that could ensue from those "to higher notions of themselves and the distinction between them and the common people than we are." And GeorgeW "struggled with his own mounting contempt for New Englanders."

Fortunately it all worked somehow!

But here I must say something about my own firsthand experience with the accommodations that GeorgeW had in comparison with his soldiers. We toured Valley Forge one year and heard of the hardships endured there and then over a hill we saw this yellow (if I am remembering correctly) little house where we were told (by audio) that GeorgeW lived during that dreadful winter, with his wife, his cook, his valet and his servants. Well! I know, I know commanders of the army are entitled to the best quarters, etc., and thereby command respect from the troops but such a contrast!!!!

I think this has been mentioned in a post but I think it fascinating that GeorgeW did not have independence on his mind when he took command; "exery exertion of my worthy colleagues and myself will be equally extended to the reestablishment of peace and harmony between the mother country and the colonies."

Biological weapons in the Revolutionary War, had you ever heard that:

But when 150 desperate people were dispatched from Boston (by the English) as smallpox continued unabated there, Washinton described the disease as a 'weapon of defense they are using against us.'"

As early as that and it is still a threat!

Enough for this evening, so much more to talk about! Thanks again for your enthusiasm for the book - it's one of DM's best! A must reading for history students, do you suppose they do?

Hi Marnie: Here is a site built by the Masons and dedicated to GeorgeW:

George Washington

TIGER TOM: I did want to acknowledge your post and hope your eyes improve soon so that you can post again; but in the meantime, as Harold urged, do get someone to read the posts for you and have them give us your opinions and ideas concerning this momentous year of 1776 and George Washington.

from a strange computer, where and when do i enter my name and password?......jean

Any one can enter and read the messsages following the steps I described above and no pass word is required until you post. When you enter a post you will get a screen asking for a name and password.

Something just don't sound right with my choice of words, "a strange computer." After all are not all computers strange?

Ella think back to our Ben Franklin discussion. Was it not the Howe family in England Including Admiral Richard Howe and General William Howe that offered support to Franklin’s 1774 home rule plan? My Franklin Biography is at the Seguin place and it will be Monday before I visit there again. But what do you remember about the Howe’s position on the Franklin compromise plans?

I’ve been thinking about the fact that our book stresses the great training and military skill of the British Army units against the untrained North American soldiers, and my conclusion is that the disparity was no where near as great as the text seems to imply. To begin with the British units were trained more for parades and ceremony and much less for actual hand-to-hand warfare. As children they had no day-to-day contact with physical danger, self-defense or the use of firearms.

In contrast the American troops in rare cases might have been 7th or 8th generation North Americans and the majority were at least 2nd or 3rd generation born and bred on the frontier where self defense was necessary for survival. They were trained to use firearms from an early age. Also some of the Americans had a superior rifle; as was mentioned in the book the units from the west had their own distinctive long rifle that had a significantly longer range and was more accurate.

I am not surprised that given the distinct advantage of their frontier training they scored well in comparison to the European soldiers.

Ella: That was interesting to see the Masonic National Memorial to Washington.

I was just browsing through my latest Smithsonian Magazine and read the article about the hippopotamus. It stated that one of the sets of George Washington's false teeth was made of hippo tooth/tusk ivory because hippo ivory doesn't yellow. (Their teeth can grow up to one foot long!)

We see that Washington lives somewhat more luxuriously than his soldiers. However, we also see how he can get right into the middle of things with his men in a battle, putting his life on the line with them. That was one of the things the army admired about Washington.

Marni

there may have been. Both sides were skilled, but in different areas.

There is no doubt that the use of firearms was an everyday experience for many of the colonial troops and it was a survival skill - they killed to eat and were very good at it, as well there were some who killed to defend themselves against enemies, human and animal. Some of them also had the distinct advantage of owning a Penna long rifle, which was many times more accurate than the musket. In one of the videos that i show for my class, DM (yes! DM is narrating the video) says in the narration that Europeans were amazed at how accurate colonials could be a hitting a squirrel on a tree at great distances.

The major advantage that the British had, I believe, was psychological. They WERE considered the greatest military - army and navy - in the world at the time, or so i have heard experts say. So when they marched out of Boston, or anywhere else, in those bright red uniforms - not so good for fighting a guerilla style war - they must have looked splendid and formidable and to be fulfilling their reputation, to young, non-military experienced colonialists.

Of course, the "rebels" frustrated the heck out of the British because they hid behind bushes and jumped out of trees and refused to line up and march against an enemy like professional soldiers would have. These "children" just wouldn't behave!!! KIng GEorge actually used that comparison about the colonists - they were "children" refusing to listen to their parent.

I just love this story, or stories, for there are so many wonderful scenarios thru these 8, or so yrs. I just don't understand why more of them have not been told on the big and little screen. They seem primed for popularity IMO. There are all kinds of heroes and action and spies and intrigue and the little guy beats the "goliath" over and over and little things like weather have huge consequence.......but i'm getting ahead of the book.......hope to join you at the beginning of next week.......jean

I think at times we are afraid to touch on the flaws of our heroes or heroines. We are no longer children. As adults we know that life or people are never all bad nor all good. A person is more admirable, to me, if I can see both sides of him or her. This is why I liked HAROLD'S question #2. It gave me the chance to look at one of George Washington's flaws.

Surprisingly I can still admire the man. Without his courage, his ability to strategically think ahead of Gen. Howe the war would not have been won.

This is why I like David McCullough's writing. He writes about "real" people. He tells what makes us sad about a person's character. He also tells what makes us proud that this person is part of our history. He tells about soldiers liking a bit of rum, he mentions a redlight district, I think General Howe liked parties more than trying to strategically place the rebel soldiers. We need to know about the heroes and villains in order to learn from history.

If I am told only the perfections of a person in a biography, I feel the author is treating me like a child. The author, at that point, takes away my ability to reason and make clear decisions about the worth of a person's character.

I am trying to say what Mabel wrote in her last sentence. She wrote it so well. _____________________________________________________________________

MARNI and ELLA, GINNY and others, thank you so much for the links and all the information. All of it just makes me really enjoy the discussion.

Benjamin Rush is one of the famous doctor during this period. I always wanted to read a whole book about him. I also have wanted to read about Charles Wilson Peale, the Colonial American Artist.

Benjamin Rush made a wonderful compliment about George Washington.

He "has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among 10,000 people. There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side."

Wow! That really is some compliment. I have been trying to think of men in our time who have that ability to stand out from the crowd excluding their politics. I always thought Anwar Sadat had magnificent presence.

Hi, HATS. Are you up in the middle of the night too?

I like the people we are meeting that I'd never heard of before. Young Knox the bookseller (wonder if Fort Knox was named after him). And Greene. And General Lee (who sounds like a real politician -- I suspect GW should watch out for him).

Too bad the men who didn't fight don't show up so much. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson.

My husband got a package from a math society he belongs to, and I noticed their address was "Monticello Circle" in a town in Rhode Island. I wonder if there is a replica of Monticello their.

Hi JOANK,

Yep, I am up reading. For some reason I always wake up in the middle of the night. I love Nathaniel Greene and Knox too. There are so many different people we are meeting. DM makes you want to read more about each one.

I missed reading John Adams by DM. I would like to read that one too. It would have been more fun reading with the group.

Maybe someone will tell us whether there is a replica of Monticello there.

Joan K, I am looking forward to Founding Mothers with you and Marni.

I hope Tiger Tom's eyes will improve quickly.

I have tried to capitalize the names of discussion leaders to show my respect for their hard work. I am going to stop capitalizing names. It is too easy for me to leave someone out. Plus, there is no end to capitalizations because I respect the hard research and comments of other posters too. I hope this post makes some sense.

I've read all your posts, I'll be back later today but I thought if any of you need more to read (hahahaaaaa) today, this site provides plenty. 1776 was just the beginning -

Valley Forge

Harold, I don't have the memory for that but I'll look up the Howe's tonight.

--- regarding your comment concerning the minor roles assigned in this book for such Revolutionary luminaries as Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, the fact that the one most significant event of the title year, the Declaration of Independence, gets only a few pages of coverage caught my attention too. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were of course in Philadelphia preparing this great document. It took sometime for me to realize that the details of these political events were not a part of McCullough’s plan for this book which was the story of the individuals in the field fighting the battles. We got the specific details of the political events in Philadelphia in our previous discussions of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, but since this event was not a part of the present story, these founding fathers get but little mention here.

Thank you Hats for your comment on Dr Benjamin Rush the well known Philadelphia doctor. I first run into him when I did the Ambrose, “Undaunted Courage” discussion in 1997. Jefferson sent Lewis to Philadelphia to Dr Rush for training relative to his mission that resulted in much valuable advice. One of the results was the Rush’s Thunderbolt, a cure-all pill of jalap and calomel (a mercury compound) that the corps stocked in large numbers and administered freely to both ill men and Indians. Later John Adams consulted Dr Rush when his daughter developed breast cancer. He advised surgery which was preformed in Boston by another doctor. Benjamin Rush was a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence and certainly has a way of appearing prominently in every history of his time.

Hello, Harold, Ella, and Everyone,

I would like to join your book discussion. Thank you, Harold, for mentioning that anyone can join at any time. This is my first book discussion.

I have a copy of "1776" from the library and have read the first four chapters. I have also read all your posts and have gone to many of the web-sites mentioned.

This is a very interesting, informative discussion, and I'm enjoying it tremendously.

Evelyn

By all means post any time. Your comments, questions, answers, thoughts and whatever arising from your reading of the book are welcome

This afternoon I was discussing our book with a group of associates at the Institute of Texan cultures, when our conversation turned to the original derivations of the Word, “tory.” None of us knew the answer but a Google search on the string, Derivation of the Word Tory led to the following businessballs.com page entitled Cliches and expressions origins. According to this site, the word seems to have converged from two Celtic Words meaning Kings Party and partisians of the king. It first appeared in use in 1679.

Click Here and scroll down to Tory to read the full report. This is an interesting site with information on the origin of many common cliches and expressions.

EVELYN, WELCOME! WE'RE SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU JOIN US.

You may want to click on the DISCUSSION SCHEDULE in the heading to see where we are and where we are headed. We are taking the whole month of January for the book and we have divided it into 4 weeks; we do, however, as you may have noted, find much to talk about outside the parameters of the book - in other words, we have a good time with it and talk of many things......cabbages and kings.....

Oh, heavens, Harold! I went to that site and it goes on forever so I'll take your understanding of the word "tory" for the truth of the matter; interesting that none of us questioned that.

I also was telling a few friends here about the smallpox that GeorgeW thought the British were using as an offensive weapon and one person said we did the same thing to the Indians when we came here. I looked at several sites on Google and, although, it was true that the Europeans brought the disease to the American Indians I could find nothing that stated we did it deliberately! Of course, it could be true as feelings ran very high in those days on both sides.

Both the British forces and the rebels were suffering as winter approached; the British were suffering from the cold and hunger and disease and the rebels were deserting. Can one blame them for deserting if they were issued spears to fight with as gunpowder was so scarce??? And I think I read somewhere that they could look out onto 400 British ships in the harbor??? Can't find that reference now but it sticks in my mind.

It's a wonder any rebels stayed the course; I do believe the sight of those ships would have been enough to frighten me either into going home or joining the British.......

Hundreds, no thousands, were involved in a deadly snow battle, good grief! But our gallant heroic President-to-be:

"leaped from his saddle, threw the reins of his bridle into the hands of his servant, and rushed into the thickest of the melee, with an iron grip seized two tall, brawny, athletic, savage-looking riflemen by the throat, keeping them at arm's length, alternating shaking and talking to them." (p.61)

Tis the stuff of movies starring John Wayne!

Tomorrow we start on Chapter Three and back to the British!

EVELYN: WELCOME, WELCOME!! I'm glad you're enjoying this. Do check out our other discussions: there is things going on here all year long, 24/7.

I looked in the Chernow biography of Hamilton (I highly recommend this book!) to see if Free Masonry is mentioned, and it is not in the index. I don't remember reading anything in it about Hamilton being a Mason, either. The biography was quite extensive, so I'm thinking if Chernow thought Hamilton was a Mason it would have been discussed.

Here's a google to a controversy over this subject. Apparently some claim he was, some say he wasn't. I don't know about the sign on his grave, though: http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_mabook_revolution.html

Someone mentioned wanting to read a book on George Washington. "His Excellency" by Joseph Ellis is a good one.

True Ella It seems to take a time interminable to scroll down to the T and the Tories definition on the Clichés and Expressions Origins site that I linked yesterday. Actually on fast scroll it takes less than a minute. I think I summarized the material pretty well but at the site you get the actual Celtic words that are the root of the modern English word.

Tomorrow we will begin the week 2 materials that is page70 through page 154. This material will conclude the Boston siege with a brilliant American military occupation of Dorchester Heights, a fortuitous winter storm that inhibited an effective British counter attack, and the sudden British departures for Canada. Today let us conclude with final comment on the Week one material, and come out bright and early tomorrow morning on the new material.

It seems the Continental Congress had placed a curious limitation on Washington's command Authority. This was the requirement that he submit any plan for offensive action to Council of War composed of his subordinate Generals for their approval. During the summer and fall of 1775 Washington had proposed several offensive operations against the British in occupied Boston. Pursuant to his instructions he submitted these plans to a council of war consisting of the several general officers serving under him. In this case the council refused to approve these plan and the plans were abandoned.

I thought it quite an unusual restriction on a General in command in a military situation. Essentially the Commander had to submit his operational plans to a popular vote of his subordinate commanders. I do not recall any such restriction on any Command level General officer in modern war operations. However in this case the requirement may well have prevented a disastrous defeat from an untimely premature operation.

Hats and others interested in a biography of Dr Benjamin Rush, Click Here for a 12 page extended biographical sketch of Dr Benjamin Rush that can be read on line in about 15 minutes. A Google search on his name will yield many other hits including other biographies.

The winter cold and snow is very intense in Boston. It is hard on Washington and his troops. Not knowing about the English weather I wonder were the British soldiers familiar with such harsh weather?

It might have been mentioned already. Before we leave these first chapters I would like to know is the bookstore belonging to Henry Knox available for historical viewing today?

Hats, Re: the British soldiers: They suffered even more than the Americans who were used to the weather. DM gives an excellent description of this on pages 72 through 75.

Harold, Thanks for that link to the site on cliches and expressions. It was so fascinating that I almost drowned in the wealth of info on such diverse expressions as "screaming meemies" etc. before reaching Tory, which in itself was interesting.

The Biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow is a fascinating read about the man ,the politics of the time and the economics of the Colonies and Britain before, during and after the Revolutionary War.

Judy

McCullough mentions that some crack shot Americans used rifles rather than muskets. I found out a bit more about the difference between these guns used in the Revolution. The musket had a smooth bore and the rifle had a rifled, or spiral, bore.

"For centuries, men had known that by cutting spiraled grooves inside a musket barrel to impart spin to the bullet, they could increase its range and accuracy. Hunting weapons were usually rifled and some eighteenth-century armies contained special rifle regiments. But the smoothbore remained the principal infantry weapon until the 1850s. Why? Because a bullet large enough to "take" the rifling was hard to ram down the barrel of a muzzleloading weapon. After a rifle had been fired a few times, the residue from the black powder built up in the grooves and made the gun impossible to load without cleaning. Since rapid loading and the reliability of repeated and prolonged firing were essential in a military weapon, the rifle could only be used for special purposes......This dilemma was solved by the creation of the "minie ball" in the 1840s....

The maximum range of a smoothbore [musket] was 250 yards, but a soldier could not hit a specific target at distances greater than 80 yards. Because of the poor accuracy and range, fighting tactics with smoothbores called for soldiers to stand shoulder to shoulder in lines. Sometimes one line would fire, fall back, reload, and the line of soldiers behind them would follow suit. At other times, the soldiers would make a formation so that four lines of soldiers could fire at once. The idea was to put a large quantity of lead in the air at one time, so that even though an individual soldier would not hit what he was aiming at, he would hit something, because the enemy would be fighting the same way. (At least according to the rules of civilized warfare). Infantry charges were a classic part of this tactic because with a range of only 250 yards, a defending army would only have time for a couple of shots before the opposing army would be on them with bayonets.

The rifle's range was four to six times that of the smoothbore. It's maximum range was 1,000 yards with an effective range of 4,000 yards. The old smoothbore tactics were no longer effective because an infantry charge would be cut to pieces well before reaching enemy lines because advancing soldiers could be hit from further away. US Army units were not completely armed with rifles until into the Civil War, although some infantry units may have had "Mississippi" rifles at Fort Scott after the Mexican War."

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/weapons_info4.htm

Marni

Ginny's remark about Julius Caesar leading his men in a red cloak was interesting.

George Washington led in a striking manner, also. He rode a white horse. Pretty hard not to notice him. Washington was reputed to have been the best horseman in the American colonies. He must have been quite a sight - the 6' 3"-tall, strongly-built, dignified man on a white horse. I've read that his horse was shot out from under him at least 4 times during the war. It was very lucky he wasn't killed in battle.

Marni

Hats, I think Judy is right in her report that British soldiers were less tolerant to cold than the Americans. Their Islands were even further north than Boston, but tempered from extreme cold by warming Gulf stream currents, more fog, but less cold and snow.

Marni Thank you for your information on rifle technology. If I am interpreting this report correctly the improved technology did not come until the 1850's. However McCullough mentions that certain western (Pennsylvania) units at Boston is 1775-76 had a long rifle with the spiral grooves that increased its effective range but not to the extent stated in the site.

From your link I suspect that the 1775 Pennsylvania rifles were more subject to the clogging of the groves requiring frequent cleaning. McCullough perhaps should have provided more detail on possible negatives in the use of this gun.

Ella and I led a discussion of Benjamin Franklin in 2003 using two Franklin Biographies, one by Walter Isaacson and another by James Strodes. As I remember it Ella centered on the Strodes source; I had both books but my work was more based on the Isaacson title. I have now checked both of the books for what I remembered (and posted) the other day as a friendly contact between Franklin representing the Colonies in England and members of the Howe family, The Admiral Lord Richard Howe and his younger brother General William Howe. I find that the Strode book does not mention this contact but Isaacson describes several meetings arranged by Franklin’s London Chess partner, Lady Caroline Howe a sister of Richard and William.

There were several meetings between Franklin and Admiral Lord Richard Howe in which the Admiral served briefly. as a middleman between Franklin and the Government. These occurred during Xmas 1774 and early January 1775. Lord Howe had suggested the possibility of the Government sending a high ranking official to the colonies to negotiate settlement of differences. Quite likely the Admiral saw himself in this position. Franklin agreed it would be a good ideal. The meetings ended quickly when Howe reported that he saw no possibility that the Government would accept the 17 points Franklin had drafted the approval of which would compromise the dispute.

In undertaking this negotiation I do not see any particular sympathy for the colonial cause in Lord Howe’s action. It was only and effort to restore the peace that had previously existed. As it turned out neither party was inclined to make the necessary concessions; there was just no grounds for there agreement. Within a few month Franklin gave up on reconciliation and by April 1775 he was back in America an active supporter of the revolutionary cause.

Harold: You reminded me of something I read about Ben Franklin's chess playing. Ladies of the French aristocracy apparently could be quite open with their toilettes and they loved to flirt with the....randy?...older American. Franklin played chess with one of his French lady friends as she bathed. I don't remember which lady it was, though. Does this sound familiar?

Marni

Harold and Judy thank you for your replies about the British winters.

Marni, your above post made me start laughing. Do you think Franklin kept his spectacles on or let his "real" eyes do all the work???? Some guy that Franklin.

Harold, excuse me for interrupting. This is your question.

HAROLD, that was a long time ago but I do remember that discussion and Benjamin Franklin, the great ambassador; he was such a charming fellow and as MARNIE said the French ladies loved him even though he was of advanced age. He could speak their language and, therefore, was a "hit" not only with the ladies but with the French king and the court, as I remember. He was quite successful at getting money for the revolution whereas John Adams, with the greatest intentions and a very hard worker, could not coax the French into giving us anything!

However, most of my memories of Franklin come from reading the John Adams book, one of my alltime favorite discussions here in the BOOKS.

No doubt those that are interested in strategies and tactics of warfare would be fascinated in reading our next chapter; actually the personalities of the men and their thoughts are of greater interest to me.

I cannot escape the fact that DM writes more about George Washington than other figure and he comes off as being exceptional; even in this chapter devoted to the British and their decisions our dear George, the savior of our nation, father of our country, takes time out to write to a black poet, Phyllis Wheatley, who had sent him a poem.

Where did DM dig that up - it's just too early in the morning to look up the Source Notes.

However, he can be very stern with the troops isssuing an order that if any soldier "shall presume to skulk, hide himself, or retreat from the enemy, without the orders of his commanding officer, he will be instantlyl shot down, as an example of cowardice."

Good grief! Did it ever happen I wonder, has it ever happened in any of our wars? Would we know about it if it did?

I have tried to find pictures of Faneuil Hall, where the very first seeds of rebellion were hatched, but was unsuccessful; likewise with Old North Church. When I was in Boston many years ago I purchased a print of the church and framed it and had it on my wall for years.

There is so much history in that city.

The British are described by DM as full of arrogance and confidence in this chapter, do you agree? William Howe, for all of his ability and courage was "procrastinating, negligent, only interested in his creature comforts and pleasures, as many of the officers were and all of them were totally ignorant of George Washington and his leadership.

A huge mistake!

And what a feat it was to have brought those mortars, just three of them weighing a ton each and one cannon weighing more than 5000 pounds, all the way from Lake Champlain to Boston - as DM says it was a story to be told and retold for years to come.

What are your thoughts on reading this chapter - and I never even mentioned Dorchester Heights, its title!

More later - eg

Wheatley poems

Wheatley poems

Wheatley

Thank you Hats for your Comments on Phyllis Wheatley. McCullough’s notation of her poem dedicated to Washington, and His Excellencies reply appears in our test on Page 90. In San Antonio our old Black High Schools was named for Phyllis ‘Wheatrley. Isn’t her poem melodious? There is not a hint of free verse only perfect meter and rhyming. She must have had an unusual understanding of the English language. The Washington reply sure indicates he was sincerely impressed as Indeed he should as been.

Click Here for another poem by Phyllis Wheatley commenting on “her being brought to America.”

Apparently the key to the Siege of Boston was Dorchester heights. Heavy American Guns properly placed on the heights would endanger British ships supplying Boston. Through out the summer and Fall of 1775 the Americans, in response to General Gates announced threat of immediate counter action if the Americans were to occupy it, had left it unoccupied and essentially neutral ground..

In the late fall of 1785 London had sent an order to General Gates to abandon Boston and send his force to occupy New York,. The order had arrived too late for him to execute before winter set in. So through the winter of 1775 the stalemate held until March 4, 1776 when a Council of War finally approved Washington’s plan to end the stalemate with the sudden occupation of the heights. In one early March night with unusually good weather American units including some 100 heavy guns moved into position. As he had promised General Gates immediately ordered a counter attack but by the time it could be effectively ready the weather had changed with a late winter storm preventing the counter attack to materialize. Quite quickly Howe pursuant to his order to abandon Boston ordered the evacuation of Boston and within a few weeks the entire British fleet sailed for Halifax with all British Troops, their women and children dependants, and 1100 Boston loyalists . On March 18th Washington entered Boston.

I thought the story of Knox bringing the guns from Fort Ticonderoga and the setting up of trenches and guns on Dorchester Heights were the most fabulous stories! I've never read about them in such detail as DM provided. Fabulous!

It seems that one thing the Americans truly excelled at was establishing strategic defenses quickly and quietly. Imagine them forcing the British to evacuate Boston. It must have seemed quite unbelievable to the British back home when they heard about it. Of course, we paid for it.

let's see if this works!! Hope i get it posted......

Yes, GW did shoot deserters, many of them. He tho't he had to in order to keep soldiers......sounds convoluted, but it worked.

Wheatley is included in most American literature text books these days, actually has been for a couple decades. She was really quite remarkable, but having been bought by the Wheatleys, i believe they were a Quaker family, was very helpful to her getting an education, but of course, she was still a slave....... Jean

Even today desertion from the army can be punishable by death. I found this below about desertion in today's army:

"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Guide Note: The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm

-------------------------------------------

I found the info below about the army prior to the Civil War:

"Probably the most serious common crime during the first half of the nineteenth century was desertion.....The customary punishment for desertion was hard labor and dishonorable discharge. During time of war, death by hanging or a firing squad was the normal punishment for desertion.

Before the Civil War, deserters might be flogged or branded as a matter of course. In one case at Fort Scott, a soldier was sentenced to "receive fifty lashes on his bare back" and to a stoppage of pay for six months. In another incident, the soldier was sentenced to confinement and two months hard labor and to refund the United States thirty dollars paid for his apprehension."

The info is from Crime and Punishment on the Frontier: Fort Laramie Case Study by John McDermott, The Old Army: A Portrait of the American Army in Peacetime, 1784-1898 by Edward M. Coffman, copyright 1988 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/guard_info2.htm

Marni

I finished the reading for this week . As I read and examined the maps I was truly shocked. I went to school in Flatbush for 13 years and learned American History for most of them and never knew about the battles that took place there during the Revolutionary War. We studied the history of the Dutch in N.Y, the Indians in NY, the Governors etc. etc. We learned about the Battlefields in Concord and Lexington etc but not a word about the material that DM presents. Since I never got anything but an A in Hist. it couldn"t have been that I missed that material. It truly didn't exist in our books. If anyone had a different experience going to school in the 40's and 50's please let me know.

Well better late than never!

Judy

There were Revolutionary War battles around my town also. A royal Governor, Manuel Salcedo, was assassinated here in 1813 after one of the battles. Come to think of it we did not study that in highs school here either. The revolution was the Mexican Revolution against Spain 1811 - 1821.

My home town (New London, CT) was burned down by Benedict Arnold!

My niece and her husband, who have lived in the Boston area for a few years, were here for Christmas. I talked to Erick about the American's driving the British out of Boston. He said that they celebrate "embarkation day" , the day the British left, every year. It just happens to also be St. Patrick's Day, and it's very handy that people don't have to work on that day.

I commented that it was amazing that the British never thought to secure Dorchester heights. He said -- I didn't understand. That was outside of Boston, and to Bostonians things outside of Boston aren't important.

After page 69 I could not stop reading. Real life truly is stranger than fiction. The rebel soldiers standing above the British soldiers on Dorchestor Heights is an amazing history. I wanted to holler hurrah so many times through this chapter. One line in particular struck me. Reverend William Gordon wrote.

"A finer {night} for working could not have been taken out of the whole 365. It was hazy below {the Heights} so that our people could not be seen, though it was a bright moonlight night above on the hills(92)."

Isn't that amazing?

I also liked the part Marni mentioned. The soldiers pulling the ammunition, cannons across the ice. I think one cannon fell through the ice. It was pulled out again.

I felt very sad reading about the lack of food too. The British suffered hunger and some of the troops are described as "looking like skeletons(74)." General Howe gave the command that one married couple needed severe punishment.

They were publicly whipped for stealing food. Do you think General Howe's punishment was too harsh? I just can see that poor woman in such pain. Probably, she had never stolen anything in her life. This time her hunger overcame her strict values.

"Howe initiated punishments more severe even than the standard for the British Army(74).

Marni, thank you for those links. The links are always helpful.

Click Here for streaming Judicial Committee hearing through the internet. If you have a fast DSL or cable connection the audio will be high quality. If you have dial-up try it, since it is audio it may be acceptable.

Scroll down to the Judiciary listing and click SH 216 to listen

My thought on General’s Howe’s decision to with draw was that he saw it as the execution of his orders from London. The order requiring him to withdraw from Boston and occupy New York had arrived too late for him to execute before winter set in. Howe reacted to the sudden March 4th American occupation of the heights with the launch of a counter attack that ran into a sudden winter storm preventing an effective counter attack against the American positions. So far as Howe was concern in launching the counter attack he had done what his honor and duty required and his orders were clear requiring his withdrawal.

I note that one of the casualties of the Boston siege was the Old North Church that the beleaguered British in Boston tore down and used for firewood.

Marni: are you sure Benedict Arnold was involved in Connecticut? In 1775 and 76 our text has him further North in Canada. Perhaps it was a later year.

1. Why did Howe sail North to Halifax instead of South to New York as his orders directed? Potshard has already broached this thread in message “184. How did Washington know Howe and the British fleet were heading for Halifax?

2. Why was New York considered strategically more important to the British than Boston? Page 80 and following.

3. How did Washington redeploy his forces after the British left Boston? Moving military resources to defense of New York and the allocation of resources between the two areas of action. Did Washington really have sufficient resources to maintain the two geogrphically diverse campaigns?

Harold: Yes, Benedict Arnold's campaign against New London was later in the war after he had turned traitor.

Re: "2. Why was New York considered strategically more important to the British than Boston? Page 80 and following."

New York was strategically located on a beautiful deep harbor at the mouth of the Hudson River which was a natural border between the New England colonies and the rest of the colonies. New England was quite a hotbed of rebels, as we've seen. New York had a large loyalist population. It was strategically important to the British to cut New England off from the rest of the colonies and to take over New York and establish a base of action there. From New York, it was fairly easy to get to Philadelphia and New Jersey, plus to Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

Marni

I went to a site on the Rev. War and found a walk through NY sites of the war with none other than our esteemed author. DM.In relation to what I wrote about NY History I was very happy to hear (read) DM relate to the problem I mentioned.I will quote him:

"It is a shame thatso few NYers know about this (the war sites). How many know? One in 500,000? Part of what people miss in the scale of what happened here is because it has all been built over. If the site were a National Park like Gettysburg it would spread over six miles. I can't tell you the number of NYers who have read 1776 and told me they had no idea so much happened here."

The article also mentions the fact that DM was an indifferent student who got a B minus in History.

Standing in the Morris-Junel Mansion from which Washington commanded his troops in the battle of Harlem, DM says: "the house survived although it is not honored with as much as a plaque" DM also states that "NY is a place where History is made, not remembered."

Judy

American Experience -- John and Abigail Adams -- Airing Monday, January 23, 2006 on PBS.

Thanks, Pat, for the info. I'm going to mark my calendar. Abigail Adams is my kind of person. I have always enjoyed reading about her.

Evelyn

Harold,

Regarding your questions. I was under the impression Geo. Washington did not know Howe was headed for Halifax, and thought he was heading for New York. That's why GW sent the troops there posthaste and got to NY as soon as he could.

This book is great, and exciting. I can't wait for the story to unfold.

Evelyn

Last spring my husband and I went with some friends on the self-guided Manhattan walking tour called the "Patriot Trail." It was fabulous! We visited Revolutionary-era historic sites that DM mentions in our book such as the old Custom House, Trinity Church, the Battery and the old fort there.

One place on the Patriot Trail we particularly enjoyed, and have visited a couple of times since, is Fraunces Tavern, where the Sons of Liberty met to plot and where George Washington discussed plans and later said farewell to his officers when the war was over. It is still a tavern/restaurant and also a museum. One whole corner is devoted to Nathan Hale.

Here's a photo of Fraunces Tavern: Fraunces Tavern

Here's the info about the Patriot Trail that I used, including a map of the self-guided tour with a description of each stop along the way:

http://www.downtownny.com/assets/patriot%20trail.pdf

Marni

Harold, thank you for the mention of the Mexican Revolution too.

Marni, thank you again for the wonderful links. There are lots of photos on one link. I would love to walk the Patriot Trail.

JUDY - I echo your sentiments exactly - "We learned about the Battlefields in Concord and Lexington etc but not a word about the material that DM presents. Since I never got anything but an A in Hist. it couldn"t have been that I missed that material. It truly didn't exist in our books."

That is why DM's books are truly a treasure; he puts history before us and lets us understand the details of what it was like to live there and be faced with imminent fears.

JOAN, most of us have never heard of ""embarkation day" , the day the British left, every year." How would we unless we lived there, but it's great to know about it isn't it?

As your nephew said - "That was outside of Boston, and to Bostonians things outside of Boston aren't important." True of a lot of us in our home cities.

HATS, you and I have tender hearts, I can see that. I think all this punishment meted out by commanders were too harsh. Imprisonment is bad enough, but public whipping! And death for desertion! I don't know, perhaps they knew best, I would never make a good general for sure.

DM states that after the "miracle" of Dorchester Heights, Washington was never again to speak ill of New Englanders because they were New Englanders.

That would have made John Adams happy if he knew that!

All those portraits of men in wigs and heavy coats and lacey collars, times gone by. I'm always dismayed by a portrait of John Adams because they are not what I picture him to be; he is stouter and not at all the quick-minded irritating picture of him I have in my mind. I like my image of him better than the actual one, hahahaa!

And onto New York....Marnie has already given us the reason for the importance of the city. What an exciting chapter this will be, I love NYC; I've been there a number of times and could go every year. I remember Battery Park, where we boarded the ferry for Ellis Island the last time we were there and spent a day there with audios learning the history of the immigrants who came to our shores and at that time the twin towers were in the foreground as we came back. So much has happened since then.

Thanks, Pat, for that notice about Abigail and John, I shall be sitting there to watch. EVELYN, I love the two of them also and I often am tempted to take out the book "THE LETTERS OF ABIGAIL AND JOHN ADAMS" from the library but it is huge and I usually have 2-3 to read before that and I just haven't. We got a smattering of them in DM's JOHN ADAMS and they were a remarkable couple!

later, eg

Oh, dear, here I must confess to lurking. This a great discussion!
I have read many books by DM, and I did read and enjoy 1776 when it came out,
but have loaned out my copy.

Here are some links that are just in time for this chapter, I hope:

Green-wood in Brooklyn

Fort Green Park

Morris-Jumel Mansion in Manhattan

Thank you, Marni and Mippy for the interesting links.

All this extra info really enhances this discussion.

Evelyn

Mippy, thank you! The links are always helpful.

I've been reading some truly fascinating info about New York and the surrounding environs in The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, a book about New Netherland and the Dutch influence on America.

I just read about Gravesend which is in 1776 - the area on Long Island where the British landed before the Battle of Brooklyn Heights. You can see Gravesend on the map of Long Island in our book near page 117 at the bottom of the page in the center of the map. Turns out that Gravesend was the first New World settlement founded by a woman!

Lady Deborah Moody, a London aristocrat, had converted to "Anabaptism." Londoners were shocked and she was forced to flee England. She fled to Salem in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But the Puritans threatened to banish her unless she "renounced her mad ways." New Netherlands, in their religious tolerance, gave her and her followers title to the southwestern tip of Long Island which she named Gravesend. Today this area of Brooklyn includes Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, and Bensonhurst.

Marni

Another interesting thing I read in the Shorto book was that in 1646 the English settlements of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New Haven formed a league, the United Colonies of New England, to strengthen themselves, prinicipally against the Dutch province of New Netherland.

So New England was a consolidation even before the British took over New Netherland. I had always wondered why that area was called New England.

Marni, thank you introducing us to Lady Deborah Moody. I have never heard of her.

What is "Anabaptism?" I am not familiar with that term.

I didn't know what it was either. Here's something from the web:

The name Anabaptism "was a applied to a variety of extreme and revolutionary groups during the Reformation of the 16th century who questioned the validity of infant baptism. Groups today which trace their roots back to the Anabaptists include the Amish and the Mennonites....These early Anabaptists were heavily influenced by the ideas of the Protestant reformer Ulrigh Zwingli, but they objected to his perceived subservience to secular authorities and they grew impatient in their desire to institute more radical measures to change Christian practices.

A principle characteristic of anabaptist groups was the rejection of infant baptism, which was normal in the Catholic Church, and the insistence that only willing adults should or could be justifiably baptized. This was because infants could not make a conscious profession of Christian faith, whereas adults could. Early on adults were simply baptized by a sprinkling of water, but later this was changed to full immersion in water, just like it is described in the New Testament.

At the time, such rebaptism as an adult was a crime punishable by death. One popular method of execution was drowning, seen as ironically appropriate because of the reformers' interest in baptizing with water....Some estimates place the number of martyrs at around 50,000 by 1535, and it may be that other Christians killed more Anabaptists than Romans killed Christians during their 300 years of persecutions.

Because the Anabaptists were viciously persecuted wherever they were and often had to flee their homes, many came to regard the baptism rite not simply as an initiation into the Christian faith, but also as an initiation into Christian suffering. The persecution only backfired, however, because it served to increase the spread of their ideas through more towns and cities. Thus, the harder the authorities pushed, the more this faith was able to spread and attract new converts."

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_anabaptism.htm Marni

I was struck when reading about the British evaculation of Boston that it reallg wasn't a defeat, as someone else here mentioned. General Howe was supposed to leave Boston anyway, so rather than lose men defending the city in bad weather he just left. Admitedly, he left a bit more hastily than planned - but it is certainly possible he could have dug in and given a good fight it that had been his orders. The significance of the victory, of course, was that it gave the Americans self-esteem and the idea that they were a fighting unit and indeed a country! Perhaps if General Howe had realized how much this victory would raise the Americans' morale he would have stayed and fought...

Scamper your comment on the British Evacuation of Boston, I think pretty well parallels my thoughts on the event. General Howe had a direct order from London to evacuate Boston before winter set in that arrived too late for him to comply. His orders from London were for him to occupy N.Y. So in early March 1776 after the Americans occupied Dorchester Heights and his counter attack was defeated by a late winter storm, he executed his orders and left Boston.

I am inclined to agree with Potsherd who wrote the following in his early message #184 concerning the reasons why Howe chose to go to Halifax rather than direct to NY.

1.General Howe recognized he could not leave the large number of the Kings loyal subjects in Boston. The number of families evacuated probably taxed the capacity of many ships. Also with the upcoming battles of New York: Howe may also had concerns for the Loyalists safety if allowed to remain shipboard. 2.The British troops had suffered from poor food and living conditions and needed an opportunity to recover their physical health and repair equipment 3. The evacuated families would be settled into the Halifax area where they would be more protected than Boston.

Was the British evacuation of Boston, an American Victory? I certainly think it was. It had been the American Objective for the past year to drive them out and this was certainly the result. Strategically it, had been the American Objective for the past year to drive them out and this was certainly the result. Strategically it was, I suppose, also a plus for the British since they were now able to attack N.Y. witch potentially offered them more opportunity than Boston.

And Evelyn M you are probably right about Washington not knowing Howe was bound for Halifax, not N.Y. The American’s were probably lucky Howe first went to Halifax delaying his strike on NY. Had he left the Boston Tories to their fate and hurried on to strike N.Y. They would have occupied the more strategically important area before the Boston troops could be moved south to defend it. As it was the British did not reach N.Y until late summer after defenses were in place. Though the Americans were defeated at Brooklyn Heights, they were able to withdraw in reasonable order to counter attack in New Jersey before the end of 1776.

Had the British Forces arrived in N.Y. in March with the whole summer available to them, Howe would have had a golden opportunity to capture the revolutionary capital and the Continual Congress at Philadelphia and end the rebellion before winter

Thank you mippy for the links in your message #249. The second one on the Fort Green Park is at the site of two of the 1776 American fortifications. And the last link is about the house that served as Washington’s headquarters.

And thank you Marni on your comment on the Graves End area and Lady Deborah Moody, and Anabaptism. I had never heard of her though I had read of Anabaptism probably in one of the Durant titles. The Fraunces Tavern from its picture seems particularly well preserved. Did you eat there? If so comment on their menu and food?

MARNI: as usual, fascinating information. "Today this area of Brooklyn includes Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, and Bensonhurst".

I lived in exactly that area for two years ans never heard of Lady Deborah Moody. I'm glad to know about her.

Harold: Fraunces Tavern is a lovely place to have dinner or lunch or just a drink. It is a very beautiful old building with its old look preserved. A big fire crackles in a sitting room between the bar and the restaurant. You have to have reservations for a meal. It's quite expensive, but you don't have to be very dressed up. The bar is casual. When we had lunch there, the food was delicious. One time we just stopped in for a drink and I had the biggest and best manhattan I've ever had in a bar. I guess Manhattan is the place for manhattans!!

The museum is upstairs. You can see the long room with fireplace at the end where Washington said farewell to his officers. DM doesn't get that far in 1776, of course. But I'll never forget reading about the farewell in His Excellency. It was so very moving. Washington wanted to shake hands with each of his officers. They didn't quite know how to begin. Suddenly, Henry Knox rushed forward to Washington, threw his arms around him, and they hugged each other farewell. Washington's officers cried.

I'm telling you, I get goosebumps when I am in a building like that with such history and drama that occurred there.

Marni

Ella, We will have to do a Washington Bio sometime after marni does Hamilton (late spring or early summer). I'm looking forward to that one too. I have had a good tuitorial on the political side of the war with the John Adams and Ben Franklin Biographies, and here in "1776" we get quite a bit of the military developments in 1775 and 76. So a good Washington Biography ought to fill out the rest of the military events through the end of the War.

Marni, Am I right in my thinking that the dollar cost of a dinner for a modern family of four at the es Fraunces Tavern would equal the total cost to feed an 1770's Family of four for an Entire year?

You got me on that one, Harold!

By the way, that's news to me that I'm involved with a discussion on Hamilton this spring!!! Where did that come from?

Marni

Marni, your description is wonderful. Your post gave me "goosebumps."

YES! We must do a bio of GW - after Marni's post I'm excited at the prospect. What a farewell to a commander, has there ever been one like it. How admirable he must have seemed to his men! In talking with someone last night, they mentioned GW had a sister so we must explore his life together.

HAROLD, the very fact that this book is full of military movements and strategies is a bit difficult for one such as me who has never studied or cared to study maneuvers of wars, but I'm trying and am finding that the personalities of the men such as Knox and Greene, and all those British are just about as fascinating.

I'll be back later, eg

Wow! I am frightened out of my boots reading about the British ships coming in at the New York harbor. It must have almost overwhelmed the Americans to see such a mass of strength coming their way.

"Still, by the scale of things in the American colonies of 1776, it was a display of military might past imagining(148)."

The British had such power over the seas. What happened to their Naval power?

Photo Plate 12

The British armada that sailed into New York Harbor in early summer, 1776, numbered more than 400 ships. It was the largest naval force ever seen in American waters, the largest sent out from the British Isles to defeat a distant foe..."

It is very sad to read about Nathaniel Greene's illness. He put his whole heart into serving George Washington and the troops. It must have been an even sadder day when Gen. George Washington had to relieve him of his services. This happened only because of the dreadful illness. I hope Nathaniel Greene survives for the sake of his family.

From the very beginning, it seems that "Americans" (rebels at the time) have had confidence in themselves, where did it come from? They were outnumbered, ill trained, with no ships for heaven sakes! Yet "there was scarcely a militia man who did not think himself equal to two or three of the British."

"New York was not at all like Boston, geographically, strategically, and in other ways. At Boston, Washington had known exactly where the enemy was, and who they were, and what was neededf to contain them......Here, with their overwhelming naval might and absolute control of the waters, they could strike at will and from almost any direction. The time and place of battle would be entirely their choice, and this was the worry overriding all others."

In thinking about this attitude, I was reminded that for years, however, we thought our country was protected by two oceans between us and the rest of the world. When was it exactly that we were disillusioned about that? Was it the submarines in WWII? Was it the threat of nuclear bombs from Russia?

Another problem for Washington - a big problem - was the fact that two-thirds of the property in New York belonged to Tories and the owners were loyal to the king. Washington couldn't depend on any of them for sources of intelligence or help; in fact just the opposite - they were the enemy.

At any rate, here we are back at the beginning of our country and the British are in control of the seas. This reads almost like a novel doesn't it? DM does this so well........

We must turn the page and see what happens next.

HATS, you are ahead of me, but I'll catch up later.

Ella, I am enjoying DM's writing style so much. It's hard to stop reading. At times, it feels like I am behind George Washington fighting.

Harold, some thoughts to your questions.

General Howe had received word from London to abandon Boston and " remove the troops to NY. However the word came to late as winter had set in.also he did mot have the ships to move troops and loyalists. The move must wait till spring. Why move to NY two reasons Water, Water, everywhere_ for the greatest navy in the world plus the central location to the heart of the Colonies. Howe was aware NY would present ice problems for his fleet in NY (Hudson river)which he resolved by taking the fleet to Newport, RI for the winter; reason to Newport,RI because the gulf stream was a moderating weather force eliminating or certainly reducing the ice hazard on wooden hulled ships.

Was Washington spread thin_ yes and by two disloyal Generals Lee and Gates. Both where British trained military men and both though they knew more about the execution of a war than Washington.

Potsherd; I see no significant difference between my interpretation of the Boston situation in the Winter of 1775-76 and yours as outlined in your post #’s 184 and 270. In particular I agree with your summary of Howe’s reasons for diverting to Halifax in March 1776 rather than going direct to N.Y. I also think per My message #258 that the Americans were lucky he felt obliged to take the Boston Tories to Halifax instead of immediately sending his army to N.Y. quickly by sea before the American’s could move their army from Boston. This would have been a slow overland operation for them. It would have given the British the opportunity to occupy an almost undefended N.Y. in March 1776 and the further opportunity of an immediate move on Philadelphia, the civil center of the rebellion.

Howe’s diversion to Halifax meant that he did not arrive at N.Y. until August and It was the end of the summer before he had effective control of N.Y. This gave the Americans time to move their Army to N.Y. and build defenses. Later, in September Howe was able to drive the Americans Army from N.Y., but they were able to retreat still intact and able to counter attack in New Jersey during the winter. Had he hit N.Y. early in the spring he stood a better chance of crushing the rebellion by capturing or disbursing its central Governing body, the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Of course I suppose other factors might have figured in Howe’s Halifax decision. It would appear that while strong RN naval support was available in March, it was not the overwhelming 100 plus warship count that he had in August. Yet considering the fact that the Americans had no Naval opposition his fleet in March would seem to have been sufficient leading to the appearance that Howe goofed in diverting to Halifax.

The British had such power over the seas. What happened to their Naval power?

From the late 18th century through the WW I period the British Navy ruled the waves. During WW I the German Navy became a formidable opponent with the great shoot out between large heavy gun capital ship at Jutland in 1916 essentially a draw. In that engagement the British lost the greatest number of capital ships but the Germans were forced to turn to port where they stayed bottle-up for the rest of the War.

In 1939 the British and U.S. fleets were about equal with 15 capital ships each, about the same number of aircraft carriers but the R.N. still held a large numerical superiority in cruisers and destroyers and smaller units. Throughout WW II the RN remained a potential force Winning several notable surface engagement as well as in the end the war against the submarine that threatened for a time to starve Britain into surrender.

It was during the course of the war that the U.S. navy grew to great superiority particularly in aircraft carriers. Since the end of WW II the US navy has retained worldwide superiority and other nations including Russia and China have become formidable naval powers. Yet the U.K. still has significant naval strength a fact shown by their ability in 1982 to launch an amphibious operation some 6,000 miles away to recover the Falklands after the ill-advised Argentine military had seized the long establish English community living there.

I have read Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer who covers some aspects of "the War" in much greater detailthan DM. For instance the British amphibious landing at Gravesend Bay Long Island August 27,1776. The British men of war softened up the beaches with cannon fire, the troop transports loaded special elite assault troops ( 50 per boat, rowed by naval seaman. Next came special boats in which the bow dropped down when they hit the beach. These boats were designed to transport Wagons , cannons and horses. We used this concept in WWII as Higgins boats and Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP's). Harold is there a means that I could post battle maps to the site? Author Fischer has excellent maps illustrating all the engagements. A map many times complements the authors descriptions.

--- for further discussion from this weeks schedule: Part II- The Fatal Summer, Chapter 4.

Discuss the pictures following page 112. What is your opinion of the artistic quality of the paintings by American Artists compared to those by English artists? What are your thoughts regarding the clarity of the maps made by British Engineers? Do you (who are familiar with the areas) recognize the area, as it would appear today?

Discuss the logistics of moving the American regiments to NY. Compare NY’s size and position to other Colonial cities such as Philadelphia. Why was it strategically important? Discuss the make–up of its population-Tory and Rebel.

Discuss changes in American Command authority. Were there changes in the requirement that a War council composed of subordinate generals approve GW’s operational plans?

Discuss the beginning of the British attack on N.Y. and the American Defense.- the relative strengths of the American and British Positions on the eve of battle that will be our subject next week when we move on to Chapter 5.

And every one, here is an opinion question. Based on your reading in your mind what percentage of the Colonial population actively supported the rebellion, what percent remained loyal Tories; and what percentage had no opinion (didn’t much care either way)

______ % Patriotic

______ % Tory

______ % Didn’t care either way.

The more I read about the events of the Revolution, the more I'm amazed that the colonies thought they could wage war against such a great power and succeed. To see the massive numbers of soldiers, British and mercenaries, and the huge naval force including ships-of-the-line, the largest battleships of the day, opening fire on the dinky rabble of an American army, much of which is about to finish their terms of service. It boggles the mind.

And some of you have noted the disagreements among the American generals, such as Charles Lee who thought he should be Commander-in-Chief, creating such headaches for Washington.

One thing that DM makes clear is the gift that Washington had for recognizing talent and surrounding himself with gifted brilliant men. I think this was Washington's greatest strength as Commander-in-Chief and as first president of the U.S. Not all leaders can do this. But Washington excelled at it. He recognized the talents of Henry Knox, Nathanael Greene, Joseph Reed, Alexander Hamilton, and others. He counseled with these men, got their opinions, and listened to them. Washington could accept advise.

Some, such as Charles Lee, suggested that Washington was a vacillator, that he couldn't make a decision and needed others to make decisions for him. I personally don't think it's weakness to seek advise from those in the know. Some people in charge don't want strong people around them because they are worried that they might look bad in comparison. Washington was the opposite. He took advise and often followed it, luckily. And he had the gift of placing them in appropriate strategic places where they could do the job necessary (most of the time).

Washington created almost a family of brilliant officers. He wanted them close by. He treated some officers like his sons. (I wonder if this was because Washington couldn't have his own children.) He was very loyal to his officers, and he rewarded them for their efforts with promotions and offices. For example, when Washington became president, he selected Henry Knox as the first Secretary of War and selected Alexander Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury. I bet he would have selected Nathanael Greene for his cabinet if he had been alive at the time.

And Washington was almost a father figure for some of his officers. Some of W's officers nearly worshiped him. Nathanael Greene and Lafayette both named their sons George Washington.

Potsherd: I just saw your post. That would be so great if you could get some decent maps out for us to look at. The maps in our book are not great and don't have enough detail. It's hard to picture some of the activity of the battles.

Harold: One thing I noticed (looking at maps of changes in lower Manhattan that are in the museum at Castle Clinton in the Battery) is that the coastline has changed a lot due to landfill. New Yorkers added quite a lot of territory with landfill just like Boston did. I wonder if we can see the original coastline and today's coastline in maps on the web?

--- thank you for your comment on the NY British amphibious operation and its comparison to WW II operations. Though it was definitely different from the 20th century operations, it was surely similar and a valid 18th century prototype.

Regarding your question, subject to possible copyright restrictions a map could be scanned as a jpg picture (No larger than 35K) and attached directly to the post. If it was larger it might be put on a private web page and linked in the message and of course it the map was already on the Web it could be linked in a message here. Click Here for a picture of me at the helm of a LCVP (the WW ii landing craft that that you mentioned) at Ulithi Lagoon in 1945.

Harold: That is wonderful seeing your picture. My dad was a captain in the Atlantic arena. He commanded LST's which I think were landing craft also. I wonder what the difference is between your craft and the LST?

the LCVP (Landing Craft-Vehicle Personnel) was a smallcraft designed for ferryying small vehicles and or platoon sized units of Personnal from a transport ship to shore. Your Fathers LST was a much larger ship designed for transporting Tanks and their crews over open seas to a beach landing.

I regret I am going to have to go to Seguin to fix a plumbing problem with my Well yard water system that I found yesterday was pouring water out of a corroded section of galvanized hydrant pipe. I will be back this evening. Do continue the discussion perhaps with some of the topics suggested in my message posted earlier this morning.

DM mentions that New York City was surrounded by water. Several of the military mentioned in our book that it could not be defended without a naval force. And they were right. On the south was New York Harbor, deep and large enough for huge battleships and Howe's force of 400 (?) ships. On the east was the East River; on the west was the Hudson River; on the north was....what? the Harlem River?

There were a number of islands in New York Harbor where forts could be built or had already been built, such as on Staten Island and Long Island, plus forts overlooked the rivers on both the New Jersey side and the New York side. Whoever commanded New York and its waters commanded the forts.

The Hudson River led up to Albany and the Mohawk River that headed west towards the Great Lakes. Just a trek north of the Hudson led up to Lake George and Lake Champlain and up into Canada. Philadelphia was accessible easily from NYC by water and by land. An army and a navy could easily maneuver around from NYC.

Just a side note....I saw the neatest thing last spring when I visited West Point, which is north of NYC overlooking the Hudson River. West Point was a fort before it was the military academy and was strategically located at an S-curve in the river. Guns guarded the river from West Point and from a battery directly across the river. A huge chain was laid across the Hudson from the fort to the battery on the other side, under the water so it could not be seen by approaching ships. The chain could be pulled up as a ship passed that point and halt the ship's progress whereupon the guns could fire directly onto the ship from both sides of the river.

There is a piece of the huge chain on display at West Point.

In the portrait pictures, the subjects nose, cheeks and chins are painted in reds. Is this because they WERE redder then the rest of their faces, or is it a painting technique to make the picture more interesting, or to make the subject seem healthy or attractive?....

I'm getting on-line infrequently, but i'm keeping track of you.

The weather has been so great here in Roswell, Ga that i was sitting on the deck yesterday, knitting and reading "1776". Today it's pouring rain...I'll be back home at the beginning of the week, so I'll catch up then.....Jean

Just like most things, New York Harbour is way more complicated than I would understand from 1776. If anyone is truly, truly interested there are on Google for Harbour NY, 1,000,000 (Yes, One Million) possible hits.

However, for the purpose of our discussion the following facts will be enough to understand how complex were the issues that the British Navy had to deal with when entering those waters: Rivers and Streams, - 22. Tidal Straights - 14, Bays, Inlets,and Coves - 24, Islands - 26 (This includes Manhattan and Staten Islands).

From the "Geography of NY Harbour: " NY Harbout is at the confluence of 3 Major Bodies of Water. The Harbor opens to the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound-both are tidal bodies but are out of sync with each other by several hours. The Hudson River adds a non-tidal flow component at the North."

Judy

My several great grandparents ago arrived Mid 1600's to help his Uncle Peter Stuyveson build New Netherlands, probably was one of the drunken Dutchmen that massacred the Mahuat indians and started the, 300 year Indian War, we are engaged in today. I digress, Peter and his boys built the wall to repel Indians. over the years it turned into a traders Business street and now is Wall Street.

The rest is little known History it is however, interesting how influential 150 years of New Yorks, Dutch & English treaties, bear on our freedom from, Theocracy's and Monarchies, today and we have such an abiding flexible Democracy, ruled by their treaties, the foundation of our Constitution.

LITTLE KNOWN NEW NETHERLANDS HISTORY

For what its worth a Stiver is a Dutch coin, contains a dimes worth of silver mined and minted in South Africa. The value was in the coin, it was a valued international medium of exchange since the 1200's.

FASCINATING HISTORY - ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING!

Gee, I'm so impressed with so much history here, and history that is not in the book. Not only is the book very good, but our digressions are every bit as interesting!

We can learn so much from each other!

THANK YOU KNUGURU!!!

Are you new to Seniornet or just new to the BOOKS? I would never have known the history of Wall Street if you had not posted and to think of how far back the name came from and why it was named, that is so interesting.

Here is another little known fact which I looked up on the Internet from a site called SCOPE:

"The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.)

The English later applied the term to Dutch pirates, and later still Dutch settlers in New York applied it to English settlers in Connecticut, who were known for their piratical trading practices. During the French and Indian War the British general James Wolfe took to referring derisively to the native New Englanders in his army as Yankees, and the term was widely popularized during the Revolutionary War by the song "Yankee Doodle." By the war's end, of course, the colonists had perversely adopted the term as their own. Southerners used Yankee pejoratively to describe Northerners during the Civil War, but found themselves, along with all other Americans, called thus by the English during world wars I and II.

The alternative explanations--Mencken lists 16 of them--are that Yankee derives from various Indian languages, or from Scottish, Swedish, Persian, etc. James Fenimore Cooper claimed that Yankee resulted from a fractured attempt by the Indians to pronounce the word "English." But most others think Cooper was about as good an etymologist as he was a novelist."

Harold, you obviously know the answer to the percentage of loyalists but I will guess 60%?

KNUGURU: I'm going to check out your link. Have you read The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto? It's about New Netherland also and is fantastic!

Your ancestors and my husband's ancestors may have been working side by side in New York! My husband's ancestors received title to a large tract of land in New Netherland in New York and New Jersey. We have a photo of my father-in-law and the mayor of NYC signing away the family's last claim on Manhattan! Apparently they used to own part of Wall Street. All that's left of the family property is in Englewood, NJ. My father-in-law grew up in what is today the oldest Dutch colonial farmhouse in America. He and my husband were in the Holland Society. So, I'm getting a real kick out of reading about the Dutch in America! (I think I'm more interested in it than my husband!!)

Ella: I just read in The Island at the Center of the World that in the Netherlands, the Dutch word for a young squire or a gentleman of property was "Jonker" or "Yonkheer." These words were used in New Netherland. Adriaen van der Donck was given in payment a vast tract of land north of Manhattan and van der Donck was called by Dutch and Native Americans alike the "Jonker" or "Yonkheer."

Today this land is called Yonkers.

Other land owners of large tracts in New Netherland would have been called this also. I wonder if this is the derivation of Yankee. (I haven't finished the book yet.)

Marni

Did you know that the Dutch invented the stock market?

I'd like to recommend a wonderful novel about the Dutch 17th-century Amsterdam stock market: The Coffee Trader by David Liss. It's a "richly suspenseful" mystery novel about Amsterdam in 1659 and the world of trade, particularly trade in coffee on the commodities exchange.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375508546/102-1011812-0721728?v=glance&n=283155

Marni

Thank you, Knuguru, for the info on Wall Street and the site "Little Known New Netherlands History". This is all very interesting.

Evelyn

I just received an email about upcoming TV programs next week on the History International Channel. It is "Great Leaders" week.

Tuesday, January 17: Ben Franklin @ 8:pm EST/7 Central

Wednesday, January 18: The Presidents 1789-1825 (Begins with George Washington, of course!) @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1825-1849 @ 9/8C

Thursday, January 19: The Presidents 1849-1865 @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1865-1885 @ 9/8C

Friday, January 20: The Presidents 1885-1913 @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1913-1945 @ 9/8C

Also....

Monday, Jan. 16, 8:00 EST - Lincoln, the Real Abe

and for Civil War buffs:

EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL- Sunday, January 15 @ 10/9C (Camp Douglas in Chicago, Illinois):

"One of the history’s most horrific prison camps wasn’t in Vietnam or Nazi Germany, but right here at home during the Civil War. In the three years of its existence, 6,000 of its 12,000 inmates died of exposure, filth, disease and despair. Doctors who inspected the prison, nicknamed 80 Acres of Hell, called it an “extermination camp.” This unrelenting picture of the wretched conditions sheds new history on the War Between the States.

EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL reveals that the Union was more than capable of matching the Confederates atrocity-for-atrocity. While 12,000 prisoners entered Camp Douglas, only 6,000 left. The rest were victims of calculated cruelty, torture and neglect. And southern soldiers were not the only targets of this treatment--many prominent Chicago citizens were incarcerated under the banner of martial law, unjustly convicted of imagined offenses by ruthless military tribunals. From the establishment of the camp to the terrible toll it ultimately took, EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL is a troubling look at a long-ignored chapter of the Civil War."

Harold, were you aboard an APA? They had lots of LCVP's. I was a Quartermaster/sigmalman on the USS Sabine AO-25 we were a fleet oiler. You must have had a right arm rate as well!

DM, does not address the British use of of 16 British prison ships in NY. After the battle of Long Island and New York plus American seaman captured by the British they soon ran out of prison space in NY. The British resorted to old ships fitted for housing prisoners. The death toll was estimated from 7,000 to as many as 11,644. The American death toll determined by the DOD for the entire war was 4,435. The death toll for American prison ship prisoners was estimated to be 7,000 to as many as 11,000. These ships were anchored in the area of the present Brooklyn Navy yard. Thousands of bones were dredged up as the yard was expanded. The bones where interned in a mass burial grave and is identified with a stone grave marker.

Thanks, MARNIE, for the announcement, I'll try to watch them all if they are scheduled in my area.

POTSHERD, that's a terrible statistic! All those men who left loved ones behind who didn't know what became of their sons and husbands; what an awful toll. Certainly we have made progress in reporting deaths in successive war and burial grounds, haven't we?

POTSHERD, why were the boats called "Higgins" boats? Who was he?

Washington was very worried about his men during the NYC siege and he had cause certainly; the city was crowded (he should see it now, hahaha); and he viewed "the city as the most sinful place in America, a not uncommon view. And the Holy Ground, owned by Trinity Church with 500 prostitutes roaming around was the worst place of all!!!

I don't think NYC is known as "sin city" today, I have no idea what would be considered the most sinful place in America, does anyone?

And what is sin?

GW had but 7,000 men fit for duty and he received intelligence stating that 17,000 hired German troops were on the way to serve with the British, bringing an estimated total of enemy to about 30,000. Whew! And 5 of the warships in the harbor carried more ammunition than all the Americans had and 45 more ships had arrived within a matter of hours.

All the "spade" work done by the soldiers must have been colossial - I hope it wasn't too hot of a summer.

But what odds!

Must leave right away, more later, eg

At Ulithi I was a member of "Ship's company" of SLCU-34 from early August 1945 to mid Nov 1945. It was my first assignment after leaving Boot Camp and Electrician Mate School. This was a Standard Landingcraft Unit serving the great Supply Base/anchorage supporting the Philippine and Okinawa campaigns and the planned for assault on the Japan. The war ended two weeks after I arrived and we decommissioned and closed the Ulithi Base by Thanksgiving. I was then assigned to the Commander of the Marianas Headquarters on Guam. This was the ofd Nimitz Cin-Pac headquarters that he used until the end of the war

Two years ago I put together a dozen Ulithi pictures with text describing my service there that mentioned the names of several of my Buddies I knew there, Click Here With in three weeks of the initial web appearance I had an E Mail from one of the people who I mentioned. Actually it was his son with the same name telling me that his father had died young in the 1960.s. The contact resulted from the son's googling of his own name which as a junior was the same as his father. He was amazed to find the pictures and mention of his late father. I too was amazed at the awesome outreach of the internet.

I found yesterday's comment on the early history of Dutch New York very Interesting. It is a faze of our History that I am not too familiar but Potsherd will remember that I did get a bit of introduction when we discussed "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire" by Francis Jennings, Click Here for the Reader’s Guide.

This book was about the history of an interesting Indian trading system begun by the Dutch in the middle of the 17th Century. Initially the early Dutch Traders chained their ships to trees on the Hudson near Albany, hence the term "Covenant Chain" was the name applied to the system as it developed and as it was continued by the British. Its history and particularly how it affected the history of the Iroquois was the subject of the Jennings book.

I thought it interesting that at least two of our group had family connections to the early Dutch N.Y. settlers.

Ella, Higgins was the designer/builder of the plywood hull boats. The LCVP boats were steel hulls. Harold, enjoyed your site, interesting to look at the old photos. Yes Ulithi was a big base. We seldom got ashore, Merchant tankers replenished our cargo of Av. gas(130 octane), black oil ect from Pearl Harbor. We were replenished with food and stores at sea via cargo nets, ect. When we did get ashore it took awhile to walk on something that was steady.

This is from our local newspaper, "The Sentinel-Record", Hot Springs, Arkansas for January 14,2006:

Today in History - On January 14, 1784, the United States ratified a peace treaty with England, ending the Revolutionary War.

Thanks, Harold, for the WWII pictures. Interesting.

Evelyn

Evelyn: I was surprised to see the date the treaty was ratified - Jan. 14, 1784 - because I had thought the war ended in 1783. I looked at a timeline to see what was going on. The finalities of the war did drag on for a long time. Here are some final events:

1782

November 30 - A preliminary peace treaty is signed in Paris. Terms include recognition of American independence and the boundaries of the United States, along with British withdrawal from America.

December 14 - The British withdraw from Charleston.

1783

January 20 - England signs a preliminary peace treaty with France and Spain.

February 3 - Spain recognizes the United States of America. Sweden, Denmark and Russia follow suite later.

February 4 - England officially declares an end to hostilities in America.

April 11 - Congress officially declares an end to the Revolutionary War.

April 26 - The total of Loyalists who have fled for Canada reaches 100,000 as 7,000 leave New York.

June 13 - The main part of the Continental Army disbands.

September 3 - Treaty of Paris signed.* Congress will ratify the treaty on January 14, 1784.

November 2 - Washington delivers his farewell address to his army. The remaining troops are discharged the following day.

November 25 - The last British troops depart as Washington enters Manhattan.

http://www.americanrevolution.com/Timeline.htm

*Treaty of Paris signed. - I wondered what was going on here. I clicked on the word. It took me to another page that said this: "The Treaty of Paris 1783 - This treaty, signed on Sept. 3, 1783, between the American colonies and Great Britain, ended the American Revolution and formally recognized the United States as an independent nation."

Maybe it was just the time it took for the documents to be sent across the ocean that the ratification took so long.

Ratification is the process of adopting an international treaty, or a constitution or other nationally binding document (such as an amendment to a constitution) by the agreement of multiple subnational entities.

Ella,

In answer to your question "Where is Sin City today?' The accepted answer is Las Vegas , Nevada. The reason is the fact that a huge percentage of the Citys' inhabitants (but certainly not all) make their living off of mens (and womens) propensity to gamble (many become addicted) , get drunk (many are addicted) , pay large sums for prostitutes and strip clubs and in general try to wrest money from others by possibly illicit means. But the victims all go willingly to the slaughter. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the USA today.

As to your second question :"What is sin?" That is everyones personal and individual decision. Perhaps when we get into a discussion of a book on Philosophy we can deal with it or expres opinions on the subject. I'm sure you and everyone else has given it much thought. My info on Las vegas is a factual answer and not an opinion.

Judy

Marni, thank you for the tv. listings. I have printed the dates out. Now I am going to mark each one on the calander.

Harold, here is my guess at the percentages.

40% Patriotic
59% Tory
1% Didn't care either way


I think all of the people had some feelings about what was happening. Then again there are always some people out of touch with what is happening politically in the world. When there is a civil war happening in your country, with the involvement of your family members is it possible not to have any strong opinion about what is happening? Maybe I should have counted 1% who didn't care either way.

New York had strategic importance because of the amount of water surrounding it. Also, there were more Loyalists and Tories in New York than in Boston. All of these factors worked in Britain's favor. Was there any way George Washington could have avoided going to New York? What, if anything, was strategically favorable to George Washington and the Patriots in New York? Wasn't it a no win situation?

At that time was New York jam packed with houses and other buildings? Was there any open forest land available? Was it strategically possible to draw the British from the sea and on to land to fight? It seems fighting on land would have been favorable to the Patriots. I guess it was a no win situation. There were so many Tories and Loyalists in New York. The numbers of those supporting King George would have been an insurmountable obstacle for the Patriots. Plus, with all of that water there would have been no way in the world to draw the British out of their comfort zone which was water.

So, why did they need to head for New York???

Harold ,have e-mailed Oxford University Publishing requesting permission to use the David Hackett Fischer maps from Washington's Crossing. Keep your fingers crossed the maps are outstanding. Have started " Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America" by Francis Jennings. It was the winner of the 1986 Distingnished Book Award of the Society of Colonial Wars. It appears to be an excellent read and well documented as are all Jennings works as you know.

Hats and Marni, regarding my question concerning colonial public opinion division into groups labeled, Patriot, Tory, or didn’t care, there are no actual poll results archived to give an answer. Yet there is much historical evidence indicating there was substantial division in each of the three groups. After my experience with the John Adams and Ben Franklin discussions, I came to see the size of each of these groups perhaps roughly equal. I asked my only professional historian contact, a Local community college professor, the question and he came up with essentially the same division. This leads me to think that perhaps one or more of recent authors, David McCullough, James Strodes, or Walter Isaacson or others, had mentioned a division iin this order. Perhaps previous reading subconsciously influenced both of us. In any case any answer today at best must be educated guess based on reading of the sources.

Perhaps we would be on firmer grounds by concluding simply that there was no unanimity of opinion with the three general groups each representing a significant portion of the population.

I have a wonderful little book by a Rev Joseph Doddridge, “The Settlement and Indian Wars Of the Western Part of Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1763 – 1783.” Doddridge became a popular 19 century minister. He was born about 1767 in Washington County PA on the Ohio River near the border of what is now West Virginia. His Mother died about 1775 and his father arranged to send him with an uncle, Alexander Wells (my ancestor), back to Baltimore County for schooling. When they reached the first Maryland Town they stopped at a Tavern where the evening dinner conversation was the story of the hanging of the local Tories. It made quit an impression on the 7-year old kid who included the story in his book written years later in his old age..

I certainly agree that no history book by any author that I have read was better or more thoroughly researched than the “Ambiguous Iroquois Empire” by Francis Jennings. It was the most professionally written book Seniorsnet Books has ever done. Its only shortcoming was it was written for the professional academic historian, not the popular reader. Possibly one participant other than you and myself actually finished the book. I frankly liked the book and got a lot out of it regarding colonial history relating to their relation among themselves, the Mother Country and the Indians, but it was a very difficult book to read and understand particularly for a general reader whose past experience had been limited to the popular writings of the likes of Ambrose, McCullough and Ellis.

Regarding the maps let’s see if you get a response from your query to the publisher. If not you might refer to them by the page number in the “Washington’s Crossing” book Some of us may have a copy or will see them in a library. Also You might do a Google search for “Maps-Description of area or event.” A suitable map might be available that you can link on the Internet to link.

Click Here for some 50 plus American Revolution Battle Maps

Harold: I just clicked on one map and already it was easier to see places than in the maps of our book.

It would be interesting to compare the same sites side by side with a current map. For instance, I'm looking at the map of the Siege of Boston. There has been so much landfill since that it's hard to compare some of the places to the Boston area today. Interesting to see how Boston was a peninsula connected to the mainland by such a dinky strip or neck of land.

Harold, what a good site. Thank you!!

DM keeps us on edge about the British and rebel forces in NYC and he does it so well; we finish up Chapter Four today with news that the Declaration of Independence has been sent to GW and Henry Knox, such an elegant writer, (wonderful that his letters have been preserved) writes "The eyes of all America are upon us; as we play our part posterity will bless or curse us."

I want to tell him - to shout at him - you did it! We won, we have our independence, we are grateful to you all. I'm feeling very patriotic in reading the end of this chapter, they are all so hopeful and so encouraged by the news and know so little about what is ahead of them.

They pulled down the gilded lead statue of George III on his colossal horse.

Was it Lenin's statue that was pulled down in the Soviet Union when the Communists were ousted and Boris Yeltsin was there with the crowd; we watched it on TV? It was Lenin's statue or was it Stalin's? Oh, golly, how quickly one can forget. But I can't forget the incident or the wall coming down - this was as close an incident in our century that compares to that of the Americans in their jubilation.

"A more impudent, false, and atrocious proclamaation ws never fabricated by the hands of man," said one British officer and they worried that the Americans may not fight????

AND THEN GEORGE WASHINGTON VIOLATED ONE OF THE OLDEST, MOST FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF BATTLE, NEVER TO DIVIDE YOUR STRENGTH WHEN FACED BY A SUPERIOR FORCE. HE SPLIT HIS ARMY.

Could we compare this error to what Hitler did when he split his army and marched into the Soviet Union in WWII?

Thanks for the map sites. Not having great maps in books of history is a continuing frustration to me. I simply cannot understand why authors don't include them. I'm reading "The Bridge on the Drina" about the Balkans over hundreds of years of history, and there is not one single map in the whole book!

Ella: Stalin's statue definitely was pulled down. I don't know about Lenin.

Harold, thanks for the maps site. My copy of "1776" is large print from the library and there are no maps in it, so I was really at a loss. This map site makes everything more understandable.

Evelyn

It amazes me at this part of the book how many of the Americans are dying of disease such as "camp fever."

I also thought it was interesting how Nathaniel Greene has periodic bouts of illness. Here in NY, when Greene is needed the most, he falls ill again "stricken at the crucial hour." It sounds as though Greene nearly died at this point from his illness. What would we have done without him???

Things don't look well for the Americans by page 154 in our book!

---------------------------

I thought it interesting how Washington had a number of old ships sunk at the mouth of the East River to create a blockade against British ships. This was an old-time war tactic. I've read of this being done in other wars. (For instance, in 1565 the Knights of Malta sank many ships in their harbor on Malta to stop the Ottoman fleet from accessing the harbor.)

Marni

King George's statue was pulled down from its location on Bowling Green. Bowling Green is right next to Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, right in front of the old U.S. Customs House.

"In August 21, 1770, the British government erected a 4,000 pound gold-plated leaden statue in the plaza depicting King George III mounted on horseback and dressed in Roman garb in the style of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The statue had been commissioned in 1766, along with a statue of William Pitt, to the prominent London sculptor Joseph Wilton.

The statue was very unpopular with the public. In 1773, the city passed an anti-graffiti and anti-desecration law to counter vandalism against the monument. On July 9, 1776, after the Declaration of Independence was read to Washington's troops at the current site of City Hall, a mob of local citizens rushed to Bowling Green where they toppled the statue. The event is considered one of the most enduring images in the city's history. According to folklore, the statue was chopped up and shipped to a Connecticut foundry to be made into some 40,000 Patriot bullets. Parts of the statue are preserved in the New-York Historical Society. The event has depicted over the years in several works of art, including an 1859 painting by artist Johannes Adam Simon Oertel."

Here's info about Bowling Green:

"BOWLING GREEN is New York’s oldest park and may have been the site where Dutch settler Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan Island from the Native Americans with a variety of goods valued at $24. Beginning in 1733 Bowling Green was leased by the people of New York from the English crown for the token amount of one peppercorn each year. A large statue of King George III (located where the fountain is now) and the decorative crowns mounted on each fencepost, were torn down by the angry mob that marched here on July 9, 1776, after George Washington read the Declaration of Independence. The iron fence around the green was erected in 1771 and is the original.

On the south side of the park is a magnificent Beaux-Arts building, the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House. It was designed by Cass Gilbert (also architect of Woolworth Building) in 1907, and the four statues are by sculptor Daniel Chester French (of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC fame). It is now home to the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, with the largest public collection of Native American artifacts in the world.

On the north side of the park stands a 7,000 pound bronze “Charging Bull.” This sculpture by Arturo Di Modica, mysteriously appeared one day in 1989 (and following the market crash of 1987) in front of the New York Stock Exchange. Clearly, a reference to the stock market’s bulls (optimists) and bears (pessimists) – its nose now shines from all the good-luck pats it receives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green_(New_York_City)

Marni

Here's Johannes Adam Simon Oertel's painting "Pulling Down the Statue of King George III," N.Y.C., ca. 1859

http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=77

If you are becoming more and more fascinated by the Revolutionary War, as I am, we will continue to explore it in March When I assist Marni in leading a discussion of "Founding Mothers" bu Cokie Roberts, the story of the women behind the Founding Fathers. Come and join us:

FOUNDING MOTHERS

Ella another example of iconoclast ing (how’s that for creating a new verb) is the recent tearing down of the statute of Saddam in Baghdad. Ceremonies of this sort, it would seem, are a mandatory part of all revolutions.

The division of his New York forces by George Washington in the summer of 1776 mentioned by McCullough concerned the division necessary to defend both Manhattan and Long Island. I think this was a Necessary division since if one place was undefended Howe would occupy it unopposed and use it as a spring board to attack the other. I think the more serious division mandated by the Continental Congress was the concurrent offensive operation in the north against Canada. This operation was getting nowhere and the Congress kept requiring Washington to send reinforcements he really could not spare.

In any case any division of American forces was not so serious in the end as the late German dictator’s sudden opening of a second front in Russia. In the end the Americans got away with it, Hitler did not.

I note several interesting WW II parallels in the New York campaign. One that I will mention now is that When Howe finally made his initial Long Island landing Washington persisted in considering it a diversionary probe and that the main landing would hit New York just as Hitler had done when allies chose Normandy to make their landing instead of the expected closer channel cost.

This will be Chapters 5 and 6. Since this involves some 90 pages we have allocated 10 days for this material. Let us begin tomorrow with Chapter 5 as the shooting war begins in earnest with a surprise British pincer attack on the American Long Island defense.

Iconoclasting? Love it, Harold, hahahaa

Thanks, JUDY, for answering my question about Las Vegas being sin city; I've been all over the USA but never had any desire to go there, I'm too frugal I think, but I do believe I read that the city is trying to shed its image and become more family oriented by building a Disney-like casino or some such thing..

And thanks to all of you for your interest in the book and your posts; what fun it is to come here every day and read your thoughts and your sites on the Internet have added so much to our discussion; DM would love this if he were around.

Were you as surprised as I to read the following:

"To many of the English, such affluence as they saw on Long Island was proof that America had indeed grown rich at the expense of Great Britain. In fact, the Americans of 1776 enjoyed a higher standard of living than any people in the world. Their material wealth was considerably less than it would become in time, still it was a great deal more than others had elsewhere. How people with so much, lilving on their own land, would ever choose to rebel against the rule God had put over them and thereby bring down such devastation upon themselves was for the invaders incomprehensible."

First of all, I just never thought of the colonies as being so wealthy - the standard of living better than anywhere else in the world? We think of the British Empire as being so powerful, so mighty, so wealthy, and yet we read this.

And then what is meant by the statement - "at the expense of Great Britain?"

If the colonists were so wealthy why did they object so strongly to the British taxing them? And if the trade with Great Britain had brought so much wealth, why did they want to change things, and go to war?

That was surprising to read that. Maybe it's that we did not really have a noble class in America. In Europe there were great extremes of wealth - very wealthy and very poor segregated by a class system. Perhaps in America, the wealth was spread out more evenly and we did not yet have a large group of the destitute.

I too was surprised by the McCullough report judging the average e Americans wealthier than the average English. True there was no hereditary noble class in America but all reports indicate a wide disparity of income,

I was more surprised at McCullough’s comments judging the health of the British Troops superior to that of the Americans. I suspect this was the result of the better discipline in the British units. They were forced to keep their privy areas relatively clean and wash their underwear more than the Americans..

Last night, I read some interesting info about British ships during colonial times. It was Oliver Cromwell who had ordered a whole new generation of larger British war ships be built to combat the Dutch navy in the 17th century. It was this new British navy that came to rule the seas.

These larger ships included "ships of the line" which were the reigning battleships of the period, like some of the ships in Howe's armada that entered New York Harbor.

Ships of the line carried from 50 to over 100 large guns. (Lord Nelson's ship HMS Victory carried 104 - see link.) During a naval battle, these ships lined up and faced off against the opposing naval line. The lines could spread out in a deadly chain for 16 miles or so, depending on the size of the armada. The guns could shoot cannon balls, grapeshot, or pieces of chain before exploding shells were invented (and used in the War of 1812).

Here are pictures and info about the HMS Victory, a ship of the line launched in 1765 which became Lord Nelson's famous flagship in which he fought and died at Trafalgar.

http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/1797/Victory/index2.html

Marni

Wow, I just was reading some of the HMS Victory statistics. It took 2,000 oak trees to build her, requiring "the felling of a forest of some 60 acres." It took 6 years to build her.

You can see why it was a big decision whether or not to build an American navy!

Marni, thank you for the link.

Click Here for my post #560 on the non-fiction concerning history discussions on the Usenet. Some of you might be interested in the several discussions on the American Revolution, the US Civil War, WW II, the Vietanm War and others. The linked message gives information on the Usenet discussions and how to configure your E-mail program to access theses discussions.

Re : the remarks of the English and Hessian soldiers about the wealth of the Americans- DM took this from a book called "The Hessians" written in 1884 by Edward J.Lowell in NY. All the original documents that the book is based on were destroyed in WW II. I got to the site from curiosity about the Hessian soldiers and why they were fighting for the British. 15-20,000 Hessians served for seven years. 29,000 were brought to the US and 12,000 never returned.

At the time of the Rev.War Germany was not one nation but many Little Kingdoms. Each was run by a "Royal Family". The Lords of Hesse-Cassel in Northern Germany were the Landgraves. They wished only to emulate the ways and customs of the French Court and spoke French. In order to support their palaces, gardens and expensive clothes they came up with the idea of selling and exporting men , soldiers,to countries who would pay for their services. In 1687 the Landgraves let out 1000 men to the Venitians fighting the Turks. In 1706 they sent 11,000 men to Italy. But England was their best customer. In 1743 6,000 served King George while 6,00 served in the opposition forces of Emperor Charles the VII.

Fredrich the ll, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel was the ruler at the time of the Rev.War. He was the Catholic ruler of a Protestant Country. His first wife had been an English Princess , a daughter . of Georgee II. She had a son with him and then separated from him when he converted to Catholicism. Eventually he had 100 other children with various women. He was a sucessful businessman and his troops were recruited by conscription They were well drilled. Since most of their families lived extremely poorly and were mostly serfs, life in the Hessians provided food, clothing and some money. In 1775 Frederick's first son, William went into competition with his father in selling men to the British. In the end he received a higher price per man than his Father from George the third.

Selling men is horrible to contemplate for us today but knowing the facts makes understanding DM's book even more interesting.

Judy

That was interesting, Judy. Thanks! Gad, 100 children. Fredrich was a pretty virile guy. Sheesh!

"In Europe there were great extremes of wealth - very wealthy and very poor segregated by a class system. Perhaps in America, the wealth was spread out more evenly and we did not yet have a large group of the destitute",

In pre-industrial times, a lot of wealth was based on land ownership. In England, land was limited, and ownership of land was carefully passed down in families, who became the hereditary elite. In America, land was plentiful, and anyone could get a parcel of land by claiming it. In the South, there was a system of gentlemen, the plantation owners. Their culture mimicked the British in many ways. George Washington came from this culture, and was a product of it, as we clearly see in "1776". But it seems to me that this "American nobility" if you will, could never have maintained the power or force that English nobility had when land was so widely available.

. A significant result of the English inheritance system in which the eldest Son took most or all of the fathers estate particularly land was that 2nd . 3rd, sons etc were pretty much on their own. Many of these immigrated to America through the 19th century.

My observation is that there was quite a disparity between the very wealthy and very poor in America, but as I said a big difference was that there was no inherited social position. Social position came with wealth and of course character. As long as an individual had wealth, he had social position. Likewise if the poor hit it rich and met mimimum social standards, social position followed.

Ella, I did not know the American colonists were so wealthy either. I do remember feeling very sad while reading our first set of chapters. When the British tore through so many homes in Massachusetts, beautiful items were broken and destroyed. After George Washington looked at the damage done in Boston, he wrote to John Hancock.

"...I have a particular pleasure in being able to inform you, sir, that your house has received no damage worth mentioning(106)."

Reverend Caner wrote about what he had left in his home. I can not tell whether his possessions remained untouched.

"a handsome clock, two mahogany tables...one rich carved mahogany desk and book case with glass doors...a fine harpsichord, 1000 books...(100)."

Overall, were the Tories and Loyalists richer than the Patriots? At this time in colonial America, was the wealth spread evenly between the three groups?

In my mind I see so many factors playing into "where" you were placed socially. When did the idea of the nouveau riche versus the old rich become a part of society's way of thinking? Did lineage play a part? If you could claim more blue blood wasn't that more important than currency?Is this a British idea? Did it also hold true in America?

Why did the Americans appear to be richer/better off, than the Europeans? I believe the answer is rather simple: say you are a farmer and living on the kings land (a serf) how conscientious would you be with the King taking a portion of your crops as payment for living on and the use of his land? Conversely, in America you are farming your own land and all the good things this brings such as initiative,planning,freedom to be what you are capable of being. In farming for instance all you have to do is look at the development of tools/machinery that made America the bread basket of the world. Was this a parallel development in the feudal kingdoms: certainly not, why? Simply what for? ,too make the king richer(I don't think so). The initiative to make the king richer was not at the top of the "To Do" list of the underlings of the kingdom. The big "I" initiative, is a powerful trait/emoution, with out it we see mediocrity at it's best. .

Here is a link to activities in Phila for January and thru the year and links to BF info http://www.benfranklin300.com/join_in.php

IMO Ben is the most symbolic person of what it is to be "American." I wish I had been in your discussion on him, is it in the archives?

I'm catching up on the links you all have provided since Jan 10 when I left home to travel South, I'm am ever amazed at how smart so many of these people were - men and women - I just read about Benj Rush graduating Princeton at 15. Weren't we lucky to have them all so interested in political philosophy. I guess at the time they had little else to be thinking about - other than surviving and day-to-day living , so all the great minds were involved w/ where and how the colonies should go. ......if you've already discussed this, i apologize, I haven't read all the posts yet.

Great to be back.......Jean

Oh, WOW! Great posts, so much to digest. Thanks for all the information and opinions about Americans being wealthy and I think we are all right - land was plentiful, there was no feudal system, the big "I" as POTSHERD said - capitalism - was effective, still is; we are still the land of opportunity as witnessed by all those we see around us from different cultures.

JEAN, good to have you back and here is the Ben Franklin book we discussed in 2003: Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson

If we - or perhaps we should have - listed all the good qualities that DM ascribes to George Washington, we would have the perfect Commander and President and it would be a long list. "Seeing things as they were, not as he would wish they were, was known to be one of Washington's alient strengths."

He was outraged by the soldiers and their behavior that he found in Brooklyn and Long Island, in contrast to the British forces - it must have been a sight; he had no cavalry, no spies, only a few of the officers had ever faced an enemy and he himself had never commanded an army in battle!

And as most of us would do (wouldn't we?) we try to relieve our minds and think of more pleasant thoughts; GW thought of home and plans for his future and wrote a letter to Martha. Isn't it terrible that she burned all of his correspondence?

Then DM takes us to the British and states that they were better trained, better disciplined, better equipped, PAID (hahaha), in better health, older and had been trained as soldiers.

What a contrast DM gives us.

Later, eg

Jean: Tonight is the History Channel program about Benjamin Franklin. I think it starts at 8:00 p.m. EST.

It seems that most (all?) of the first American colleges/universities began sponsored by religious groups. Harvard was started by a Puritan minister, etc. Puritan minister Jonathan Edwards ("Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) became president of Princeton shortly before he died. Someone mentioned that he was Aaron Burr's grandfather. DM briefly mentions Aaron Burr as a...colonel?... in the continental army. DM also just briefly mentions Burr's future nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, as a captain of artillery in New York City.

Here are some nice engravings of generals of the American Revolution. Just click on each general's name.

Generals of American Revolution

Marni

Thanks for the reminder, Marnie.

I remember from the JOHN ADAMS book that he entered Harvard at the age of 13, which at that time did not mean he was very bright or ahead of the other students. That was about the age all of the students were when they entered as freshmen. The educational system in the colonies was not prolonged at any level.

I was just looking at the engravings of the generals and noticed Alexander Hamilton is listed there. As far as I know, he only became a general much later after he had been Secretary of the Treasury. He was not a general in the Revolution.

Well, the title of the page is misspelled, also. Oh, well.

One thought just came to me. I know that several men who had served under King George were given land grants and am wondering if they were able to keep the land after America was freed from British rule. Or was it declared public land? What would have been the right thing to do?

As I remember GW was given great tracts of land in the Ohio VAlley for his service in the French and Indian war - or am I mistaken?

Ella: Were the "several men who had served under King George" that you refer to American revolutionaries or British or loyalists? That would make the difference.

Some of the loyalists who fled the country lost their property. I believe some of them later got it back. Property was something that was very important in the peace negotiations.

I know Washington kept his land. He planned to sell some of it off later, to make a profit as people moved west. He was a visionary in that respect. Washington, who had been a surveyor, knew good land when he saw it. He got some of the best land in the Shenandoah Valley. I read he had trouble later with squatters who didn't pay rent.

I don't know if any of you are interested, but I found something in the Library of Congress (online) that might appeal to American History teachers. It is a book mentioned time and time again in Russell Shorto's The Island at the Center of the World about New Netherland. It is a book called Description of New Netherland by Adriaen van der Donck, translated from Dutch into English.

Van der Donck was one of the original Dutch settlers in Manhattan (he owned what is Yonkers today). He was one of just 2 attorneys in the settlement. He represented a group of men who wanted the freedoms in the New World that were allowed to Dutch citizens in the Netherlands, rather than being forced to live under a dictatorship controlled by the Dutch West India Company. Van der Donck wrote this book when he went back to the Netherlands to plead their case.

This book became very popular in Europe, introducing people to New Netherland, its terrain, flora and fauna, its native people, etc., and many from different countries emigrated to New Netherland/New York as a result, creating the "melting pot" from early on.

I have not read it - have just been browsing through. But I was pretty excited to find it.

Description of New Netherland

Marni

MARNI: fascinating. Let us know how you find it.

I don't have cable. But if the History Chanel "Ben Franklin" is the same one that appeared on PBS a few weeks ago, it's well worth watching.

My local PBS station is advertising an "American Experience" show on John and Abagail Adams. They haven't given a date yet, but watch for it.

A belated "HAPPY MARTIN LUTHER KING BIRTHDAY". It's good to look up from reading about one of our struggles for freedom and be reminded that the struggle continues. Who was it who said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty"?

JoanK, I return the greeting to you and all!!

I have been side tracked today on a pressing family business matter. I will not finish until tomorrow afternoon, but meanwhile I note you are doing quite well without me. Continue your good work and I should reemerge tomorrow afternoon. Sorry for the absence.

Your question about GW having a sister: I checked the index of Wiencek's book and their is no listing for a sister. Wiencek does a pretty thorough job of describing GW's early life, i think he would have commented on her if there was a sister.

On the site about Deborah Moody they state that Gravesend "was the only town settled by a woman"; I think they mean the only Brooklyn town settled by a woman. It is confusing the way it is stated. There were many towns in the colonies that were settled/started by women, including Haddonfield, NJ named and developed by Elizabeth Haddon in the early 1700's. Gravesend may have been the first, 1643 is very early.

It is frequently stated in history text books that 1/3 of the colonists were for independence, 1/3 were loyalists and 1/3 were indifferent. I think how difficult it was for any citizens in the path of the war. In some places, particularly here in NJ, the side in control could change from day to day and each army group coming thru needed food, horses, grain, etc and might be in a hurry and well-behaved, or might tarry and/or be mean-spirited, violent and raping. How terrifying. So, many people may have changed their "loyalty" from day to day, just to survive.

The pictures of the generals are interesting, many of them look similar to each other, maybe it's the wigs. Knox doesn't look so big in his portrait, maybe the artist slimmed him down......

If you had land in Europe YOU WERE WEALTHY, that was part of the definition. If you owned no land you had no standing and were very likely to be poor. The merchant class was relatively new and as soon as merchants or craftman earned some money, they bought land if they could. So, British soldiers, seeing almost everyone above the servant class at least owning their house and plot of land considered the colonists wealthy. The colonist may not have any money, but they could feed themselves and barter for anything they couldn't make or grow. So, being poor in America - if you were free, white and male - was better than being poor anywhere else in the world.

The Univ of Penna, started by Ben Franklin was the only colonial college not related to a church, or supported by a denomination.

.......w-w-w-h-h-e-e-w-w.......Jean

Colonists were money poor, the taxes that Britain was asking for had to be paid in coin, so that was an issue w/ the action of having to pay the taxes. The bigger issue was whether Parliament had the authority to tax the colonies when the colonies had no representation in Parliament and why couldn't the colonies determine what assistance they would give Britain in paying off the debt from the French and Indian War and on providing soldiers to protect the colonists on the frontier.

Refusing to pay the tax had, for many, more to do w/ principle than w/ being mad about paying taxes. Actually, the average American paid far less in taxes than the average Brit was paying.....jean

I was looking up info about my husband's Dutch Lydecker ancestors in Englewood, New Jersey. Englewood lies on the western slope of the Palisades of the Hudson River near Fort Lee. I found an article put out by the First Presbyterian Church in Englewood about its history. They mention an important 1776 Revolutionary War occurrence that DM describes in our book.

"...About 1705, Garret Lydecker purchased 1000 acres of land in the northern part of the locality then known as the English Neighborhood. His house is said to have stood near the intersection of today's Grand and Palisade Avenues. Other early family names in this part of Bergen County were Westervelt, Banta, Bogert, Van Buskirk, Vreeland, DeMott, and Demarest.

These families were predominantly of Dutch and Huguenot descent, and no doubt prior to the war, led a peaceful existence raising grain and livestock and worshipping at the English Neighborhood Dutch Reformed Church, then located in what is now Leonia. During the 1770's its pastor was Domine Garret Lydecker, a grandson of Garret Lydecker, the settler. A vehement Loyalist, he used his pulpit to rail against the Independence movement.

Perhaps the most important occurrence here during the war was the retreat of the Continental Army from Fort Lee on November 20, 1776. The previous night Lord Cornwallis sailed up the Hudson with about 6000 British troops, who disembarked and scaled the Palisades at one, or possibly two landings in the Closter area. Washington was warned of the advance of the British and ordered General Greene to evacuate the Fort. The last of the Americans escaped past the Liberty Pole shortly before the first of the British appeared on Tenafly Road.

The Revolutionary War period was a grim time for most of the inhabitants of the area, some of whom left to live elsewhere. Bands of local Tory supporters raided the farms of Patriot relatives and former friends, while the British appeared again in September, 1778 plundering the harvest. At other times the Americans themselves did the raiding, as did Generals Greene and Lee who were ordered to forage for livestock but found little worth taking...."

http://www.englewoodpres.org/history.htm

I thought DM did an excellent job describing the horrors of the raiding, plundering, and raping that occurred during the war. He made it come alive. It must have been terrible living right in the path of the armies. I've generally thought of war as a rather distant event that occurs somewhere else where military machines fight each other. It's certainly a different story when it's in your own yard.

Good morning, Jean and Marnie - I can tell we are both history buffs and are entranced (not the right word, but all I can do early this morning) by history and this revolutionary war. You both make such sense of it all.

I woke up very early and not being able to go back to sleep, I read a few pages in DM's book and felt so bad for GW and his troops. Is it just me or does McCullough slant his book in favor of writing more about the Americans? It seemed so, and it seemed so right somehow, even though as a historian he does attempt to tell both sides of the story, as he should, but I quote a few sentences:

"In this its first hours of battle with the enemy on an open field, the Continental Army fought valiantly, believing they were holding their own against British regulars.......the whole left side of the American line collapsed. Thousands of men were on the run, hundreds were captured.........Defeated men by the hundreds were streaming in from the battlefield, many blood-spattered and wounded, all exhausted.....Washington was facing disaster and could do nothing but sit astride his horse and watch...........for the Continental Army, now the army of the United States of America, it this first great test under fire, it had abeen a crushing defeat."

And it goes on - "the situation faced by Washington and the army was critical. Having been outsmarted and outfought, they were now hemmed in at Broooklyn.......Nearly all were hungry and soaked to the skin. In places in the trenches men stood in water up to their waists......."

Perhaps I was just reading the fate of GW and his men and not the British side of the battle......

I'll read more later.....right now we have about an inch of snow on the ground and not yet having a garage (I'm on the list), I must go out and clean off the car and go into town for some errands. Will treat myself to some fried mush and sausage at a local restaurant to get me going. Love that stuff!

later, eg

I just read in the paper that "The French and Indian War: The Making of America" will be on tonight at 9:00-11:00 p.m. EST on Public TV.

It's being billed as "the war that brought on the American Revolution" and "the war that taught George Washington to be a soldier."

It's 2 hours tonight and another 2 hours next week.

Marni, thank you. I looked at the Ben Franklin episode. It was great!!

It was good! The History/History International Channel and Public TV have some really terrific documentaries.

I'm getting so excited at all the stuff I'm finding on the internet. It is just absolutely unbelievable what interesting historic info is there. I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but I just had to post this. Then I won't bug you about the family anymore!

I just found this about my husband's ancestor and the founding of a settlement on western Long Island near where a lot of battle action occurred in our book - possibly the first of his family to emigrate from the Netherlands. (The name Ryck is my husband's middle name.)

"Ryck Lydecker was born circa 1620 at Netherlands. He married Claertie Vernier. Ryck Lydecker died in 1666 at Boswyck, Kings County, New York; between Jan 13, 1666 and Nov 28, 1666. He immigrated before 16-Feb-1653. He recieved a patent as recorded on the western end of Long Island within the area callled Mespatches by the Indians, who in 1638 had sold it to the Dutch. The patent was for 25 mogens of land, approximately 59 acres on 10-Dec-1654.

On 1660 Ryck was one of twenty-two men selected by Gov. Stuyvesant to organize and establish a proposed village, soon to be named Boswyck, on the western end of Long Island in the area called Mispatches by the Indians. He held the position of of Schout and the captain of militia of forty men and boys. In 1663 at Boswyck, Kings County, New York. He held the position of of magistrate on 30-Mar-1665 at Boswyck, Kings County, New York."

http://www.conovergenealogy.com/ancestor-p/p139.htm#i67315

Here's a map of early Long Island/New York/New Jersey/CT/Delaware and a virtual tour of New Netherland:

http://www.nnp.org/newvtour/regions/Long_Island/boswyck.html

Thomas Paines words "This is a time that trys mens souls" resounded with me. (In the photo section of the material for this week.) I researched Thomas Paine and here is some of what I found:

Published in 1776 "Common Sense" challenged the authority of the British Govr. The language appealed to the common man and was the first pub- lication to openly ask for independence from Great Britain. Published anonymously in Jan. 1776, it was an instant best seller both in the colonies and in Europe. Many editions were published and Paine became internationally famous. It became the leaven for the ferment of the times.

Paine was born in England in 1737. His formal education was limited and at an early age he was apprenticed to his Father's trade of Corset Making. He tried out many other trades but ended up working as an excise officer and writing articles and pamphlets on his own time. He was fired when he tried fighting for higher wages for those in his profession. Benjamin Franklin was impressed by his skills as a revolutionary writer and arranged for him to emigrate to America in 1774. So he had ben only two years in the country when he wrote the words "The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind".

In 1787 he returned to England prompted by the need to refute Edmund Burkes critical reflections on the Revolution in France. In his enlightened project against Kingcraft, Lordcraft and Priestcraft he was far ahead of his time. He sought to redress poverty through programs of welfare, old age pensions and maternity benefits. He tried to change charity into social obligation finanaced by redistrubitive taxation.

He fled to France in 1792 and gained election to the National Convention but opposed the execution of Louis XIV. Thus he fell victim to the French Terror and was inprisoned. He died in NY in 1809 depressed, drunk and diseased.

What a sad ending to such a great person.

Judy

Here's a picture of the cover of "Common Sense" with a drawing of Thomas Paine:

Common Sense Cover

Here is "Common Sense" in its entirety, 3rd edition:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/

Other works by Thomas Paine:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/

Thanks, JUDY, for that information about Thomas Paine, we should someday discuss a book about him - ANOTHER BOOK ABOUT THOSE REVOLUTIONARIES????????

And thank you, MARNIE, also for that contribution. I just looked briefly in the Index of our book and DM made quite a number of references to Paine; the first being on page 112 in which Paine, as yet unknown, stated the following: "The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. Everything that is right or reasonable pleads for separation."

Everything right and reasonable!

Our country has always produced great people when needed it seems, may we always do so!!! We are very fortunate.

You have to give it to George Washington for hanging in there after the hard times in New York. "The roads in Connecticut and New Jersey were filled with soldiers heading home." Also, it didn't take long for the soldiers to blame George Washington. "Some were openly saying they longed for the return of General Lee. Washington's leadership was in question." Washington does not give up.

To me, it's like a bright ray of hope to hear from Nathaniel Greene again. "If illness had denied him the chance to play a part at Brooklyn, he had by no means let his mind drift from the fate of the army, or all that was at stake."

Nathaniel Greene is very loyal and trustworthy.

Thank you Marni and Judy. I would love to read a book about Thomas Paine and Nathaniel Greene. I knew Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense." Both of you have filled in my knowledge gaps.

First and foremost it seems to me to have been extremely well planned and coordinated. It involved at least a hundred major warships and many more auxiliary ships and flat bottomed landing type craft powered by the ores manned by British sailors. It raises questions in my mind like, how and where were these people trained. Also when in an age when inter ship communication was limited to visual reading of signal flags it amazes me that it went so well. On June 6, 1944 the Allied landing in Normandy was a short 100 mile crossing; Howe’s operation was like a thousand miles from his base in Canada..

Click Here for the battle map. How could any general have neglected to defend the Jamaica Road from Bedford the use of which put the British in position to attack the American rear?

British General Clinton who planned the attack and General Howe who approved it were simply availing them selves of the obvious opportunity. Note from the map that the American defenses were in front of the Growanus and Flatbush Roads to the East. To the west the Jamaica Road from Bedford was undefended. The British used it to bring the main British force to attack the Americans from their rear. Someone in the American Command must have been aware of the danger since a 3 or 4 man American patrol was encountered by the British advanced guard and quickly captured. But why was there not a strong force there to block the pincer threatening the American rear?

HAROLD, I've been waiting for you to come aboard to analyze the battle and bring us a map; you didn't fail.

POTSHERD - where are you?

I'll be back later when I've reviewed the chapter, but is there any answer to that question, Harold, other than GW's inexperience? He must have felt that keenly.

and point it out to my students for their appraisal of "how did that happen." I am religiously agnostic; I have trouble believing that a supreme being is paying attention to every person and situation in the world, but there are a few times in my study of history when I have questioned my believe of that. This is obviously one of them!!! Can this pitiful little ragtag army have just been lucky enough to have had that weather appear just when they needed to get the heck out of there??? W-e-i-r-d........

And then to have been fortunate enough to have had Glover's sailors and fisherman, "amateur" fighters, but "professional" sailors, available to handle the boats on the wild river.........it's a movie waiting to happen!!!!........Jean

Our local stations are doing a lot on BF also, since they are PHila stations. There were some overlaps of info, of course, but each was presented differently and had individual tid bits that were very good.

The History Channel and the PBS bios were very good and well worth the time to watch.

I also started to watch the "Presidents" series on the History Channel; many good points about GW, including the question, "Would Nixon have given up the presidency after two terms if he didn't have too?" I tho't "Nixon? NO! and neither would Clinton or GWB!" That was an amazing move on GW's part, especially since this was the second time that he had given up power when he could have kept it (after the war). Of course, he was longing to go back to Mt Vernon and the family, but that would have kept few men from forfeiting that much power.......Jean

On pg. 163 DM writes that the Jamaica Pass was narrower even than the others and thus the easiest to defend. Yet nothing had been said in any of the orders of Sullivan, or Putnam, or Washington expressing concern about the Jamaica Pass or the need to post sufficient troops there; they thought the British would come by way of Flatbush Road at the center.

However, General Clinton scouting around was told by the loyalist farmers in the area that the Jamaica Pass was unguarded and he immediately took advantage of the knowledge. Of course, he did, with eight reserve battalions, 14 pieces of artillery, followed by Generals Howe and Percy with much more of the same (p.168). And the rebels fought valiantly as long as they were able.

I don't like to read too many details of the battle; suffice it to say it was disastrous for the Americans - the first battle and, as MABEL said above, someone was watching over those troops as they retreated across the river in the night and in the miraculous fog which appeared at just the right time.

The first great battle of the Revolution in which more than 40,000 men had taken part ended in a crushing defeat.

Times to try men's souls - Thomas Paine

And on Sept. 8th in a letter to Congress Washington expressed his fear of again being defeated by the enemy: ""On every side there is a choice of difficulties. We should on all occasions avoid a general action or put anything to risk unless compelled by a necessity."

Can one blame him?

later,eg

Look at #365 in a day or two........ Jean

No problem, Mabel, I was trying to answer Harold's question, although he can do a better job of it. I'm not very good on strategies and tactics of war, etc.

Would I be feeding the British if I were a farmer and they came by looking so impressive with that artillery and thousands of soldiers marching?

Would I have any idea of politics, of Congress, of freedom, and what lay ahead for America when I was busy raising crops, feeding my family and there was no communication with the neighbors or anyone for miles around?

Would I even know that there was a war on? Would I have heard about General George Washington?

Of course, I would have known about the British and England's kings, for they had ruled for what? approximately 150 years?

When you read about these Loyalists one thinks traitors to the cause of freedom, but what did they know actually?

I should have mentioned this last week concerning Admiral Lord Richard Howe’s sudden contact of Washington announcing his commission to negotiate the end of the unhappy dispute. Remember I mentioned earlier his Xmas 1774 talks with Franklin in England on the same subject. At that time he suggested sending a high rank English official to negotiate. The talks broke of when it proved that the British would not accept any of the American home rule proposals

In July 1776 less than 2 weeks after the signing of the declaration of Independence Howe with his commission from the king including pardoning powers pressed Washington for a meeting. When GW turned the offer down Howe sent a colonel to change his mind but after a brief polite but cool meeting it too was of no avail. There just wasn’t anything to negotiate about. The offer of the pardons with a return to the pre-war status quo appeared in no way an enticement.

Franklin in early 1775 when the London talks with Howe broke down had thought that Howe had seen himself in the role of the high level official going to the colonies to settle the dispute. Franklin was right on that count and Lord Howe finally got his dream job that did not prove to be of very long.duration.

Jean: I'm so glad you brought up Glover's sailors and fisherman. They certainly were saviors to American soldiers in a number of battles. They are repeatedly in the right place at the right time. And what a bunch of brave, courageous, strong, persevering men under Glover, working on and on in all kinds of weather even though they were exhausted. We saw them at Boston, and then getting the troups off of Long Island, and we'll see them again.

Marni

I watched the PBS show about the French and Indian War last night. Did anyone see it? It was very good. It was narrated by Graham Greene (a Native American) and it included the Indians' side of the story, too. It explains how that war led to the Revolution.

George Washington was a major in the British army in the French and Indian War and was involved in several disastrous battles. Washington was an aide to Major General Edward Braddock when Braddock's army was defeated (and Braddock killed) near Fort Duquesne. Washington learned to admire the discipline of the British army and he learned the European style of warfare. But he also learned that it wasn't particularly successful against the French and Indians fighting guerilla-style warfare. The Americans put guerilla warfare to good use during the Revolution.

One thing DM tells us, after we see some of the disasters that befall the American army in 1776, is that Washington learned from his mistakes. It seems he made a lot of mistakes. At this point in our book, I kept wondering "How did we every figure we could win this war?" Eventually, Washington figured out the Americans just didn't have the manpower to fight the kind of fight the British could fight. He finally figured out we'd have to fight a "hit 'em and run" style of battle.

We see that Washington recognized he didn't have enough "intelligence" to make proper plans. He didn't have a network of spies in place. He called for men to act as spies and infiltrate the British and he kept after Congress trying to get money to pay for intelligence. (Nathan Hale was one of the Yale graduates who heeded the call and it got him hanged when he was caught as a spy.)

I think one of the reasons Congress selected Washington as Commander-in-Chief was because he was wealthy. (Also, he had been an officer in the British army, was tall, had great presence and dignity, and was from the South.) But his money was important. Washington and other officers, like Nathanael Greene, sometimes had to use their own money to pay their men and to get supplies and they had trouble getting paid back. Congress didn't have deep pockets.

Marni

If anyone wants a little background on the French and Indian War, here's a brief (very brief) history. It's interesting to think about that war because it led to the Revolution in a number of ways. Also, it shows how countries change alliances. Here we fought this long war with the French and we turn around and become allies with them during the Revolution (luckily - they helped save our butts).

http://www.philaprintshop.com/frchintx.html

Marni

Regarding the Jamaica Pass, Howe and Clinton were tipped off that it was not defended by several Loyalists. This enabled the British to execute a devastating flanking maneuver as Harold points out. One of the stupidest actions of Washington was to brow beat the Connecticut Light Horsemen ( 500 men and horses) Washington of course had no cavalry which he certainly could have used. He said he could not afford them( feed the horses) they said they would pay . then Washington wanted them to dig defensive emplacements, ect.ect and finally they simply rode back to their home state. Washington rather than accept the GIFT of a 500 man cavalry force found excuses to discourage same. Inelegance as well as command helped cotribute to the defeat of Long Island.

Thank you for your comment on Cavelry and the lack of it. I had not remembered reading of the Connecticut Light Horsemen offer. Wars are not won by not being able to afford necessary military resources. It is particularly sad since the Connecticut men appeared willing to foot the bill for their maintenance.

True Clinton obtained news that the Jamaica road was undefended from tories, but where were the Patriots warning Washington of the danger? A warning really should not have been necessary. All Washington and his Generals had to do was look at their maps which they surely had to realize its danger. Since its topography made it easily defendable, it would appear that a reasonably modest defensive force could have blocked the British pincer that caused the Aug 27th American defeat.

Harold,please accept my apology regarding the Connecticut Light Horseman comment. The source is Washington's Crossing by D.H. Fischer pages 85-86. Harold there are some weak areas of discussion by DM and If I can add important points/notations from Fishers book I will cite as DHF/WC and the page numbers. I believe many participants may have a acquired a greater interest in the Revolutionary war and if so would suggest Fishers Washington Crossing which just became available in paperback: price is around $15 bucks. It would be complimentary to our present discussion.

Yes, it is complimentary to our discussion POTSHERD and we appreciate you quoting from another source. Thank you so much, it adds another author's opinion and we would not have known about the cavalry offer from reading McCullough's book. He does say:

"The Battle of Long Island......had been a fiasco. Washington had proven indecisive and inept. In his first command on a large-scale field of battle, he and his general officers had not only failed, they had been made to look like fools.......General Lee had seen clearly that whoever commands the sea must command the town and from the moment Washington chose to ignore that warning, he was in trouble.

Washington never accounted for his part in what happened at the Battle.......Washington would hold Sullivan largely to blame, for too little vigilance at the Jamaica Pass, thus implying that in his view Greene would never had allowed a British surprise to succeed there.etc.etc."

The next big decision to be made by Congress and leaders in the field of battle was what to do with New York - burn it down or defend it. Imagine that!!!

I cannot believe that Franklin, Adams and Rutledge believed that anything could be accomplished by meeting with General Howe, other than to postpone a decision or better yet, an attack by the British.

When I read the following I lost a bit more respect for GW (although I know I will regain it later):

"In a fury, he (Washington) plunged his horse in among them, trying to stop them (from fleeing from the British). Cursing violently, he lost control of himself. By some accounts, he brandished a cocked pistol. In other accounts, he drew his sword, threatening to run men through......When no one obeyed, he threw his hat on the ground, exclaiming in disgust, 'Are these the men with which I am to defend America?'......Washington is said to have flogged some of their officers with his riding crop." (pg.212)

He went a bit mad, I suppose, because he knew very well his men were green and inexperienced in battle and at other times he had called them brave soldiers.

It's a bit reminiscent of Patton during WWII isn't it? Generals cannot always keep their emotions in check; but I think Eisenhower did it well. MacArthur failed also didn't he?

The GW reaction to the retreating soldiers and his attempt to get them to stop and fight as Ella pointed out was indeed a pretty sorry spectacle for a commanding General. Doubtlessly it was GW’s spontaneous reaction to the sight of the troops out of control in panic trying to escape. The troops were not about to respond to their leaders threats of violence. Is there any thing Washington could have possibly done to stop their retreat? I sort of doubt it.

It's a bit reminiscent of Patton during WWII isn't it? Generals cannot always keep their emotions in check; but I think Eisenhower did it well. MacArthur failed also didn't he?

I too see some similarity with Patton’s WW II incident in a much different situation when he slapped a wounded soldier while on a routine hospital visit. Both at least were pointless, emotional, ineffective outbursts abusive of subordinates under extreme emotional distress.

I don’t recall any similar incident involving Macarthur but I might have forgot.. To me his weakness was his propensity to promote himself in a manner more reminiscent of the 19th century than the 20th century.

so far, we see Washington as an inexperienced general, learning from his mistakes. That is the way he is portrayed in the French and Indian War series, and also in DM's book. It is a shame we won't continue to read about the war at the same level of detail, so we can see how and how much he grows.

So far we do see that he is indecisive: he seems to always divide his force because he can't decide what to do. But he learns from his mistakes, recognizes good men, and is willing to take their advice. We see that he starts out with strong aristocratic prejudices (i.e. his distaste for the ragtag New Englanders and for Blacks fighting) but is willing to change those when they prove wrong.

Reporting on historical figures seems to swing back and forth. At first, they are seen as larger than life, unbelievably perfect. Then the pendulum seems to swing the other way -- all their faults are discovered, and they may be almost reviled. Hopefully, eventually we get a balanced picture of them.

There was no offense and no apology is required. I agree completely that McCullough leaves out much specific detail. I appreciate and encourage your posts providing supplemental material from other sources, and your conscientious effort to cite the other sources that you referenced. Your abreaction of the Washington’s Crossing citations seems very acceptable to me. Please continue this practice.

I too am one who has acquired a greater appreciation of the Revolutionary War and the discussions of it on Seniorsnet Books. I fully intend to offer further discussions of other books. A George Washington’s Bio is a prime prospect. Tell us more about the “Washington’s Crossing” title by DH Fisher. Is it a full Washington Biography? Up to now we have been thinking of “His Excellency, George Washington.”

JoanK, I see the swinging of the "pendulum" too. GW seemed terribly distraught, overwhelmed and desperately angry. DM writes wonderfully, I can almost literally see what happened when the British and Hessians arrived at the scene.

I don't see one part clearly. My eyes don't see the sheer brutality of war. It's like DM reads my mind. He writes the words of a British soldier. "I saw a Hessian sever a rebel's head from his body and clap it on a pole in the entrenchments." Well, after reading that I had to take two quick swallows or I would have gotten sick.

What I am saying is that GW, with all he was seeing around him, might have needed to lose mental control for a moment. At least, he didn't leave the battle scene. It's like he lost his everloving mind and thought, on his own, he could fight back the enemy.

I think this scene with GW cursing just proves he is a man and not a god. He is fallible. All generals have weaknesses.

I know the Hessians are the enemy, on the side of the British. Anyway, it did move me that the Hessians began to sing hymns while crossing the water. The British continued to curse.

"When the guns at last ceased, the first wave of flatboats emerged from the drifting smoke into the sunlight and made for shore. By then the Americans had fled as fast as their legs would carry them."

After a battle do soldiers look over their actions and feel guilty? If so, I bet there was enough guilt to stew in a big pot over a fire and eat for their dinner. These men must have felt totally ashamed. Not only do soldiers face bloodshed, we can't imagine, they must suffer mind terrors: guilt, fear, shame. I remember hearing a term years ago "shell shock." I think that's the right term. Now we call it posttraumatic Syndrome.

Whatever it's called men who are led and men who lead have a heavy load to carry. I suppose this is one of the reasons we choose to honor their courage.

I think having this snapshot of GW here and in "Washington's Crossing" is not a fair way to judge him.

Joan, you are right about his growth from the F and I war when he wrote his brother that "I can with truth assure you, I heard Bullets whistle and believe me there was something charming in the sound." (I've read and heard that quote in sev'l places but i took it from Wiencek's "An IMperfect God."p.63) This is a very different "sound of war" that he's hearing now and i'm sure he had a very different perception of war when this war is over.

He appears to have been willing to change his mind in sev'l areas as he grows older. Wiencek provides some very ugly scenarios of GW particulary in relationship to servants and slaves when he was a younger man. He was a judge at one point in Fairfax Co. Va and he was very severe on young women indentured servants who became pregnant during their indenture and he apparently didn't bother to ask if the "owner" might have been the father. If an indentured woman became pregnant it was typical to add more time to her indenture because she alledgedly couldn't work to her full capacity while pregnant; at least a yr was typical. It, of course, would be advantageous (in more ways than one) for "owners" to impregnant their servants and it would his word against hers as to who was the father.

Wiencek states "this was an extremely harsh world for poor women and their children. (GW) was among the justices who ordered that 'Mary Cameron be summoned to appear at the next court to shew cause why she refuses to bind out her (baseborn/illigimate) children.' A month later her 2 children aged 3 and 5 were taken from her and bound out."

Wiencek continues "W sat in judgment when his acquaintance J Moxley brought in his servant I.L. 'for having a base born mulatto Child.' W and the other justices fined her 15 pounds, an enormous sum utterly beyond the means of a servant. The fine was a mere pretext, because the judges ordered that if she cld not pay it she would be sold, which was certainly their intention. As a further punishment she lost her 12 yr old white son, who was taken from her and bound out. So the fate that 'seems like death to them,' the breakup of a family, befell this woman for the crime of having a mulatto child."

Having no money and no birth control left women in a very precarious position.

GW must have had second tho'ts about race and Blacks as he grew older - and had the good services of his personal slave all those yrs - for he stated in his will that his slaves were to be freed after Martha died (if he predeceased her).

All of these men have such complex and interesting personalities, I think that's one of the reasons we still read and talk about them after 225 years+.......jean

Hi Mabel,

I am glad you are back. You were missed.

Since I make mistakes, I can accept the fact that all people make mistakes. All, including myself, are flawed. During our lives we strive to change and become better.

As far as GW and slavery is concerned I do not count it as growth to allow for the release of his slaves after the death of himself and his wife. It would have been admirable if he had chosen to give them freedom or pay them while he or Martha still lived.

Freedom after he and Martha's deaths, to me, is a little bit too late. In other words, we no longer need you so now you are free.

This seems to have been his way of dealing with Black Americans. At first, he didn't want Blacks to fight in the war. After he became desperate, needy for more men to fight in the battles, then, he allowed the Blacks to come in and fight. That is not growth. To me, that is just expediency.

Regarding Washington and freeing his slaves....I read in His Excellency about Washington writing in his will that his slaves should be freed (and also that they be provided for) after Martha's death. I, too, was disappointed that he hadn't done anything about it earlier. But, I guess we have to remember he was a southern plantation owner with huge acreage, growing tobacco and...wheat, I think it was. Large plantation owners had become dependent on slave labor and it was their way of life. Washington was certainly not alone. We fought a war over it.

I must give him credit, however, for freeing his slaves at all - and all of them. This was unusual. I read that it was Lafayette who had a huge affect on Washington, haranguing him for years to free his slaves. Lafayette was like a son to Washington. Lafayette was a great believer in the rights of man and in freedom for all, including blacks.

Thomas Jefferson, for all his talk about the rights of man, didn't free most of his slaves and, in fact, had to sell them to pay off some debts.

Marni

This is not a new argument, the one about huge plantations and the need for the workers. It comes down to the fact that no one should have ownership of another human being. None of us would want to work from sunup to sundown without pay.

Not only were slaves not paid, slaves were not treated as humans. To stand beside someone else and wait for them to tell you whether to walk, talk, sleep, marry, etc. is despicable. Slavery is never honorable or right. I don't think it is allowable to look for reasons to make a bad system look like an appropriate system.

I had to laugh when I read the scene about Washington losing his temper when his men were running away and throwing his hat on the ground. It was totally out of character for Washington to do that. He was noted for exactly the opposite - keeping his cool under the heat of circumstances, maintaining a calm, controlled dignified appearance, setting the example for his men.

DM really presents a picture of a man who couldn't make a decision. This was certainly what Charles Lee thought, and even Joseph Reed eventually "was having second thoughts about Washington's capacity for leadership." Even Greene seemed to be getting impatient with him.

I wonder if it was true - that Washington had trouble making decisions - or if it was just that there was no good decision that was possible because of the impossibility of the American's situation at that time? Charles Lee had another agenda - he thought that he should be Commander-in-Chief, so it was in his interest to portray Washington as weak and vacillating. And it appears that a number of people thought that of all the former British officers who had joined the Continental Army, Lee was considered the most accomplished and experienced and should have been in charge. The British thought Lee was their greatest strategic enemy.

Washington....incompetent at times? Or just in dire straits? To top it off, his men are deserting right and left and giving information to the British about the American army. Then Washington's (and staff's) letters were left unguarded (pg. 238) and wound up in British hands providing important details about Washington's plans.

And finally, the "crushing defeat" of Fort Washington to the Hessians which, according to DM "need never have happened." DM said "Washington is said to have wept as he watched the tragedy unfold from across the river..." It was not only Washington here who was indecisive and deferred to Greene, but Greene "was badly mistaken in judgement." "Both worried over what would become of their reputations." Charles Lee "became so furious over the news of Fort Washington he tore out some of his hair."

It seemed to me at this juncture that the Americans were at their "darkest hour." But the title of our first chapter for next week's discussion is "Darkest Hour." Gad. It's going to get worse!

DM says on pg 244 about the soldiers who had been taken prisoner, "What lay ahead of the Americans taken prisoner was a horror of another kind. Nearly all would be held captive in overcrowded, unheated barns and sheds, and on British prison ships in the harbor, where hundreds died of disease."

Here's some info from an interesting online article about how the British treated their prisoners:

"The Battle of Brooklyn, in August, and the capture of Fort Washington, in November, 1776, placed in possession of the British nearly four thousand prisoners; and this number was increased, by the arrest of private citizens suspected of complicity with the rebellion, to over five thousand, before the end of the year. The only prisons then existing in the city of New York were: the "New Jail," which still remains, in an entirely altered form, as the "Hall of Records," and the "Bridewell," which was located between the present City Hall and Broadway. These edifices proving entirely inadequate for the accommodation of this large number of captives – to whom they were unwilling to extend the privileges of parole – the British were compelled to turn three large sugar-houses, several of the Dissenting churches, the Hospital, and Columbia College, into prisons for their reception.

These buildings, also, were soon crowded to overflowing by daily accessions of captive patriots who in many instances, found not even space to lie down and rest upon the hard and filthy floors. Here, in these loathsome dungeons, denied the light and air of heaven; scantily fed on poor, putrid, and sometimes even uncooked food; obliged to endure the companionship of the most abandoned criminals, and those sick with small-pox and other infectious diseases; worn out by the groans and complaints of their suffering fellows, and subjected to every conceivable insult and indignity by their inhuman keepers, thousands of Americans sickened and died. Almost preferable, by comparison, was the fate of those who, without a moment's warning, and at midnight, were hurried by the Provost to the gallows and an unknown grave.

Great, however, as were the sufferings of those incarcerated within the prisons of the city, they were exceeded, if possible, by those of the unfortunate naval prisoners who languished in the "prison-ships" of the "Walleboght." These were originally the transport vessels in which the cattle and other supplies of the British army bad been brought to America, in 1776, and which had been anchored in Gravesend Bay, and occupied by the prisoners taken in the Battle of Brooklyn. Upon the occupation of the city by the British forces, these soldiers were transferred to the prisons on shore, and the transports, anchored in the Hudson and East rivers, were devoted more especially to the marine prisoners, whose numbers were rapidly increasing, owing to the frequent capture of American privateers by the king's cruisers."

More: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north5.html

Marni

I can certainly appreciate Hat’s feeling that GW’s freeing his slaves at his death was too little, too late. Yet that was better than the record of many of our founding fathers, not just from the south but from the border and even central states as well. TJ did free Sally Hemings and her brothers as he had promised but not his other slaves. He could not have done so had he wanted to, because of his debts; under the laws in effect at the time, his creditor’s could and would have prevented it.

I think we were all much affected by the horrors of 18th century warfare as exemplified by the Aug 27th battle and as described by McCullough and the horrors of the prisons and prison ships from Marni’s post.. It was particularly horrible when one remembers that the survival rate of anyone suffering a body wound was near zero. percent. It was a certain slow lingering and painful dying process. It was at least WW II before military medicine was able to save substantial numbers of those suffering battle wounds.

Here is an extremely interesting article about prisons, prisoner conditions, exchanges, paroles, deaths, etc.:

http://earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/pows.htm

Thanks Marni for the fascinating story of the prisoners and their fate. You saved me the work of researching that. I was also interested to read that many Hessians stayed in America after the War. Since 12,000 of the Hessian soldiers didn't return home after the war I suspected as much. I coulden't imagine that 12,000 Hessian soldiers died.

When I visited Mt. Vernon I was shocked at how tiny the slave quarters were in comparison to the size of the Mansion itself. On the day we went there was a sudden storm and everyone got drenched and ran for their cars. I had wanted to see more but the weather intervened.

As far as I know only John Adams freed all his slaves eventually. Perhaps Jefferson would have liked to but he died in such debt that it was impossible. I don't know if B.Franklin kept slaves. Does anyone have that information?

Judy

Judy: I just found this about Franklin. He owned slaves, but came to change his opinion of slaves. Eventually, he joined an abolitionist movement.

"Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers...Like most people of his period, Franklin initially believed that African slaves and their offspring were inferior to white Europeans and that they couldn't be educated. He began to question his beliefs when he visited a school where young African children were being taught. In 1763, he wrote a letter to an English friend where he stated, 'I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children.'...

...Some scholars believe that Franklin's conversion to abolitionist beliefs was hastened by his animosity towards the British. Franklin often expressed his belief that the British meant to enslave the colonists. This may have led him to examine the enslavement of Africans who were brought from their native countries to be used as property and cattle....

...After Franklin returned from France in 1785, he joined and eventually became president of an abolitionist group founded a decade earlier by the Pennsylvania Quakers. The group was called the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin was convinced that not only the slave trade, but slavery itself should be eliminated. He eventually freed his own two slaves....

...Franklin recognized that freed slaves could not fend for themselves without help, so he advanced the idea that slaves needed to be educated in order to become contributing members of a free society. In his position of president of the abolitionist society, Franklin wrote and published an 'Address to the Public,' in which he addressed the education of former slaves...."

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html

Marni

Ella, do you remember, did not Franklin have at least one of his slaves with him in England who gained his freedom by fading in to the English population? Do you remember the details?

H.G. Wells in his "Outline of History" tells of an 18th century decision by an English Court freeing the slave that a Virginian had brought to England during a visit. According to Wells the court interpreting English common law ruled slavery was an odious condition unknown to English law; a slave the decision held, was free the moment his foot touched English soil.

Of course the rule never applied outside of England (and sometimes not always there) and slavery was allowed not only in the southern North American colonies, but also elsewhere in English colonies. Slavery through out the British Empire was abolished by legislation passed by Parliament in the 1830's. The Government paid compensation.

Hi Harold, Ella and All,

I am babysitting my grandbaby today. Won't have time to catch up on my reading until tomorrow. Looking forward to getting back to "1776."

The great escape of a trapped army in our time was the June 1940 evacuation of more than 300,00 British troops from France. This evacuation lasted 9 days during which the Army was delivered across the channel to England in thousands of small boats where it was available to repel a threatened German invasion

The American Dunkirk came during the night of Aug 27-28, 1776. After the order for the retreat was given 9,000 troops were evacuated from Long Island to Manhattan by water during a single night. Even many of the cannons were retrieved, and a fortuitous post dawn fog continued to hide the operation from the British after sun-up allowing the completion of the operation and the evacuation of the rearguard.

The British were amazed when the Fog lifted and there were no Americans on Long Island save for three who had stayed back to plunder. That September evacuation saved the American Army to fight another day.

Abigail tho't slavery was an abomination. In "Founding Mothers" Cokie Roberts quaotes her as saying: "I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province. It always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me - fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have. You know my mind upon the subject." p.66

There is another quote hanging around in my head that i believe was from AA, but i don't see it in FM's, so I'm not sure - something about "I fear for my country (in relationship to slavery)......" Does anyone know that one?

Marni - perhaps you are remembering that Jefferson paid Sally Hemmings and her brother wages when they were in FRance and the brother wished to stay in France. If I remember correctly, he did stay for a while and then TJ convinced him that he would free him and his siblings and mother when TJ died if he returned and so he did. Have I got that right?......Jean

Jean: I don't know that story about the Hemings boy wanting to stay in France. I'd like to know more about that. It certainly makes sense. Why wouldn't he have wanted to stay and be free?

I just remember that Jefferson sort of "sneaked" his slaves into France by telling people they were "servants" instead of "slaves." He knew the French despised slavery and slaves were illegal there. But Jefferson wanted his luxeries. I read he had brought Sally Hemings' brother to France to learn French cooking so Jefferson could eat French cooking back in Virginia.

Jefferson seems to have been a man with two faces. He talked with one side, but often acted with another. He loved the good life and spent, spent, spent, even though he got deeper and deeper into debt. He liked the life that slavery afforded.

-------------------------------

Slavery was allowed and occurred in the northern American colonies/states as well as in the southern. Some Quakers owned slaves although "doctrines of their religion declared an issue such as slavery to be unjust." Some free blacks owned slaves and even some slaves owned slaves from some articles I have read on the web.

http://www.afrolumens.org/letters/040106.htm

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/slavery/anti-slavery_movement/quakers.htm

I was fascinated to find out about 18th-century white slavery when I read about the pirates in the Mediterranean, particularly the Barbary Wars. I think I was very naive. Seamen from countries along the northern coast of Africa along the Mediterranean (today's countries of Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria) frequently captured ships travelling through the sea, taking their plunder and enslaving the people aboard. The Barbary pirates demanded tribute in return for leaving a country's ships untouched. They demanded ransom in return for those captured and they often didn't get it.

It sounds like the lives of the white slaves in Africa were hideous. I read one account of white slaves who were forced to work digging underground tunnels for water to travel through the desert underground towards the gardens of the rich.

----------------------

This reminds me. For those of you interested in reading more about our Founding Fathers and who are interested in naval history, don't forget about John Paul Jones, the "Father of the Navy," according to some. "I have not yet begun to fight." His story is absolutely fascinating. One very good book I can recommend, which contains a wonderful description of the battle between the Serapis and the Bonhomme Richard, is John Paul Jones : Sailor, Hero, Father of the American Navy by Evan Thomas. Also, Samuel Eliot Morison's Pulitzer Prize-winning Jones biography, A Sailor's Story, is excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743205839/102-1011812-0721728?v=glance&n=283155

Also, Stephen Decatur's life is fascinating. He is our most important naval hero of the 19th century. True stories of Paul Jones and Decatur are more thrilling than fiction.

Marni

in Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx." He speaks to the very issue you talk about "who was TJ?" That relates back to my comment about how complex this group of men were and therefore so interesting......maybe it is true about every human being - being complex. We try to simplify people and describe them in a few adjectives, putting them into "boxes" of personalities.

I suppose none of us actually lives that simple a life that we can be described in a few words......Jean

Washington's Crossing (2004, Oxford University Press), which was mentioned above.
A few dozen posts ago, someone asked if the book was a Biography of GW, and no is the short answer.
However, this account of a year in the Revolutionary War does have a lot in common with DM's book.

The DHF book is part of a series: Pivotal Moments in American History.
It covers the events in 1776, with focus on the 24 hours around Christmas 1776. However, substantial
back-story is covered (in 379 pages), including the American retreat through New Jersey prior to Christmas,
the role of the Hessians, and the retreat of the troops of Cornwallis to Brunswick.

There are excellent maps and significant references. DHF is one of my favorite writers of history and I highly recommend this book.

Oh, yay, my library has a copy in. I'm going to read it. Thanks, Mippy.

We should now concentrate on discussion of Chapter 6 that covers GW’s defense and evacuation of New York, Manhattan and Operations along the Hudson River including the defense of Fort Washington and Fort Lee. The schedule calls for the completion of this material Wednesday, Jan 25 after which we will go on to the final chapter and our individual conclusions of the discussion.

Some Chapter 6 subjects we might talk about include the following:

1 Was New York City defensible considering the overwhelming presence of the Royal Navy? Who in the American Command Group favored withdrawal from NY; Who favored defending the city?

2.Again what major strategic errors did American commanders make. Who appeared decisive, who were indecisive; What errors did British leaders make?

3. Had the discipline of American Troops under fire in the Battle of Harlem Heights improved any since the Aug 27 fiasco; Had GW’s temper improved?

4. What was the cause of the New York fire that caused the burning of 25% of the city Sept 20-21.

5. Discuss the Nathan Hale incident.

6.Discuss the determined American defense of Fort Washington and its ultimate loss and the British assault on Fort Lee and the last minute American evacuation of the fort and the final abandonment of New York leading to what McCullough termed “the darkest hour.

The following are links to to battle Map covering the New York and Hudson River fighting Sept –Nov, 1776

Click Here for Battle of Harlem Heights map, Sept 15,1776.

Click Here Click for Map of Operations Along the Hudson River. Sept – Nov 1776

On slavery: I seem to remember reading that Franklyn was the only Founding Father who was an abolitionist (I don't know about John Adams).

In Maryland, but not I think in Virginia, it became the custom for "gentlemen" to free their slaves in their wills. Too little, too late is right -- it's having your cake but gaining a reputation for not. But by the time of the Civil War, half of the Blacks in Maryland were freed. This was precarious, however. If a White tore up the freed slave's paper and said he was an escaped slave, there was no recourse. So some people went out of and back into slavery several times.

JoanK, that is very interesting. I am trying to catch up and read all the comments. I just read Mabel's quote written by Abigail Adams. Her feelings about slavery are written strongly and with understanding. I have always wanted to read about Abigail Adams. I also had a chance to read Harold's interesting comments about the British and their hatred of slavery. Judy, I don't remember the slave quarters at Mount Vernon. I am glad you posted the look of the quarters. Marni, thank you for all of the links about the POW's.

It is a sad time for the rebels now. I have just read about Nathan Hale. I felt very badly for him. I don't think he was cut out to be a spy in the first place. I think he might have naively made many mistakes.

Harold, thank you for posting the questions. The questions keep me on course. I will wander like a lost ship without the questions.

JoanK, I lost my post. I wanted to say it's interesting reading about what happened to the slaves in Maryland during the Civil War. A little while back I read "The Known World" by Edward P. Jones. In the book there are instances showing the unpredictability of freedom given to a slave by his owner. One day you could have your freedom. The next day you might lose it.

Well, "1776" is not mainly about American slavery. I don't want to stray too often and take up valuable time.

I am going to print out Harold's questions.

Marni, I missed your link about the Quakers. Also, the one about slaves owning slaves. I never knew about Quakers owning slaves. I always have known about their help on the Underground Railroad.

As far as slaves owning slaves, this subject is covered very well, I think, in Edward P. Jones, "The Known World." I don't care who owned slaves, like Abigail Adams wrote, it is an abomination.

Sorry for writing so many posts in a row.

Marni, sorry I missed those helpful links.

I am hopelessly behind but will catch up - thanks, HAROLD, for the questions, they do help!

Knox said - "We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged."

The prayer that all commanders must pray before, during and after a battle.

And yet, he was blaming Congress, and not GW for all the stupidity and the flaws in the battle.

Washington was blaming the men who were in his words "contemptible."

Enough blame here for everyone. With no Commander-in-Chief sitting behind a desk at the White House and no Pentagon with its Joint Chief of Staff and brass where does the buck stop?

Later today I hope to have time to look up "Murray Hill" - I know there is still such a place in NYC, but who knew that it derived from a Quaker lady by the name of Mrs. Murray who gave afternoon tea to the British??

Maybe everyone but me?

Marni or others who live closer to the NY area than I, Today what if anything remains of the sites we are reading about such as Fort Lee and Fort Washington? Are there National Historic Parks at any of the sites we are reading about? Do the people of Harlem and Brooklyn realized today that their neighborhoods were once battlefields?

Harold, Regarding Washington’s Crossing it is not a bio regarding Washington however it is written with great insight regarding GW and all his officers. The “Forage war” is such an important aspect of the war for Independence; for instance, Patton, and his tanks; required gasoline and General Howe’s horses required hay. Howe, had to forage locally for hay. This created another kind of war_ small parties of militia_ sometimes larger ones_attack where they saw an opening, killed a few Regulars, and disappear into the countryside. The success of this encouraged more militia to take to the field. GW after the battle of Princton went to winter quarters at Morristown/Jocky hollow. The militia composed mostly citizen-farmers and winter was a down time for them so they harassed the British and Hessian troops and their installations: however Washington’s comments were not complimentary to the militia’s effors_Washington complained endlessly about them. Their indiscipline and stubborn independence infuriated him. “They come and go as they please”. Washington finally had to acknowledge how effect the militia was and had numbers of Continental troops accompant the militia in their raids. “The Forage war” was so effective it put the British on the defense, they closed military posts and ultimately were driven back to the Hudson river to the protection of Admiral Howe's naval guns. It is interesting that DM seems to skip this phase of the war, or did I miss something? Harold, it would be great if you could get a library copy of Fishers book to pursue.

Check out Google and " John Woolman" the great Quaker aboltionist.

resident. His house is still standing in Mt Holly, which is about 10 miles east of Moorestown where I am. My first encouter w/ contemporary feminism was in his house in 1972. I read an article in the county newspaper that said Betty Friedan was going to be there to discuss her book "The Feminine Mystique." Well, it's a very small house, so i was suspicious of what i had read as i walked up to this small "bunkalow." It was actually a group of women who were discussing the book - come to think of it, I guess that was my first "book group" as well!! What an intersting group of women they turned out to be. Three of them were active in the Quaker Peace Movement here in Moorestown and were also interested in starting a "consciousness raising group" about women's issues. Thru them, we found our church home and joined a food co-op and a nursery co-op and had fascinating political and intellectual discussions at that church.

(Ginny - if you are lurking, it was the First Baptist Church on Main St.)

I also got a lesson in the different Baptist Churches - my only knowledge of Baptists were the Southern Baptist folks in my home town in south central Pa. I was stunned to learn about the progressive American Baptist Conference and the independence of each church community......but i stray from the topic.

John Woolman's house is still open for tours and for samll mtg groups. He's another relatively unknown, but important Burlington countian along w/ Thomas Paine and Alice Paul. By the way I saw a notice yesterday that Bordentown, NJ is having the third annual Thomas Paine Festival the weekend of Jan 28 - 29. I'll have to check to see what that includes.

BTW Ben Franklin's dgt also lived in Burl Co as an adult, married woman. I sit in the middle of so much history......jean

Alexander Hamilton was another Founding Father who was an Abolitionist.

Marni

Hats: Re your comments about Nathan Hale....It does seem that he was naive in his role as spy and he was hanged for it by the infamous Cunningham mentioned in some POW postings.

I really admire Nathan Hale. I may have posted some remarks about him earlier. (I'm getting by book club discussions mixed up!!)

Nathan Hale is the "state hero" of my state, CT. He was born in Coventry, CT, the 6th of 12 children (of 8 surviving boys, 6 served in the Revolution), graduated from Yale, and taught school in East Haddam and in my home town of New London. The schoolhouse where he taught in New London has been preserved.

Nathan Hale died when he was only 21, hanged the very next day after being captured. He was captured the day after NYC caught on fire and perhaps tempers were particularly short. He was left hanging for days and then was buried in an unmarked grave which has never been found.

But before he died, he made his mark. Hale was a very popular teacher, different from other teachers of his day. He believed in rewarding students who did well. He also believed that girls should be given an education like the boys. (They weren't at the time.) He pursuaded the school system to allow him to open a class for girls where he taught them the same subjects as the boys. However, he had to teach them before regular school. so class for girls was from 5:00 to 7:00 in the morning! Apparently, Hale was tall, strong, smart, and attractive, and girls flocked to class. He was a hard worker, enjoyed playing football, and was very religious.

He also must have been a good soldier because he was promoted to captain and was admitted into Knowlton's Rangers, an elite military group. He was immortalized by his supposed final words spoken just before he was hanged: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

Today a statue of Nathan Hale stands in the Yale quadrangle.

http://members.aol.com/ellseybell/nhale.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Hale

Marni

Marni, I am so glad you listed links about Nathan Hale. I just wanted to know more about his story. He really wanted to do his best for his country. I don't think he did the job for fame and glory. I think he just cared about doing a duty to help George Washington and the rebels.

Marni, like you, as DM described Nathan Hale I liked him almost immediately. I see him as a hero.

I know tempers had to be short after the New York fires. Perhaps, at another time people would have given thought to the particulars of his case. I can't remember did DM say exactly what gave him away? Was he carrying firebrands? And what are firebrands?

I need to read that part over again.

I do remember his last words were taken from the play Cato? Is that a Latin name? I know Ginny, Marni and some of the others have taken Latin. If Cato is not Latin, who is he?

I think the name of that play has shown up more than once in "1776."

Mabel and Potsherd, didn't John Woolman write a journal? I remember years ago looking at it in the library. It is a published diary. It looked very interesting. At the time I had a strong interest in published diaries and came across this one.

I would like to read a whole memoir of a Quaker. The Quakers seem like very interesting people. I like their pacifist feelings. I liked Nathan Greene. He was a Quaker.

Harold In answer to your query in post # 410 re NY ers knowledge of the sites of Rev War please refer back to my post # 242 as an answer. I researched that and came up with that topic and question as answered by DM himself..i.e. That not more than one in 500,000 NYers have any idea of the sites. DM sees as a reason for this that the sites themselves have not been made into parks or Historical Monuments like Gettysberg.

Re: John Adams . Again I came up with a discussion on this subject with our author DM.(A Conversation with David Mccullough- author of John Adams.) The interesting facts which I gleaned are many but the most pertinent is the following: "...the odds were stackeed heavily against them (the Revolutionaries).They were up against the greatest power in the world. Only one third of their fellow colonists favored revolution so they were in the minority. When Jefferson and Adams were at work on the Declaration of Independence in Phil., they were living and working in a city of just 30,000 people. At the same time the British landed 32,000 troops on Staten Island. In other words, more troops than were in the largest city in the entire colonies.Those Troops- part of the best army in the world- were only about a day and halfs march from Philadelphia"

This gives a succint overview of the odds and the courage of the people involved.

Judy

Marni, this is from one of your links about Nathan Hale.

"The soldiers marched the young man to a greenhouse, where he spent the night. Hale requested a minister and a Bible, but both requests were denied. Early the next morning, Nathan was taken to a Colonel Montressor's tent. The British colonel offered him pen and paper, which he used to write letters to his mother and brother Enoch. However, both letters were destroyed."

This seems so cruel. What harm would it have done to give him a Bible and/or let him visit with a minister? If the British thought he would write strategically helpful information for the Patriots, they had the right to read the letters and check for damaging information. Then, his mother and brother could have received the letters.

It just seems heartless.

Is Nathan Hale's grave still unmarked today?

Hats-- Firebrands, as I understand it, are people who are on fire for their causes. In other words they talk a lot about it and also do acts that they feeel may help their cause even if the acts are not well thought out and logical. And like fire itself they may burn out quickly and completely..

Judy

Oh, thanks Judy.

From what I've read, Nathan Hale's grave is still unknown today.

Regarding who turned him in, I've read that his Loyalist cousin turned him, but that hasn't been proven. Here's what the SAR (Sons of the American Revolution) have on their web site about Hale in NYC:

"In sheer despair at the need of better information then the Tories of New York City would give him, the great commander [Washington] consulted his council, and at their direction summoned Knowlton to ask for some volunteer of intelligence, who would find his way into the English lines, and bring back some tidings that could be relied upon. Knowlton summoned a number of officers, and stated to them the wishes of their great chief. The appeal was received with dead silence. It is said that Knowlton personally addressed a non-commissioned officer, a Frenchman, who was an old soldier. He did so only to receive the natural reply, “I am willing to be shot, but not to be hung.” Knowlton felt that he must report his failure to Washington. But Nathan Hale, his youngest captain, broke the silence. “I will undertake it,” he said. He had come late to the meeting. He was pale from recent sickness. But he saw an opportunity to serve, and he did the duty which came next at hand.

William Hull, afterward the major-general who commanded at Detroit, had been Hale’s college classmate. He remonstrated with his friend on the danger of the task, and the ignominy which would attend its failure. “He said to him that it was not in the line of his duty, and that he was of too frank and open a temper to act successfully the part of a spy, or to face its dangers, which would probably lead to a disgraceful death.” Hale replied, “I wish to be useful, and every kind of service necessary to the public good becomes honorable by being necessary. If the exigencies of my country demand a peculiar service, its claim to perform that service are imperious.” These are the last words of his which can be cited until those which he spoke at the moment of his death. He promised Hull to take arguments into consideration, but Hull never heard from him again.

In the second week of September he left the camp for Stamford with Stephen Hempstead, a sergeant in Webb’s regiment, from whom we have the last direct account of his journey. With Hempstead and Asher Wright, who was his servant in camp, he left his uniform and some other articles of property. He crossed to Long Island in citizen’s dress, and, as Hempstead thought, took him his college diploma, meaning to assume the aspect of a Connecticut schoolmaster visiting New York in the hope to establish himself. He landed near Huntington, or Oyster Bay, and directed the boatman to return at a time fixed by him, the 20th of September. He made his way into New York, and there, for a week or more apparently, prosecuted his inquiries. He returned on the day fixed, and awaited his boat. It appeared, as he thought; and he made a signal from the shore. Alas! he had mistaken the boat. She was from an English frigate, which lay screened by a point of woods, and had come in for water. Hale attempted to retrace his steps, but was too late. He was seized and examined. Hidden in the soles of his shoes were his memoranda, in the Latin language. They compromised him at once. He was carried on board the frigate, and sent to New York the same day, well guarded.

It was at an unfortunate moment, if anyone expected tenderness from General Howe. Hale landed while the city was in the terror of the great conflagration of September 21st. In that fire nearly a quarter of the town was burned down. The English supposed, rightly or not, that the fire had been begun by the Americans. The bells had been taken from the churches by order of the Provincial Congress. The fire-engines were out of order, and for a time it seemed impossible to check the flames. Two hundred persons were sent to jail upon the supposition that they were incendiaries. It is in the midst of such confusion that Hale is taken to General Howe’s head-quarters, and there he meets his doom.

No testimony could be stronger against him than the papers on his person. He was not there to prevaricate, and he told them his rank and name. There was no trial, and Howe at once ordered that he should be hanged the next morning. Worse than this, had he known it, he was to be hanged by William Cunningham, the Provost-Major, a man whose brutality, through the war disgraced the British army. It is a satisfaction to know that Cunningham was hanged for his deserts in England, not many years after.

Hale was confined for the night of September 21st in the greenhouse of the garden of Howe’s head-quarters. This place was known as the Beekman Mansion, at Turtle Bay. This house was standing until within a few years.

Early the next day he was led to his death. “On the morning of the execution,” said Captain Montresor, an English officer, “ my station being near the fatal spot, I requested the Provost-Marshal to permit the prisoner to sit in my marquee while he was making the necessary preparations. Captain Hale entered. He asked for writing materials, which I furnished him. He wrote two letters; one to his mother and one to a brother officer. The Provost-Marshal destroyed the letters, and assigned a reason that the rebels should not know that they had a man in their army who could die with so much firmness.”

Hale asked for a Bible, but his request was refused. He was marched out by a guard and hanged upon an apple-tree in Rutgers’s orchard. The place was near the present intersection of East Broadway and Market Streets. Cunningham asked him to make his dying 'speech and confession.' 'I only regret,' he said, 'that I have but one life to lose for my country.'"

http://www.ctssar.org/patriots/nathan_hale.htm

The SAR maintains the Museum at Fraunces Tavern in NYC. There are a number of items written by or belonging to or about Nathan Hale there.

Marni

Cato was a conservative Roman senator and soldier, and a long-time enemy of the great
Julius Caesar. He died in Africa after a long civil war against Caesar.
Here's a link:

Cato

Since many of Cato's speeches and legal writings were preserved, quoting him would have been likely. Well-educated people of the 18th century would have learned Latin, known about famous Romans, and
could quote from works in Latin.

Politicians in Britain even in the 20th century were still prone to toss off Latin phrases, but in the U.S. that style of speech seems to have diminished after the 18th century (in the age of Jackson, and so on).

Thank you Judy for the reminder of your quote #242. I should have remembered the ‘DM quote regarding N.Y as being the place where history was made, not remembered.

There does seem to be a Fort Lee historic Park at the site of the Revolutionary War structure. Click Here There are no pictures to indication that the 17th century structures still stand.

Regarding Fort Washington, apparently the British renamed it after they captured it Fort Tryon, after the last Royal Governor of N.Y. There is a Fort Tryon Park today (Click Here. I am surprised it has kept its Tory name as it appears in the first paragraph of the link. Again there is no indication that the old defense structures stand today.

I was hunting for Revolutionary War sites that we can still visit in NYC and came across a New York Times article online "New York's Revolutionary War Sites: Just Squint, and It's 1776." Of all things, it was about David McCullough guiding a reporter around NYC to Rev. War sites. Here's the URL, but you have to register (free) to see:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/travel/escapes/23foot.html?ex=1138078800&en=104614febf1cf77a&ei=5070

Some exerpts and sites pointed out by McCullough:

"...Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn ...Mr. McCullough, the abettor of American history, with two Pulitzers and two National Book Awards, has no trouble seeing it [history] on this hill in Brooklyn, woodlands in 1776 and a cemetery since 1838. "It is all still happening for me," he said, gesturing out toward the Manhattan skyline. 'A lot of what is here vanishes in my eye and I can put myself in that place and that time.'"

"...he led me to the statue of Minerva commemorating the Battle of Brooklyn." "Here and along the slopes of Greenwoods hills," the inscription below Minerva reads, "our patriots for the first time faced their foe in open field; and we stood the test."

"...Jeffrey I. Richman, the historian of Green-Wood Cemetery, who was along on our walk, mentioned that John Greenwood (whose name bears no relation to the cemetery's) was buried just down the hill, and Mr. McCullough had trouble containing himself. "This is so exciting!" he said, and was off with a gallop to the car to drive down for a look. (As it turned out, Greenwood became a dentist and eventually made false teeth for George Washington.) It is this kind of serendipity, Mr. McCullough said, a kind of magical realism full of small-world moments, that keeps him wading into the past."

Fort Greene Park in downtown Brooklyn - 30 acres on the site of the fortifications that shielded the Americans' retreat...

A 148-foot tall Doric column, the Prison Ship Martyrs Monument, stands atop a crypt that holds 20 slate coffins containing fragments of bones from the 11,500 American prisoners of war who died in British prison ships in New York Harbor, many of them captured in the battles fought in what is now the city....

...the Morris-Jumel Mansion, built in 1765 and the oldest house in Manhattan. This is a place where the past exists as it was, not memorialized in a plaque or a statue. From the balcony of this house, commandeered from a British loyalist, Washington could look down on the spot where his troops won a small but important victory in the Battle of Harlem Heights. He returned there as president on July 10, 1790, and dined with his cabinet, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and Alexander Hamilton....

What a wealth of material to be found on the Internet, thanks to you all, it's all so fascinating; history alive and well!

I accidentally turned to an Acknowledgement page of the end of the book and saw Nathanael Greene's name and read the following:

"For the privilege of visiting the birthplace of Nathanael Greene at East Greenwich, Rhode Island, I am ever grateful to its present owner, Thomas Casey Greene, who, as a direct descendant, knows much about the general not to be found in the usual texts."

A bit of history preserved and by a descendant - isn't that grand!

One of the major concerns of GW and his officers was the desertion of the infantry (one can hardly blame them), but, HAROLD, I'm sure you remember from the JOHN ADAMS book about his part, as head of the Board of War (plus his floor debates!!!- I believe we speculated at the time that possibly Congress sent him overseas to get rid of same, haha, or did McCullough write that?), that eventually each soldier who enlisted for the duration of the war was to receive $20 and 100 acres of land, providing incentive and justice for the soldiers fighting and dying in the revolution.

That would have dome much to alleviate some of the problems Washington was having; but, of course, it came a bit late for the battle of NY and even those incentives would not have affected the outcome of the battle at Fort Washington.

You may be interested in this site listing new books on the Revolutionary War - scroll down the page and look at the titles:

New Books Revolutionary War

GUESS WHAT'S ON TV TOMORROW NIGHT?

A documentary about John and Abigail Adams! - American Experience, Public TV, 9:00 - 11:00 p.m.

------------------------------

Interesting list of titles, Ella. Thanks! I noticed quite a number of books about the NYC draft riots that occurred during the Civil War. For an interesting glimpse of NYC in that period, check out the film "Gangs of New York."

John Woolman did write a journal, I'm amazed that you came across it, he's so little known. We have it here in our New Jersey room in our town library and sev'l of the county libraries have it. Where did you find it?

Harold, I don't know about the Ft Wash. and Ft Lee in NYC, but there is a town called Ft Lee in NJ, It's the last town before you cross over the Geo WAshington Bridge into Manhattan.

Marni - DM is everywhere isn't he? LOL........Jean

Yes, it's the same Fort Lee. Here's some history of the "borough of Fort Lee."

It says on this site: "During these darkest days for the Revolution when it seemed as though the Continental Army could not survive, Thomas Paine, who was in Fort Lee with Washington’s army, wrote the famous words, 'These are the times that try men’s souls.'"

It also says: "Most people are familiar with the term “cliffhanger”, used to describe a movie filled with suspense, danger, and “seat-of-your pants” thrills. But did you know that the term originated out of the early serials filmed on the New Jersey Palisades in Fort Lee–the birthplace of the motion picture industry in America?"

http://www.fortleenj.org/index.html?frameright=/history.html

Marni

There is no Fort Washington today. It is now Washington Heights. But there is a Fort Washington Park there. Here's info about the area:

http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/fort_washington_park_26.html

The links from the site in post #431 have some fascinating additional information about the battles. Be sure to look at the link "Battle of Fort Washington" if you have a chance. Here's some info from that page:

"Both Forts Washington and Lee were situated to create a crossfire and bombardment of cannon and mortar to stop British ships from sailing up the Hudson River. The batteries of Fort Lee overlooked the Palisades on a bluff about 300 feet above the Hudson. The range and type of weapon used (cannon and mortar) varied from 1,100 to 1,500 yards, which provided a firing field reaching across the river on either side.

As an added measure, a barrier of ships with their masts still attached were sunk in the middle of the river to act as a blockade against British ships sailing up river. This was known as a Chevaux de Frise.

The construction of these barriers had been used a century earlier as anti-cavalry defenses in the Northern provinces of the Spanish Netherlands during their war for independence. These barriers were bulwarks of protective timbers with projecting iron spears connected with chains, originated in the Dutch province of Friesland, which was the first of the seven provinces to formally recognize the United States on February 26, 1782.

The water obstructions were adapted and designed by Colonel Rufus Putnam. They consisted of two sloops, two brigantines, and two larger ships that were placed between the forts. The masts were pointed and covered with fitted iron cones. There are several variations in the spelling: Shive de Frise, Shiver de Freese, Sheverd fres and Cheverd’Friezes.

But this did not deter the Royal Navy, which had arrived at Sandy Hook, New Jersey on June 25th. Within a week the fleet was stationed off Staten Island and sending soldiers to dry land. Under the command of Admiral Lord Richard Howe, ships had sailed up the Hudson to test the barriers and the capabilities of the forts. At various intervals, the HMS Phoenix, HMS Rose, HMS Roebuck, HMS Tartar and HMS Pearl were used to run the gauntlet of the two forts. The HMS Pearl was used in the final assault on the morning of November 16, 1776.

One of the most important links between the forts was Burdett’s Ferry. Etienne Burdett, a Manhattan merchant of Huguenot ancestry, built a home on the shore of the Hudson River below the battery emplacements of Fort Lee. From here the ferry transported cargo and passengers from shore to shore. When the forts were built, the ferry served as a communications link assisting in the transfer of information, orders, ordinance and personnel. The ferry had the distinction of being involved with two engagements during the occupation of New York City....

...One of the most infamous acts of treason at this point was perpetrated by Lieutenant William Demont. On the night of November 2, 1776, Demont left Fort Washington for the camp of Lord Hugh Percy and provided a full report of the strengths and weaknesses of Fort Washington’s defenses. Demont was, at the time of his defection, one of the most knowledgeable officers at the time of the construction and Battle of Fort Washington. He was also the adjunct officer of Colonel Robert Magaw, who was in command at the time of the battle. The official American records were silent as to placing blame on Demont for the loss of the fort. Colonel Robert Magaw and other American officers learned of the treasonous incident immediately after the battle and surrender of the fort."

http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html

Marni

Ella, I am excited to look at your link. I am sure to like some of the titles. I hope my library will own the books. We have a good library.

Mabel, at the time our library owned it. I happened upon it. I like published diaries. I am not sure whether our library still owns it.

Mippy, thank you for the link to Cato. Also, thank you for the information you have given here.

I am too sleepy to read all of the messages. I will catch up later today.

Hats an excellent book regarding the Quakers is " Friends for 300 Years by Howard H. Brinton. If not available at your local library it can be purchased From Pendle Hill book store 800-742-3150 ext 125

Potsherd, thank you very much. ________________________________________

Potsherd, my library does have a copy. I am in luck.

Marni, thank you much for your comment on the Greenwood cemetery and the link to the New York Time’s Article on the City’s Revolutionary War sites. I think our discussion of corollary issues related to the Revolutionary War events described in the book are most appropriate for inclusion in our discussion.

Ella yes, I think we did speculate on the Continental Congress sending John Adams to Paris to to get rid of him. I don’t remember the details, but in retrospect I see his service in the congress as positive both with his role with the War Board (tantamount to the modern Secretary of War) and in the writing of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast his initial puritan impact in France was negative. Fortunately Franklin had already completed the negotiation of the French Aid Treaty, and it was signed, sealed , and delivered when JA arrived in Paris. JA was much more effected in his negotiations in Holland, than in Paris.

Jean as you say there is a town called Fort Lee on the Hudson near the site of the old Fort. I ran across this when I Googled it to locate the park sites that I linked yesterday.

Potsherd, Marni, Hats, all. Are the Quakers still a prominent denomination in the Northeast? We don’t see or hear much of them as an active religion here in the Southwest. But perhaps they now operate under another name. I recall the fact that the 70’s singer, Joan Baez, was a Quaker. It was the Quakers in England who were the prime movers in the Whig Parliament that passed the act Abolishing Slavery in the British Empire. A year earlier the same Parliament had passed the first great reform bill that firmly put the UK on the road to representative democracy.

I just found out from my husband's cousin that the family homestead in Englewood, NJ, was burned down by the British at about this time that the British were pursuing the Americans through New Jersey after the fall of Forts Washington and Lee. They rebuilt on top of the original in the 1780's.

Howard, the concentration of Quakers was the Delaware Valley some of todays states with Quaker meetings today would be PA,NJ,DE,MD,VA,NC,OH.IN.CA. Our Friend David Hackett Fischer"s tome__Albion"s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (946 pages)is finally available in large format paperback. The chapter " North Midlands to the Delaware 1675-1725" details the migration of the Quakers from Britain. The name Quaker was a nickname used by others, as it was said that they trembled or quaked with religious zeal. Some may have deducted from my name of an interest in archaeology( for many years). I have an archaeologist friend-(not Quaker, pun intended) who was working for the State of Pennsylvania Historical Society at Valley Forge Military Park. They excavated soldier hut areas and inside the exterior timber mold area (this would be the bottom log which has decomposed leaving a dark stain)they found numbers of cannon balls. There where no pins so they were not bowling so it was deducted that the soldiers were heating the cannon balls in the sentry fires and then rolling the cannon balls into their huts which provided them with radiant heat. Neat!

The Quakers are alive and well today. Here is the home site of the Society of Friends:

http://www.quaker.org/

Here is interesting info about Quaker history and beliefs:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/quakers.htm

Marni

I found this in the 2nd link in post #439 about the Quakers:

"Probably the best known historical figure in the Society of Friends was William Penn. Born in 1644, he became a Quaker in 1667 and was an embarrassment to his father, Admiral Penn. King Charles II gave young William a grant of land in American to repay a debt to his father, and thus was launched Pennsylvania, a "holy experiment." By 1700 there were Friends meeting in all of the colonies."

--------------------------

President Nixon was a Quaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

Marni

NJ still have Quaker Meeting Houses. This is also true of PHila and its suburbs. Not all of them have active meetings, but they are almost all preserved and interesting to visit. Here in Moorestown there is an active meeting and a very good and fairly large Friends School K-12.

During the Viet Nam war there was an active anti-war movement lead by Quakers, but not just Quakers, here in South Jersey.When the "killed" number for the Iraqi war hit 2000 they held a vigil in the center of town.

I read a diary of a Nancy Stokes from the early 18th century. The Stokes are prominent Quakers and one of the first English families in South Jersey, I was amazed at how often they traveled to various mtgs on Sundays, including into PHila, which would have been about 20 miles, one way! The same distance was true for traveling between mtg houses in Glassboro, Haddonfield, Moorestown and Burlington. There was a very large community of Society of FRiends here in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Alice Stokes Paul was a descendant of that early Stokes family, she went to Mooretown Friends School and to Swarthmore College which her grandfather helped found on Quaker principles. Because the Quakers believed that everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves they educated girls as well as boys and women had the right to speak in meeting, which was not often true in other protestant sects. Alice's mother held suffrage mtgs in their living room, so Alice always held a belief in women's equality, which is how she began her life as a leader of the women's suffrage movement.(My avocation is to educate people about ASP. )

Obviously some Quakers had slaves since Phyllis Wheatley was owned by a Quaker family. They did educate her and helped her get published.

Another interesting fiction book, based on fact, about Quakers is "The Virginia Exiles" about Quakers from the Delaware Valley who owned iron mines/bogs and foundries during the Revolution. MOst refused to make war materiale and were jailed and then sent to Virginia to prisoner of war camps. They were considered traitors to the colonies. It gave stories about their families and how the wives keep the families going and petitioned for their release. Let me check the authors' name, I'll get back to you on that......jean

Elizabeth Gray Vining.

Hats, if you don't mind telling us, what town were you in where you found the John Woolman diary, was it in the northeast?......Jean

Jean, is this it? Click Here. I Google on the string, The John Woolman diary, and got this and many other hits. This appears to be the diary in PDF formay readable with the Adobe Acrobat reader that is on most computers.

Thank you Potsherd and all for your Comment on the quakers. The Group appear quite frequently in 18th Centure English/American History. Remember some of Audubon's English contacts were quakers.

Mabel, at the time, I had just moved to Tennessee from Philadelphia. I remember one copy being in the stacks. I picked it up because it seemed like a diary about spiritual growth.

Now I do remember some mention of Nixon being a Quaker. I haven't read the link yet. Thank you Marni and Potsherd for all your clickables.

Potsherd, yes, your name tells me you have a fascination with archaeology. I like archaeology too. It is very interesting.

Thank you all for the information about the Quakers - I do remember President Nixon being a Quaker; not a very good model, was he?

Has anyone read a biography of Nixon?

I am going to be moving into another apartment nearby this weekend so if I am tardy in posts, please forgive.

The picture titled "The Capture of the Hessians" is one I have seen often, haven't you? And yet it never happened, an example of how history is distorted; it's amusing how clean their uniforms are after a battle - hahaha!

GW looks so young in the portrait painted by Charles William Peale - it shows how tall he was with those legs; but why do you suppose he chose to wear a blue sash? It's so reminiscent of the Kings of England isn't it?

Is it just me or does the portrait of British General Cornwallis look similar to that of Washington? The long narrow face, the slim nose, the high forehead - even the hair style - perhaps they only knew one way of painting a face?

Not so, however, with the "grossly fat British General James Grant, good heavens!

We are to begin Chapter Seven, our final chapter, titled THE DARKEST HOUR soon. As if the hours and the days and the months before had not been dark enough? Tis a sad year for the American cause do you agree? Thank goodness, we all know how it ended!!!

Was NYC defenesable NO and neither was Long Island (LI). Why? Simply to large a land mass,too few troops and over welling British ground, naval and Hessian forces, General Howe had an army of 35,000 men (10,000 were sick which GW was not aware of) and 10 days before the battle of LI Hessian troop ships carring 8,000 Hessian solders arrived at Staten Island. Other contributing factors : poor intellegence_a large Tory population_Lee, was a counter productive element_replacement troops and officers were poorly trained _and the entire defense plan was poorly thought out and excuted. General Greene, was correct when he recommended that LI and NYC be abandoned with the city to be destroyed by fire. He was voted down, I believe politics (congress) was a factor in the decision. The destruction of the city would have presented major problems for the British. As we recall the Americans spent the summer building defenses on LI and NYC. Looking south across the Hudson river and the Jersey palisades presented GW with significant natural barriers. IF, GW would have spent the summer building an extensive defensive network along the palisades it would have presented a totally differnt situation for both armies. Fort Washington, General Green’s decision to defend the fort was a disaster. While the descriptions of the fort seemed impressive the fort when breached became non-defeneseable. Most of the soldiers manning the fort were captured,or killed and a few managed to escape. Washington watched the carnage from the Jersey palisades. GW had built FT Lee on the Jersey palisades and had scattered lookout posts along the palisades. Unbeknownst to GW he would be betrayed by three Jersey Loyalists who acted as guides for Howe's army. Under fog and night conditions the guides took Howe across the Hudson to an area of the palisades which appeared to have a large vertial/angular crack in the rock face. The British were amazed when the boats landed and behind the apparent crack was a four foot wide trail to the top. By Morning the British had moved 2,000 troops to the top of the palisades. A Hessian officer remarked that a few men with rocks could have defended the trail. In the morning the British troops started to move toward Fort Lee. Polly Wyckoff saw red coats crossing fields and spread the alarm. The loss of the Fort Lee with significant supplies and equipment was the culminating disaster for GW as he started his retreat through the Jerseys.

I just read that today from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. EST, the History Channel is showing "POW's of the Revolution" including history of the ship prisons.

I've seen this program before and it's extremely interesting.

Marni

I think DM mentioned that Washington wore the sash to indicate his position as Commander-in-Chief and to differentiate himself from other officers because he was not wearing epaulettes. Something like that? Does anyone else remember reading something like that?

Did anyone see the John and Abigail Adams program last night? I was very impressed. Excellent program. And, of course, our David McCullough was one of several historians/authors interviewed extensively during the program!

Marni, I taped it. It is wonderful! I remember John Adams and the others having such a hard time deciding what title to give George Washington. John Adams did not like certain suggested titles. Those were the ones sounding monarchial, a reminder of England. In other words, John Adams did not want the new country to become an American aristocracy.

Thank you for listing the time for the POW's during the American Revoulution. I have not seen it yet.

Were there many women fighting in the battles during the American Revolution? Molly Corbin was very courageous. She fought beside her husband during the battle at Fort Washington. After he died in the battle, she took up his weapon and continued to fight. In the battle she did lose her arm.

"Only one American hero was to emerge from what happened at Fort Washington. She was Margaret Corbin...."

Ella has brought up a good point with her mention in #445 of the Blue sash worn by GW in the Peale picture. If I remember from an early chapter correctly the color of the sash denoted the rank of an officer. I think the gentlemen class in 18th century England (and America) commonly wore such a sash of different colors as part of their formal dress. Royalty and even the aristocracy commonly had their pictures made in more ornate dress involving furs and of course jewels and precious metals. I wonder if the cummerbund in today’s male formal dress is the vestige of the 18th century sash.

On the subject of uniforms I see American troops are sometimes pictures in blue coats while the British of course are red coats. I have the impression from the McCullough reading that the American formations were not all uniformly clad. I got a kick from reading his comments on the Red Coats; from a distance they looked real good, but from close up one would see a much more thread bare appearance with patches and perhaps stains and other indication of long use and wear.

At least according to McCullough the officers required the men wash their uniform regularly and even keep themselves reasonably clean. This factor is given as the reason the British ranks seems to have been less subject to disease. Today in seems to me absurd that an army’s battle field uniform would be the same as their dress uniform. It has been a while since British formations fought in red coats but at least through WW II and I suspect still today a red coat or at least a read trimmed coat was often seen on high rank officers on dress occasions.

1.Was New York City defensible considerig the overwhelming presence of the Royal Navy? Who in the American Command Group favored withdrawal from NY;.....?

New York City seemed very favorable for a British victory. In New York there were so many Tories and Loyalists. These people felt excited to give their all in helping the British gain a winning over the Americans. Then, as has been mentioned, there was water all around. The water just aided the Royal Navy in showing their magnificent power.

I can't remember. I thought that Nathaniel Greene wanted to burn the city from the very beginning.

Potsherd and Hats; isn’t Greene’s position on the defense of New York city curious? In September immediately after the evacuation from Long Island when he first returned to duty after recovering from illness, he was in favor or evacuating N.Y. At that time Washington seemed undeceive so the army remained on Manhattan. By November after the British move on Manhattan and the American defeat in the Battle of Harlem Heights, GW Still unable to make a Command decision left the evacuation decision (from Forts Washington and Lee) up to Greene. Then Green changed his position and continued the defense of these Hudson River defenses until Fort Lee had been captured. Still he waited until the 11th hour before beginning the evacuation of Fort Washington as the red coats scaled palisades.

Was Greene correct in continuing to hold the Hudson River defenses unntil the last moment even though he had authority to withdraw? Was Washinghton right or undeceive in leaving the evacuation decision up to Greene?

I thought my eyes had played tricks on me. After Nathaniel Greene's illness, he returned to the troops. NG wanted a hasty retreat out of New York. He did mention burning it.

"Further, he would burn the city. Once taken by the British, it could never be recovered without a naval force superior to theirs..."

I didn't understand Nathaniel Greene's decision. Oddly, George Washington never blamed him. I think GW looked at NG's overall loyalty. This part of NG's character became more important than that one bad decision.

It seems that GW was very much in need of good officers. Greene had been close to death but recovered and returned to his post. This shows a deep loyalty to the cause and perhaps to Washington himself. Washington had to trust the decisions of his officers even when they had made a wrong decision. GW could not keep checking up on the men he trusted since he was overwhelmed with a hundred little and large decisions to keep the army alive and functioning under adverse conditions. Greene tried and failed in defense of the Hudson River Posts and thus did somewhat of a delaying action while GW and his troops moved on. These men were novices in warfare and it is just amazing they made as few mistakes as they did. The more I read about the professionalism of the British the more amazed I am that the war turned out as it did.

Judy

I think Washington looked at Greene's loyalty but also at his overall skills with strategy and leadership. Also, Washington didn't have too many good high-ranking officers with proven leadership and military skills. Thank goodness Washington was able to give Greene another chance after the disaster at Fort Washington because Greene's skills helped us to win the war in the south later.

----------------------

Harold: I got the impression that Fort Washington was lost first and then Fort Lee was evacuated when the British/Hessians stormed the Palisades. Fort Washington was on the eastern shore of the Hudson and Fort Lee was on the western shore. Do I have my events backwards?

Marni

Harold,GW's decision to accept Greene's suggestion to defend Ft Washington was not based on sound military strategy but based on GW's personal feelings for General Greene ( this has been suggested by others in which I concur). GW was the experienced military man, strategist, and thus more qualified to make the decision whether to defend or abandon Ft Washington and should have overruled Greene. Hind sight being 20/20 If Washington would have commanded to abandoned Ft Washington, moved the troops.cannon and supplies across the Hudson to either reinforce Ft Lee or build additional defenses along the Jersey palisades. It sure would have presented major problems for Howe. Any idea the range of the mortars? I wonder if they may have had enough range to reach NYC. The Hudson is narrow enough from the palisades to have reached Ft Washington.

HAROLD AND POTSHERD, while you two debate the outcomes of the battles and what might have been, I just wanted to say hello and to remind all that we are to begin Chapter Seven tomorrow - and our conclusions about the book. I quote just a couple of sentences for speculation:

"In August, Washington had had an army of 20,000. In the three months since, he had lost four battles -- at Brooklyn, Kips Bay, White Plains, and Fort Washington -- then gave up Fort Lee without a fight. His army now was divided as it had not been in August and.......he had only about 3000 troops under his personal command-that was all."

I laughed at you asking about GW and Cornwallis looking alike in the portraits, because i tho't the same thing when i looked at them and was going to comment and tho't "I must be reading something into these pictures," so I didn't comment.

I read Richard Reeves' book on Nixon. It was sort of a psychological look at RN, I enjoyed it very much. The sub-title was something like Man Alone.....I"ll get back to you on that.Stephen Ambrose also wrote a bio which is probably more "factual/biographical" than Reeves' book

Hats - here is a link to Women in the Rev http://userpages.aug.com//captbarb/femvets.html

The most interesting one is Deborah Sampson/Samson who disguised herself as a man, enlisted as Robert Shurtliff, and fought for a long time, was wounded at least twice. She was the only woman, I believe, who was given an "honorable discharge" and a pension. There were others who also disguised themselves and fought. But, of course, the biggest story is about all those women - like AAdams - who kept the home fires burning, or the "camp followers" who took care of the soldiers - not all prostitutes as we often think today, but often, like Molly Pitcher, were following their husbands.

I liked the PBS presentation on J and A Adams, altho I wondered at the beginning if I would. When I first saw him i tho't the actor who portrayed John was too fat. J was "stout" but very active, so i didn't think of him as "fat." Also, when I saw A at the farm wearing farthingales (sp?), the "hip enlarging whale bone things" I wondered if she would be wearing those in her daily life and work and I questioned the authenticity of the show. But overall I enjoyed it.....jean

Ella, I can not imagine the despair George Washington felt after losing so many battles. Also, not having enough men to fight future battles. Then, to put the icing on the cake he reads the letter from Lee to Reed. The letter would have cast me in the deepest despair or melancholy.

Reading the letter is like hearing these two men talk about Washington behind his back. Little did Lee know Washington would open the letter. In the letter are horrible comments about Washington's indecisiveness.

"...lament with you that fatal indecision of mind which in war is a much greater disqualification than stupidity or even want of personal courage."

This is my question. Did Washington have the right to open the letter? George Washington opened it for all the right reasons. Still, it was not addressed to him.

In a way this reminds me of the right of privacy Americans are thinking about now. Did George Bush have the right to allow eavesdropping on other Americans? George Washington and the letter with GB's problems today kind of slide or melt together in my mind.

Mabel, thank you for the link. I enjoyed the program about John Adams and Abigail Adams very much. I came away with the impression that Adams was very, very ambitious. Did I get the wrong impression? I felt very happy that he and Jefferson were able to settle their differences.

I had another question. I hope it is not too off topic. What was the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution? Not in philosophy but as far as violence. You see the guillotine and immediately you get the feeling the French were more bloodthirsty. A little bit of this was covered in the John Adams and Abigail Adams program. Adams and Jefferson viewed the French Revolution in very different ways.

Mabel, what a fascinating story. I think a biographer should write about her life. Thanks.

Does anyone know why there aren't any maps of the battles in chapter 6? There are so many places mentioned around New York that I'm not familiar with.

"West Coast" Larry

Hats, I think the French Revolution was a Social upheaval against the wealthy, while the American revolution was a revolution against a foreign power that controlled the country and in fact owned it.

There was a document written in France by Abbe Sieyes called "The Third Estate" in 1787. It said the following (approx.) The First Estate is the Clergy which numbered about 100,00 . The Dioces and its wealth was controlled by the French Nobles. The Second estate was the French Nobility itself which passed on its wealth to the oldest son in each household (primogeniture). The Third Estate, he wrote , is everything. What has it been in the Political Arena? Nothing. What does it demand to become? Something.

The excesses of the French Court were legendary. What little I know about the French peasantry and middle class comes mainly from literature. But even this very brief summary makes it clear that the two Revolutions were very different.

Judy

was horrible in its violence and then the people who won the first phase, ousting the king, etc. became just as tyrannical as the first ruling group and killed thousands more who had been on the other side, or anyone of whom they were the least bit suspicious. They were not strongly in control and very paranoid, so they were as viscious against any possible threat as the king and the aritocracy had been before, or more so.......the lust for power by any means necessary can be a terrible thing.....jean

Thank you Jean and Judy. Your answers are very helpful.

LARRY! WELCOME to the discussion. Perhaps HAROLD can find you the appropriate maps on the Internet????? I have no idea why McCullough did not enclose better maps in the book.

"FATAL INDECISION OF MIND"- that phrase looms large in the first few pages of Chapter Seven, as it must have in Washington's mind for as DM said "Washington knew it to be true."

HATS referred to this letter earlier in which that phrase was used and I'm sure that the men (or those more familiar with war than I am) in this discussion might know of many instances in different wars where that same indecision has cost lives, men and money.

How about Eisenhower's indecision in the Normandy landings? Didn't he waver several times before making the decision as to when to go? I remember the weather was a big factor but time was of the essence as the German forces could have at any time learned of the location. What terrible decisions commanders have to make in time of battle!

As DM stated Washington must have felt so alone, particularly when his generals had "let him down." Even Congress was uncooperative, ill or absent.

This is when the best of qualities in Washington came to light -"we ....make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish."

The statement of a man who is in command of himself I would believe.

later, eg

Igrod_Let me suggest David Hackett Fischer's book Washington's Crossing which has nineteen superb battle maps to compliment his study of the war. For the battle of NY there are two maps. His map new jersey: the American Retreat_ details chapter 7 The Darkest Hour of our present reading. Potsherd

I think that the Church also was overthrown in the French Revolution, along with the aristocracy.

Marni

Gouverneur Morris was the American ambassador in France at the time of the French Reign of Terror. Morris wrote a diary and letters and documented what he saw happening in Paris. They are fascinating documents and some are available on the internet. His granddaughter, I think it was, published a book with much of his diary and letters. Here is a link to volume 2:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home2/BookToCPage.php?recordID=0215.02

(See next post)

Marni

I found both volumes of Gouverneur Morris' Diary. Click on Vol. 1 and scroll down the page to see a brief blurb of each chapter.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Set.php?recordID=0215

Marni

that the Peale portrait of "GW at Princeton" sold last week for $21.3 million. It was expected to sell for $10 - $15 million.

Here's a link to an article http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/3605574.html

Would George be proud or embarrassed?.......

Don't you love the way Joseph Martin uses words? On pg 211 (I know that was in the last chapt) when he talked about the line of British flat boats he said, "...(the boats brimming w/ red-coated troops) appeared like a large field of clover in full bloom." I liked that.....jean

Igrod; Click Here for a site with many Revolutionary War battle maps. Also if you Google on the search string "Revolutionary War Battle Maps" you will get many more sites some of which are quite likely better than the above site.

I too think the editors of our book would have been well advised to include many more maps illustrating the battles they are describing.

Jean; I too saw that news item about the Washington painting and a better question came to mind; what would Peale have thought about it?

Harold Undoubtedly Peale would have said"If only I had lived another 250 years I would have been a wealthy man!"

After finishing the book I was extremely moved. DM is a truly great writer and deserves all the accolades he has received. My appreciation for the men who fought the war has grown ten fold and for GW himself at least that, if not more. This should be a required HS text since very little is known by students on the background and suffering of the Americans of this period.

Judy

Washington and his retreat across Jersey must have wondered the intent of Cornwallis and why he was not harassing,attacking, his retreating troops. David Hacket in WC p124-125 discusses this subject as follows: Cornwallis troops marching on Ft. Lee had Captain Johann Ewald”s Hessian troops on his right flank. They saw in the distance a cloud of dust representing the rear of Washington’s troop columns. The Hessians ran to make contact and a small skirmish took place. Ewald wrote Cornwallis to send more Jagers so he could launch a large scale attack . Cornwallis’s message was to return at once. Ewald reported what they had discovered. Cornwallis replied,”let them go, my dear Ewald, and stay here. We do not want to lose any men. One Jager is worth more than ten rebels.” Ewald was amazed and began to understand Cornwallis. We wanted to spare the Kings subjects and hoped to terminate the war amicably. The British with many battle successes appear confident that the Continental army was going down to defeat. This opinion becomes a major underestimate of the British high command , a major misreading, of the resolve of the ragged but not broken American army.

.I would add that another principal difference between the American and French Revolutions is basic differences between the people participating. McCullough in an early chapter mentioned that the North American population participating in the 1776 revolution was better off with respect to economics and education that the English counterpart at the time. Well, be that as I surely agree it was, the ordinary English yeoman of that day was yet much better off that the contemporary French peasant who had barely emerged from the dark ages. They had no idea how to react to react to the sudden emergence of popular democracy. The result was wild anarchy, with the social break down know as the '"terror." It ended with another up-start monarchy, Napoleon. It took another two or three false starts before a reasonable stable French democracy emerged

I think the French middle class had a great deal to do with fomenting the French Revolution. It wasn't just the poor against the rich. The middle class wanted to change the social structure.

I think it all goes to show you how wonderfully lucky our country was that we had the right people in the right place at the right time with the right ideas - to create a government with checks and balances, and separation of church and state, documented in a constitution signed by the various states - a commander-in-chief who had stepped down after the war and then stepped up in his role as president, but relying on the advise of an incredible collection of men, and then stepping down again when his terms as president were up. We had the first peaceful rollover of government at that time and it has continued since.

What an amazing time in history!

Marni

The following are a few comments on some of the events and issues from the initial Parts (I & II) of the final chapter: that we might discuss before we go on to part III later in the week.

1. What was going on between General Washington and General Charles Lee? Read the McCullough quotes from the several letters GW sent to Lee, sort of suggesting that he might bring his troops to join him in the retreat south through New Jersey. After all, GW was commander IN Chief; why in the devil could he never bring himself to send a direct order as the situation surely required? Click Here for a biographical sketch on Lee or Gooogle on the search string, “General Charles Lee” for many other hits.

2. What was going on between General Washington and his secretary Joseph Reed? I was amazed that Reed would send a sealed letter to General Lee critical of GW, the answer to which was opened by GW. Was this not a particularly untimely disloyal act that quite likely encouraged Lee to take his time in bringing his troops to reinforce Washington? Today I cannot imagine a similar act of disloyalty being allowed to pass with no more than a mild verbal reprimand. Was Reed really so valuable to GW that he could not be replaced. Click Here for a web biographical Sketch of Joseph Reed

3. Why was Washington having trouble getting support from the several Colonial Militias? What did 2000 New Jersey and Maryland militia troops do the day their enlistment was up? Who did G.W. choose to go the New Jersey and Pennsylvania to negotiate for Militia troops? Did either return with significant results?

4. Discuss Lord Howe’s November 1776 renewed attempt to obtain a negotiated end to the conflict. Did he really have any thing to offer? Did he have more success this time than similar earlier offers. What several mistakes did the British commanders make that made possible Washington’s escape and Xmas attack?

Was Reed really so valuable to GW that he could not be replaced? Apparently Washington thought so. Washington literally begged and hounded Reed to join him.

I've been wondering about the responsibilities of an aide-de-campe to Washington. From what I've read, the ADC was a man who wore many hats. A large responsibility was that of secretary, writing letters, documenting. Arranging things, organizing events, getting people together, contacting people, purchasing all seem to be responsibilities. Negotiating and dealing with people of high levels seems to be an important responsibility. I imagine the ADC handled things like keeping track of numbers - # of men where, # killed and imprisoned, etc. Military leadership, too, seems important, although Washington didn't want to lose his ADC's to fighting. Reed had several horses shot out from under him. I read that Washington sent ADC Alexander Hamilton to catch Benedict Arnold when Arnold fled West Point after his treachery was discovered.

Joseph Reed must have had those skills, must have been a person of many talents, was brilliant, must have been charismatic, personable and charming, strong, brave, and tireless. Washington certainly recognized talent. But, Reed must have been very disenheartened to see Washington's foibles and the army's severe repeated losses. Reed was in a position to see the big picture. He became disillusioned. He didn't think Washington was the man for the job and he decided Lee was the better choice for Commander-in-Chief.

I thought it was interesting to read in Harold's link that Reed was considered "a faithful friend." He wasn't quite so faithful to Washington.

I saw in Harold's link that in 1784 Reed was sick and died at age 43. I wonder what he died of.

Marni

Those of you who know WWII better than I may know the anwser.

Yes, Peale may have something to say about the sale of his painting. I also think of poor Joseph Martin, if only he was getting the royalties from the use of his journal, it's been used in many tv presentations and books in the last decade. I guess he made some money on its publication after the war.

Does GW's non-response to Lee and Reed's actions indicate how insecure he was about what he was doing? DM alludes to his believing that Reed's comment about indecisiveness may have been true.

Harold - I"m listening to KUT as I type ......jean

Judy, I agree with you. This is a wonderful book. It is my first David McCullough book. What a wonderful experience. It seems Howe made a true mistake deciding to take it easy. I think the bad whether gave him a fright. He wanted to settle down until Spring.

In the meantime, it became the best Christmas ever for GW and his army. They catch all the British and Hessians off-guard. I think it is at this point that GW shines. Thank goodness there was not a long list of deaths or injuries.

"Incredibly, in a battle of such extreme savagery, only four Americans had been wounded...and one American had been killed."

It looked so dark for awhile I could not see how the Americans would win. Of course, I knew the end of the story. I just did not know how the wonderful end would occur.

Am I wrong? Did Lee end up feeding information to Howe about the Americans? In the end, he seemed like a true Loyalist at heart. He was a person, I do not think, GW needed on his team.

Mabel, I can see your feet tapping and head nodding to the music.

Oh boy, Trenton is not the end. I must keep reading the last few pages. Everything will work out fine.

This last section of our book really was so exhilarating! We've all heard about Washington crossing the Delaware and about Trenton. But I've never seen the details the way DM described this whole section. It was even better than Knox bringing the guns to Boston from Ticonderoga! The description of the elements, the development of strategy, crossing the river, the march, the defeat of the Hessians, it was so exciting! And glory after all the terrible humiliations and losses. Perfect timing.

This is another favorite story of mine from the Revolution. In fact, I believe this is one of 3 most important battles in U.S. history, along w/ Gettysburg and D-day.

Living here just a 1/2 hour from Trenton makes it even more interesting to me. I know exactly the two roads where the Continental army split to come into Trenton, and every Christmas day - weather permitting, ironically - there is a re-enactment of the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. I say re-enactment of the painting becuase it shows GW standing in the boat in great majesty. We know that is not the way he crossed the Delaware that night!!!

There is a great video, I think it was done by the History Channel, but it may have been an independent film company, of the Battle of Trenton. I can't for the life of me remember the names of the actors, but there were some great ones. The actor who portrayed GW had done it in some other film also and he's perfect. Tall and sturdy......I want to say Daniel somebody......but it's alluding me.......senior moment . It'll come, I'll get back to you later........jean

Each little detail in this last chapater is of such fascination to me; it's the culmination of all that has gone before and I cannot pass up the opportunity to comment on certain things that have stuck in my mind although they may be overlapping some of the incidents that each of you have posted.

First of all, DM tells us that there were plenty of soldiers in each of the states to fill Washington's army; he needn't have worried so about the lack of men but the STATES WOULD NOT RELEASE THEM!

In his book, JOHN ADAMS, McCullough wrote of the conflict in the hearts and minds of these founders of our country between states' rights and federal rights as they wrote the constitution and, HAROLD, correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Adams was gung ho for federal rights and Jefferson was just as rabid in his belief that the states should be superior to the federal government.

Here we see a part of that conflict.

And the story of the constitution begins here - the writing and the arguments that must have ensued! How lucky we were that they were able to compromise on these issues and had the foresight to do so.

And on Dec. 1st 2000 men walked away from the war and without an apology!!!!

How guilty did they feel later? Did they feel they let their commander down - their comrades???

And Washington had to watch them go knowing that his fate and the fate of the country was in jeopardy. He had no recourse but to run away again, to retreat and it must have felt to him as if the battle was lost. As Greene said "a pitiful army to trust the liberties of America on."

And another humiliation was when the British offered amnesty to the people in New Jersey and hundreds, thousands, flocked to the British camp. Did they feel guilty later?

The word "amnesty" always reminds me of the Vietnam War, does it to the rest of you? I don't want to bring up that subject here but one cannot help but make comparisons.

later, eg.

JEAN, I just read your post. How great that this reenactment takes place - lest we forget! Yes, I would love to see that video, can you remember the name of it so that I can get it at the Library?

There must be other movies done on this battle or the revolution, or the actual crossing - does anyone know of any?

When Congress was searching for Commander-in Chief (CIC) of the Contential army June 15,1775, Washington was not everyone’s choice, a number preferred Charles Lee (CL). CL’s battle philosophy was to not engage in any major battles but to fight an irregular war. Washington assigned CL as an experienced senior officer the responsibility of the defense of New York City. He was over whelmed by the job and did not believe it could be done. He studied the city developed a battle plan , however the influences of local leaders to GW brought changes to CL’s plan. CL and NG as was GW after the Kipps bay defeat that the city should be burned: Washington had broached this plan with Congress and was rejected. Congress exerted control over the army and military matters. CL who was second in command was with Braddock’s expedition where he first met GW and detested him. CL after recovering from wounds in Europe emigrated to America after a falling out with the British army and settled on the Va. frontier became a radical Whig and joined the American army. While CL was passionate about the “Cause” he had negative thoughts about the leadership. In December GW ask CL to bring his troops from Morristown,NJ and join him at the Delaware.CL had more excuses such as : “ his men were ill-shod, he had not explored the roads, did not know where the Delaware might be crossed, the militia wished him to stay in Morristown’. GW’s response ,” I have mentioned our situation and the need for your aid. Let me once more request you to march immediately”.It is approiate at this point to also discuss GW’s number three problem_ General H. Gates (HG), also a British emigrant. He and GW had been friendly however in December HG expressed doubt about the CIC. Gates worried about GW”S ledership and took his complaints directly to Congress, where some members were sympathetic to him. It appears to me GW’s army was too spread out: CL had 7,540 troops in Morristown HG had 2,00o troops at Ft. Ticconderoga Heath had 4,080 in the highlands of NY GW had 3,765 in Jersey The command situation was out of control: Washington facing the brunt of the British army with CL sitting on an army 2+ times in strength. I would have relieved CL and sent NG packing to bring that army down to the Delaware. Questions: Why was GW as CIC not firmer in control of HIS armies? Politics ? didn’t want to rock the boat with Congress? Congress was certainly aware of the triangular strain GW-CL-HG. Certainly Congress could not tolerate this problem ( or would they?)_ the freedom of the Colonies was at stake. Were they waiting for GW to address and resolve the problem? Again it comes down to a hard decision that Washington had to initate and make after who understood better then he the potential terrible consequences. Washington could have considered bringing CL into headquarters which would maybe have smoothed over N Greene’s new command responsabilities. And finally with GW's victories at Trenton and Princeton CL and HG leadership complaints simply would become muted background noise, certainly they wern’t irresponsible enough to continue faulting a winner. .....potsherd

I will address Henry Knox's terrible problem of getting his cannons across Jacobs creek on his way to the battle of Trenton while I'm working on that a couple of side notes; with my archaeological research I have walked the banks of Jacobs creek and found evidence of prehistoric Indian mining of argillite out croppings Much of the lith material was taken via canoe to the Rancocas river prehistoric sites in Burlington county NJ. Also there is an old stone mill on the creek. A good friend of mine started his furniture making shop there. He does a considerable amout of work for the National Park Service and I down loaded some info which is pertinent to revolutionary time period. His name is Robert Whitley MAJOR HISTORICAL COMISSIONS

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston, Massachusetts Recreation of a precise copy of the original presidential desk used by John Fitzgerald Kennedy as President of the United States of America. Three days were spent in the Oval Office of the White House, photographing, patterning, and taking rubbings of the multiple carvings, including the presidential eagle with the hand-carved presidential shield which were an integral part of the desk. The desk now resides at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. It is installed on a twenty foot dias in the center of an eighty foot diameter room in the very heart of the building. The library is open for public viewing.

The history of the desk goes back to 1845, when a contingent of ships was sent from England to find a northwest sailing route. One of the ships, The Resolute, became entombed in ice and was lost for ten years. In 1855, this ship was found floating free, commandeered by an American whaler, brought back to Boston harbor, purchased by the United States government, and returned to England as a gesture of good will. When The Resolute was decommissioned by Queen Victoria, she had a desk hand-crafted from the oak timbers of the ship and presented it to the United States as a reciprocal gesture of good-will. The desk, which was given to the Rutherford B. Hayes administration, was subsequently relegated to the cellar of the Smithsonian Institute. It was discovered there by Jacqueline Kennedy who ordered it refurbished and installed in John kennedy's office as a symbol of his respect for our historical past. The Hermitage, National Museum of U.S.S.R., Leningrad The design and creation of a presentation chest and a game-playing board to accommodate a chess set. These were a gift from the people of the United States of America to the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, presented by President Richard M. Nixon. The chest was made from highly-figured curly American black walnut wood and the board was made from the same wood plus curly maple for the contrasting squares. The challenge in designing the presentation chest was that it not only had to be an accomplished work of art but had to, at the same time, accommodate a large chess set, sized in such a way to enable President Nixon to hold it between his arms while officially presenting it. Highly-figured and rare curly American black walnut wood was chosen to construct the chest. This same wood, plus American curly hard maple, were chosen for the contrasting squares of the board. The chest and board with the chess figures are now displayed in the National Museum of Russia in Leningrad.

Independence Hall The recreation of four Queen Anne chairs, the original of which was made by William Savory of Philadelphia for the Governor's Council Chamber, circa 1740-1760. Initially, these were made for the Pennsylvania State House, which later became Independence Hall. (When the house was occupied by the British, four of the chairs were Broken and used for fire wood.) These chairs may now be viewed on the second floor of Independence Hall. The antique restoration of eight grandfather's clocks including the important Frederick Maus clock with a carved cockerel phinial. The antique restoration of a rare Chippendale curly maple cellarette, which is now placed in the Governor's Council Chamber. The aptique restoration of three chest of drawers, four tables, and innumerable chairs, which are used in other areas of the Independence Hall complex,

Dolly Madison House The antique restoration of a Queen Anne Spanish foot lowboy, circa 1730-1740, which is placed on the second floor of the Dolly Madison House and can Se seen there daily.

Second National Bank of the United States Major restoration of the demi-lune card table including replication of the thistle flower inlay. This piece can now be seen on the second floor of the Portrait Gallery, Graff House, 7th and Market Streets (The rooms rented by Thomas Jefferson when he took On the task of writing the Declaration of Independence.) The recreation of the original chair Jefferson sat in when Be wrote this famous document. This is an exact copy of the original now owned by the Philosophical Society, which was formed by Benjamin Franklin. The chair is a Windsor arm type with a unique swivel based seat. These rooms are also open for public viewing.

Franklin Court The creation of a precise copy of Benjamin Franklin's electric experimentation machine. This amazing machine was invented in 1779 by Benjamin Franklin. The experiments done on this machine contributed to his great prestige and to the high regard the intelligensia of England and the rest of Europe had for Him. Because of his reputation, Franklin vas able to negotiate advantageously for the United States during revolutionary times, The machine is a complex one of wood turnings and joinery with leather and wrought iron fittings and includes a glass-blown globe, which revolves at high speed. The recreation of Benjamin Franklin's Quadruple Music Stand, an ingenious device, which allows for the viewing of individual scores by a string quartet. The restoration of Benjamin Franklin's carved French arm chair. All of these objects may be viewed by the public at Franklin Court in Philadelphia.

City Tavern It has been said that much of the important social and political discussions held during the early formation of our government were accomplished at the City Tavern, where our founding fathers partook of food and drink. The recreation of four exact copies of three-legged, stretcher-based tavern tables. Thee recreation of two tripod-based, adjustable music stands. The restoration of an antique Chippendale pier mirror and the recreation of an exact copy. The reconstructed and refurbished Tavern is now open to the public, serving food and drink daily. Carpenters' Hall Carpenters' Hall 320 Chestnut Street (The meeting place of the Carpenters' Company of the city and county of Philadelphia) The Carpenters' Company consisted of many of the early planners, developers, builders and craftsmen of Philadelphia who were involved in the development of this country along with many of the founding fathers. Restoration of seven Sack Back Windsor Chairs and two Comb Back Windsor Chairs, involving replacing and carving arm terminations, and repairing and restoring original finish. These chairs are the original ones used by the Carpenters' Company, which was established in 1724. George Washington's Headquarters

George Washington's Headquarters, Morristown, New Jersey. The recreation of twelve exact copies of Chippendale Side Chairs, plus the design and recreation of one Chippendale Arm Chair.

Bent's Old Fort, La Junta, Colorado In the early 1800s during the exploration of the West, Bent's Old Fort--at the juncture of two streams--was important to the development and security of the western area. The recreation of one 1835 period mahogany Billiard Table with brass fittings and hand-woven linen pockets, plus the recreation of two pool cues and one pool mace. This fort and table were viewed in the television series of James Mitchner's book, Centennial.

Valley Forge Historical Park The

I have just returned from a visit to the new very up-scale La Cantera mall with a group of 5 of us residents at the Chandler Senior’s Center. I was quite impressed with the Neiman Marcus store particularly the hot young lady clerks every one of which look like they had just left their hairdresser and as if they were wearing the Paris/New York originals they were selling. My first though was that I had stumbled on a TV set, perhaps for a “Friends” filming, maybe the one where Chandler was at an exclusive fifth Ave store buying Monica’s engagement ring. Later after more closely focusing on the lady customers it seemed more likely that if any filming set was involved, it was for a segment of “Desperate Housewives.”

Marni, Jean and All: Click Here for some detaied definitions of Aide de Camp

I think that it all sums up in one sentence “A military officer acting as secretary and confidential assistant to a superior officer of general or flag rank.” I think Marni defined the duties well in #482,

I doubt if Joseph Reed actually carried that title. Didn’t McCullough originally use the word, “secretary?” I think the French term, aide de camp was first used (per the material in the link) in 1796 when Napoleon invented the title to describe his military secretary and administrative assistant. Doubtlessly earlier, even back to ancient times, high rank military leaders had their administrative assistants to manage their office staffs and look after a wide variety of administrative details. Whatever thy might have been called. Also I have heard the term used in civilian corporate circles to describe an administrative assistant to a CEO or other high corporate officer. Another title for this function in civilian organizations is “Executive Assistant.”

I am inclined to agree with Marni’s conclusions that in this case GW did feel he needed Reed so he kept him on despite the obvious disloyal act. To me this cannot be considered a plus in judging GW’s character. It almost seems as GW agreed he was indecisive. Also I cannot but conclude that on many occasions GW appears to me to have been indecisive. In particular examples of his indecisiveness in this period include the tone of his letters to General Lee indicating he should bring his force to New Jersey but using words that fell far short of the direct order, the serious nature of the situation demanded. Also another example was leaving to Greene the decision of evacuating or defending the Hudson River Forts Washington and Lee.

Marni, I too wondered about the cause of Reed’s death and his last illness. I remember also the biographical sketch says the year before he died he went to England for his health. It must have been something lingering that allowed him time to go to Europe for treatment. He still had enough time to return to America to die.

Jean I really don’t see much similarity between General Charles Lee and WW II General Patton unless it be in their tendency to be unorthodox in their personal lifestyles, ie, Lee with his dogs and Indian wife and Patton with his twin, pearl handled revolvers on his hips. So far as their command styles are concerned, I don’t see much similarity; did you have anything particular in mind?

Hats, You observed exactly what I had in mind when I asked what British mistakes enable GW to escape. As you put it:

It seems Howe made a true mistake deciding to take it easy. I think the bad whether gave him a fright. He wanted to settle down until Spring.

Indeed Howe did essentially blow his whistle and call time out for a winter recess. Wars are not won by taking the winters off. They are won by restless pursuit of a battered enemy until he is captured and unable to fight any more. This is not the first time in our 1776 summary that the British failed to follow-up for a final kill when they had the opportunity to do so. And it was an American willingness to fight iunder sever winter conditions that won them the Xmas victory at Trenton.

I don’t think the British were alone in their less than complete devotion to the prosecution of the War. This was a common view of the fighting of wars at the time. In Europe large segments of the English population did not even know the fighting was going on. In America as we have already noted a large segment of the population though they knew the war was in progress, did not care which side won. It would take another 80 years before the lessons of Napoleon and the American Civil War would create the concept of the “all out modern War” in which the entire social and economic resources of all belligerents would be dedicated to the prosecution of the conflict as in WW I and particularly WW II. But this was a concept yet unknow to 18th century warfare.

I was thinking about their belief that they knew better about how to carry out the war than their commanders.Didn't Ike have to "sit" Patton down, take him out of commission for a while to let him know he (Ike) was the boss? And wasn't he strongly ordered to hold back in some latter European battle? WAs it to not go into Berlin? Or was it something before that? It just made me think that GW was no DDE

I would love to have heard what Howe had to say when he heard that GW had attacked at Trenton on Christmas day. ... something like "these ignoramous, backswoods no-nothings who don't understand the rules of war!! Civilized men do NOT fight in the winter NOR on Christmas DAy!!"The wording may have been a bit stronger, but i bet that was the essence......jean

Thank you Potsherd for your post #489 providing further details on the conflicts and frictions between prominent American commanders in New York in the summer and fall of 1776. In particular you are right in mentioning the role of the Continental Congress that was itself politically involved in the defense decision. It now seems easy for us to observe as a matter of hindsight that General Charles Lee was quite right in his early conclusion that New York was indefensible against a power like England with its Royal Navy in control of the coasts. In August General Greene had agreed with Lee and the two would have burned the city and evacuate it, to defend inland at a place where the Royal Navy would not be a factor. According to McCullough Congress injected itself in the decision ordering that New York City should not be burned?

After the American defeat at Kipps Bay Washington seems to have changed his position and appears to have been willing to abandon further defense of the city. But he left the final decision to his commander in the field, General Greene who also reversed his earlier position by electing to continue the fight, until Fort Washington fell to the British and Fort Lee had to be hastily abandoned in the 11th hours as Red Coats and Hessians were scaling the Palisades to drive them out.

Of course the defense of New York City had bought some 3 ½ months of time while American defeats had also brought substantial loss of troops and military equipment. I suppose it is a close call as to whether the American Army was in a better or worse position to stop the British inland thrust in December, than they would have been in September? In any case with the cooperation of British General Howe’s winter recess, the Americans were able to recoup at least a part of their loss with their Xmas victory on the Delaware.

Although Potsherd addressed the issue of Lee and Washington's relationship during the war I would like to add some material that sheds light on the personality of Lee and the difficulty Washington had with him before , during and at the end of the war.

Lee was sent at an early age to a Military Academy where he became an Ensign at the age of 12! He was not liked because he was a constant braggart. His Indian wifes tribe called him "boiling water" because of his terrible temper!

He was an Englishman and fought for the British and the Polish army and expected a high commission from King George. When it was not given he left for America in 1773 ,less than two years before the war. He expected to be named Commander in Chief and when he wasn,t spent a lot of energy in trying to undermine GW.

Although he had a victory in Charleston he never again showed real interest or courage for the American Army. After he was captured by the British in order to get good living conditions from them he drew up a plan of attack against the Americans!

After he was repatriated to the Americans GW gave him another command but he performed so poorly that GW gave him a tongue lashing. He was insulted and demanded a Court Martial so he could get back at GW. Instead he was found guilty of disobeying orders and insubordination. After his dismissal he spent his time writing attack letters against Washington and the Congress.

This man was one nasty piece of work and GW must have had nerves of steel to work with him.

Judy

That is the name of the movie. GW is played by Jeff Daniels. I just looked at the piece i show my classes, it includes characterizations of Glover, Greene, Hamilton, Knox and Hugh Mercer, who I don't believe DM talks about. The dramatization of the crossing is "chilling" (pun intended). YOu see GW's frustration at how slow it is. There is also a wonderful scene after the battle where they show RAll as wounded. I don't know if it is historically accurate, but he refuses to surrender to Mercer who is attending him. Mercer is a general, physcian and dear friend of GW's. Rall is dying and is insisting on surrendering to GW. The Hessian characters are speaking in German w/ English sub-titles. Mercer sends a soldier to get GW alluding to our being sophisticated enough to follow that rule of war.

There is also a great scene, again i don't know if the quote is authentic, but as the last troops come across, Mercer says they can't make Trenton before daylight and they will be slaughtered by the Hessians, they shouldn't attack and GW says, "They made me Cmdr in Ch of a great army, now i am CIC of those who remain. If i have to ride into Trenton by myself I will do that, but we are going to attack!!!!"

And then after the battle his officers are arguing that the men are too tired to return across the river and he says, " I too am exhausted, but we have 2000 men, the enemy has 20,000 and i will not eat or sleep until we have that wide river between us!"

The tape i have was taped from the History Channel's "Movies in Time."One of the historians commenting after the movie said that Knox and his artillery won the victory because the muskets wouldn't fire, so they had only bayonets and the artillery.

Altho I saw it on the Hist Ch when I looked for it I found it on this A&E site

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70627

so it must have been shown on ARts and Entertainment first.

The History Channel also has an excellent series called "The American REvolution" and PBS did a series which I have seen since on the History Ch called "Liberty: the American REvolution." Both of those are very good. They include all of the details that we have read in DM plus the lead-up to the war and the SIX years that follow 1776.

One of the historians commented that GW had wisdom, persistence, good judgement and was able to learn what worked and what didn't. He was a "diplomat in a coalition war." There was no other single person to turn to. The Congress rotated members, the governors of the states changed in those eight years, GW was the stable force and he had to diplomatically handle all those other revolving forces........

Lots of good stuff in these videos. How lucky we are to have these resources. Remember in the '50's when we had entertaining shows on the 3 networks but nothing to compare w/ all the education/information we can see now........jean

DVD's on the History Channel

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71761&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

Jean: I love your line "One of the historians commented that GW had wisdom, persistence, good judgement and was able to learn what worked and what didn't."

That's pretty much the way DM ended his book, too. After all the stuff about how indecisive GW was and all the losses, finally they have victories and DM says Washington learned from experience and applied what he learned. The year 1776 ended on a positive note for the Americans, thank goodness.

Marni, I felt very happy to see the Morris Diary link. I have read parts of the link too. I know it is not easy to find the best link or links for a discussion. Thanks to all who have done that part of the research.

You know at the beginning part of "1776" I remember reading Edward Gibbons name. I always associate his name with writing "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Isn't that silly? As if the man lived in a vacuum and had no other life. His name was mentioned somewhere in the first half of the book. Unfortunately, he was on the side of the British. Did anybody else notice his name? I could look in the index but my book is not handy.

I meant to mention his name much earlier. Somehow, I forgot to post about him. I don't know. I just felt excited to learn something else about this man who wrote such a large tome about Rome.

Hats; I noticed the Edward Gibbons name as a member of the English House of Commons when reading the book. I was not too surprised to read he was Tory. I read his Decline and Fall back about 1950.

And Research on the web using Google is easy. Just go to http://www.google.com. In the case of Morris I just entered his full name, first and Last, in the search Box and read the results. Usually the best material will be found on the first page. When I searched on General Lee, to get material on the Revolutionary General everything that came up was on the Civil War General by that name. When I switched to General Charles Lee, I got the material on the Guy I was looking for.

Marni; GW could not be critized in his command of the situation leading to the attack on Trenton. When the Delaware crossing was 3 hours behind schedule before the crossing was complete, he did not hesitate in ordering the columns to proceed to Trenton rather than to abort the attack operations as some had suggested. .

Harold, I can't believe you read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." That must have been a very enriching experience.

Thank you for all the Google tips.

--- insomniac that I was in the 1950’s, I made it through all three volumes of The Decline and Fall. One annoyance was the fact that many of the footnotes were in Greek or Latin. During the same period I also read the tome on the French Revolution by Thomas Carlyle.

Harold, I have read one essay by Thomas Carlyle. I can't believe you read a whole book by Thomas Carlyle. Of course, in any discussion your knowledge of history comes through loud and clear. I feel very proud to know such a knowledgeable guy.

I was able to get the books The Winter Soldiers and Washington's Crossing from the library. I don't remember who recommended them. (I'm sorry!) But, I've started The Winter Soldiers and am just loving it! It's quite a scholarly book, I think, but it's very readable. A review on Amazon says that it "...unfortunately has the pedestrian tone of a high school history text." I don't agree. It's filled with interesting details covering some of the same events we're reading about in 1776 but adding additional information, while not including some details that McCullough has incorporated. I have trouble putting it down.

Marni

Marni, who wrote "The Winter Soldiers?"

Oh, Hats, I should have mentioned it. Richard M. Ketchum wrote The Winter Soldiers. It was published in 1973.

Marni, thank you.

The cold northeast winter and the extreme desperation of the American situation seems to have turned an uncertain Commander-In-Chief into a daring and successful one during the Xmas-New Year period of 1776. I note that the initial American Xmas victory at Trenton seems to have disrupted General Cornwallis’s intended winter leave in England. Apparently he didn’t get away in time and just days after the British Trenton defeat it was Cornwallis leading a Counter Attack, with 5500 Red Coats against the Americans at Trenton. The Americans defended the position Rall should have defended Xmas day and Knox’s cannons delayed the British enough to permit an orderly American withdrawal.

At this point GW made another crafty move; instead of retiring to the south as expected he swung his formations around to attack Cornwallis’s rear guard at Princeton. Again GW divided his forces with Greene and Sullivan hitting the British from opposite sides. A hand-to-hand battle resulted in which the Americans suffered greater causalities than at Trenton, but the British came out the worst. Alexander Hamilton’s cannons played an important role in this battle.

The effect of the Xmas victories was of more psychological importance than military, yet they were of immense importance to American morale. After the victories at Trenton and Princeton both the Americans and the British knew that the American troops could fight and win against the British. The British were forced to recognize that the rebel bands that previously they had held in contempt “had shown themselves capable of great cunning, great industry, and spirit of enterprise.” The Americans had proved themselves as a formidable enemy

Backing up a bit, I was just reading about Fort Washington defenses being built by the Americans in 1776 and the attempts to block the British from sailing up the Hudson. The Americans had sunk ships across the Hudson between Forts Washington and Lee, but that obstruction wasn't working well to stop British ships. They tried something else.

David Bushnell, a Yale graduate and CT inventor, had designed and built the submarine called the Turtle and the time bomb in 1775. The Turtle, the first American submarine, was the first submarine to dive, surface and be used in naval combat. Its use was intended to break the British blockade of New York Harbor and to stop ships coming up the Hudson. In Sept. 1776 attempts was made to use the Turtle to attach a time bomb to the hull of the British flagship, the HMS Eagle, and blow it up. Unfortunately, it didn't work, possibly because the expert operator, Bushnell's brother Ezra, suddenly died, and another less experienced man operated the one-man submarine. In Oct. the Turtle was aboard an American rebel ship which was sunk by the British. The Turtle was recovered but was not used again against British ships.

A full-scale cross-section of Bushnell's Turtle can be seen at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, CT. The Connecticut River Museum in Essex, Ct. owns the only working, full-scale model.

http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/a_1776_submarine.htm

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/bushnelld.html

Marni

I had forgotton about this first subamarine. At least the Turtle had better luck than the confederate attempt 90 years later during the Civil war. This was the CSS Hunley that was lost with its crew of two attempting to blow up a U.S. ship in Charleston Harbor. Ella made a proposed for the book about 4 years ago. I was surprised but it did not make a quorum and the project was abandoned.

Marni and Harold- Thanks for the fascinating links to the history of the submarine. At what point did the U.S. start to build it's Navy? The British were so advanced in that field that it must have taken some real talent to build the shipyards and the ships on American soil. Or did they manage to commandeer British vessels?

Judy

Last week i happened on a Hist Ch show about schooners and they talked a lot about Glover, but also about Manley, who Washington "recruited" to attack British ships and apparently he did very well, gathering contraband and acting sort like a pirate. I don't know if Glover and Manley would be considered the first Captains of an Amer'n Navy or not?......jean

The Continental Congress created the Continental Navy, the forerunner of the United States Navy, in their resolution of October 13, 1775, in Philadelphia.

"The United States Navy was born during the American Revolution when the need for a naval force to match the Royal Navy became clear. But during the period immediately following the Revolution, the Continental Navy was demobilized in 1785 by an economy-minded Congress.

The dormancy of American seapower lasted barely a decade when, in 1794, President George Washington persuaded the Congress to authorize a new naval force to combat the growing menace of piracy on the high seas.

The first vessels of the new U.S. Navy were launched in 1797; among them were the United States, the Constellation, and the Constitution. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams urged Congress to establish a Naval Academy "for the formation of scientific and accomplished officers." His proposal, however, was not acted upon until 20 years later."

http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/history/homepage.htm

"In the fall of 1775, Americans initiated a privateering campaign against British commerce, and on 13 October the Continental Congress, after some difficult political debate, also established a small naval force, hoping that even a diminutive navy would be able to offset to some extent what would otherwise be an uncontested exercise of British sea power.

The Continental Congress had a very limited role in mind for the navy. It was not expected to contest British control of the seas, but rather to wage a traditional guerre de course against British trade, in conjunction with the scores of privateers outfitting in American ports. The Continental navy's ships were to raid commerce and attack the transports that supplied British forces in North America. To carry out this mission, the Continental Congress began to build up, through purchase, conversion, and new construction, a cruiser navy of small ships--frigates, brigs, sloops, and schooners. For the most part, Continental navy ships cruised independently or in pairs in search of their prey, avoiding whenever possible fights with Royal Navy men-of-war.

The record of the Continental navy was mixed during the revolutionary war. Its cruisers ranged far and wide and demonstrated that British commerce was nowhere safe, not even in British home waters. Few of the navy's larger ships ever put to sea, however, because most of the frigates Congress authorized to be built were either destroyed by British forces or burned by the Americans to prevent capture. There were occasional triumphs in single-ship engagements--for example, the capture by Captain John Paul Jones's Ranger of the British sloop of war Drake in April 1778. Jones gained international notoriety for his operations against the British in the North Sea and raided the coast of Great Britain itself. The navy was somewhat less successful in small-squadron actions. Its successes included the 1776 amphibious raid against New Providence in the Bahamas, but there were even more failures, most notably the ill-fated Penobscot expedition of 1779. While the Continental navy had its share of tactical triumphs, not once did its efforts cause the British an operational or strategic check.

Many of the failures of the Continental navy were directly attributable to the uneven and uncertain quality of the highly politicized officer corps. Mediocre officers vied for rank and privilege. Many commanders lacked drive, and others, while perhaps excellent seamen, were simply incompetent warriors. Even highly successful officers, such as Jones, labored under marked character deficiencies. Nevertheless, whatever the shortcomings of the Continental navy, the course of the war demonstrated to Americans the importance of sea power. The control of the Atlantic by the Royal Navy allowed Great Britain to transport a large army to North America and to sustain it there. French sea power, allied with the American cause after 1778, enabled General George Washington to isolate and destroy the British army of Lord Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781. One of the decisive battles of the war, it ended Great Britain's hope of crushing the rebellion."

For more about the creation of the navy:

http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history2.htm

Marni

Harold and Marni thank you for all the information about submarines and the Navy. For me, this is great new information.

I thought the description of Gen. Charles Lee's capture by the British was amusing. (You wouldn't think this would be an amusing event!) But, he had been such an irritant to Washington and such a braggart of his own abilities that it seemed he got his just desserts. Apparently, his capture (which lasted for over a year) helped Washington collect himself and become a stronger leader. Lee was no longer a threat to Washington's position as Commander-in-Chief and Washington gained control over Lee's troups.

At the time Lee was captured, some worried that it would be the last straw to destroy the Americans' morale. But, it turned out to be one of the best things that could have happened to the Americans.

Marni

Yes, another Great lady of our era has passed. We as a nation have been blessed with her lifetime presence.

About 1933 The USS Constitution visited Houston and I remember visiting and actually boarding her at that time. About the same time a fleet submarine also visited and they actually took a group of visitors on a dive to the bottom of the turning basin. I remember my parents were emphatic that we would NOT go on the demonstration dive. I don't remember the name, and I often wonder about its WW II career. Another US navy ship, the USS Houston that I also visited about the same time was lost during the first months of the war with a British and Australian Cruiser trying to block the Japanese invasion of Indonesia.

In conclusion I want solicit from each of you your comment summarizing the many possible factors that in the end enabled the Patriots to win the War. McCullough gives his summary of these reasons on Page 293. What might you add to the McCullough conclusions not only on the question of why the Americans won, but also on why the British lost? What are your comments on the conclusion?

First of all, I enjoyed the whole book. Not one page bored me. To answer Harold's question, I think the Patriot's won the war because of perserverence. Thinking about strategy also worked in their favor. George Washington had a spirit of not quitting, continuing to fight against all odds. At times, the mysterious power of the weather had a hand in the victory too.

Maybe those redcoats did not help the British to win. Perhaps the British carried the heavy burden of knowing their magnificence. I wonder if their thoughts went something like this: How could such a strong power not win against a raggedy, untrained mob like the one George Washington led? The focus on their superiority in Naval power, in man power probably caused their downfall. Did they ever look at the rebels as a potential threat to their already secure nation? I doubt it.

Harold and Ella thank you for being the discussion leaders. At a timely fashion you would give me questions to think about. Most I could not answer. I would find the necessary answers from my fellow posters. All during the discussion both of you supplied pertinent information to make the discussion more complete. I am looking forward to another discussion with both of you.

I also would like to thank all of the posters. The links added to my knowledge. The words written by the posters always left me more knowlegeable about the subject. Only one person was missing, David McCullough. I would love to meet him in person one day. What a lofty goal!

What a wonderful discussion this has been and I apologize for my tardiness for the past couple of days, or was it three? I'm all moved even though I can't find a thing except my computer and it was the one thing I demanded, yes, indeed I found someone right here - in RIVER CITY - and that doesn't have a thing to do with POOL - and THAT'S NONSENSE!

Thanks to all of you for contributing so much, finding links that added to the book and our discussion. It was McCullough at his richest and, HATS, I agree wouldn't we be blessed to have the man in our midst! A lofty goal!

Does he use a computer to write? Can he post messages do you think? The generation following our own will be able to do it and much more than we do and I think we should all pat ourselves on the back for learning how to use them to our own satisfaction and as a tool for learning. What a blessing.

Out of about 80 seniors living in this independent living home where I have a nice apartment there are only 4 of us that have computers and know how to use them - three men and myself. And thanks to Seniornet I know as much if not more, than they do - makes me rather proud!

We are getting two computers in February and all four of us have signed up to teach the others; but if it is anything like the Senior Center where I volunteered to teach, once the people learned email that was it. They wanted nothing else! I was atonished that they were interested not in entering this wonderful highway to knowlege and interesting people everywhere! We've had people as diverse as Australians and Japanese participating in discussions - England, also. Who else can you name?

I hope to see you in another discussion; hopefully a nonfiction book - any good suggestions? Have we done enough war books for awhile? A good biography perhaps? Our reading group here just finished to mixed reviews of Walter Cronkite's autobiography; personally I loved it.

I've got several reserved at the Library: Gifted Hands: The story of Ben Carson; The Bonus Army, an American Epic; Vows, the Story of a Priest and a Nun and their Son; and His Oldest Friend: The STory of an an Unlikely Bond. I'll let you know when I pick up the books if any of them seem good enough for a discussion.

Once again, thanks so much for your interest, I marvel at Seniornet and its wonderful participants, the quality of our discussions and the DL's and Hosts. We have a good thing going here, don't we?

To Ella, Harold and all the folks who added to my knowledge of the period. The book wouldn't have been half as interesting without you. Thanks for your hard work.

Judy

PS: Ella- Don't be discouraged with your Senior students. E-Mail is the first small step to the Moon for most. SeniorNet really helped me jump from E-Mail to the World. But it took a couple of years to build up courage to make that jump.

Ella: Congratulations on your move! And good for you to teach other seniors there to use the computer! It does open up the world. Amazing!

Thank you, Ella and Harold, for such an interesting book discussion. I enjoyed the book and the discussion so much and learned so much this past month!

Don't forget, you folks who are interested in reading more about the American Revolutionary period, about the upcoming discussion of Cokie Roberts' Founding Mothers starting March 1.

Marni

Thanks for a wonderful discussion. My computer died awhile back, and I had to go without and thus missed posting here - I just read a zillion messages, and it looks like the discussion is over. The ordering of a new computer, waiting for it to arrive, and configuring it took too long!

Have you all discussed David McCulloch's Truman on seniornet. That is his next book I want to read - and also Mornings on Horseback about Teddy Roosevelt. So far McCulloch has not disappointed me!

One quick comment about Edward Gibbon. I have been reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire slowly with a friend for over a year now, and we just finished 4 of the 6 volumes. It's quite a challenge, and sometimes I want to pull my hair out. Without the internet for research, I wouldn't have made it this far because he can be quite obscure.

But I got interested in Gibbon the man and read a couple of biographies of him. He came from the gentry class, but his father was not good with money and thus Gibbon had a minimal amount to live on. He took up politics as a way to get more means without having to do much work, LOL! He was a protege more or less with Lord North and got in some hot water when North did. Gibbon really wasn't that good at politics and eventually moved to Switzerland with the monies he had accumlated from his inheritance and his political career - he liked the country, and he could live much cheaper there. He never married, some question about his low sexuality in my mind. Died just 6 years after his 20 years of working on Decline and Fall from an infection after groin surgery for a 30 year old problem.

Here is a link to Book Tv when DM was on the InDepth show, that's one author for three hours every first Sunday of the month at 12 noon. This is the link to the transcription of his program and answers some of the questions about how and when and where he writes.

http://www.booktv.org/InDepth/archive_2001.asp

This Sat and Sun at 3:00 CSPAN2, aka BookTV, is going to show a book group discussing "John Adams," those are interesting to watch, usually a small local group at a library who discuss a book w/ a group leader. Also on Sun at noon will be the InDepth discussion w/ Taylor Branch who has written a trilogy on MLK and the Civ Rts Movement.......jean

I agree Hats, those red uniforms were a bummer!

IMO there were two other reasons than those you've mentioned (which i agree with, BTW), the Americans had a "cause" and it was impossible for the British to conquer the geographical country.

The Continental Army was fighting on it's own land and for at least some of them they were fighting for independence from England. Even if they hadn't started their stint in the army as a revolutionist, they heard enough propaganda and had enough anger generated for them by the British that they became revolutionaries. There are so many similarities between the Am REvol'n and Viet Nam that it's almost like watching a re-run and there are some aspects that hold for the Iraqi WAr also. When an invading army starts shooting civilians, stealing grain and other resources, destroying property and raping and pillaging, the locals get ticked!! And it generates loyalty to the homefolks and animosity toward the invaders.

There really was no capitol city for the British to capture and therefore symbolically win the war. In order to "win" they had to take control of all 13 colonies and that was impossible to do. They just couldn't send enough soldiers to do that, either in numbers nor could they finacially afford to do so - a la Viet Nam. GW's strategy was to just keep his army surviving to fight another day, he didn't have to win big battles, he just had to survive and he did for eight years and the British army and the British people got tired of the war, a la Viet Nam. Of course, Green did win those southern battles in the last year of the war which encouraged the British to surrender and then there was the small matter of the FRench coming to our aid, especially the FRench navy that could box in the British and give our troops naval support.

Loved the discussion, thank you Harold and Ella and everyone else, you are a great group to read a book with!!!. SEe you in Founding MOthers. ( just can't get my little finger off that caps key fast enough )....jean

It gave me a whole new perspective on Theodore Roosevelt, very interesting....

O.K., I promise you I am done writing now I'm off to read your archive of the "John Adams" discussion.......jean

Ella, I would love to read about Walter Cronkite. He seemed like a very humble and gentle man.

Mabel, thank you for the link.

I would love to read "Undaunted Courage" by Stephen Ambrose. I see it is on the board for August. I hope it becomes a done deal.

I am committed to offering a Lewis & Clark discussion in August as a 200th anniversary discussion of the event. As of now it will be a rerun of "Undaunted Courage" but if a newer suitable, bettter title comes along we will consider it.

Undaunted Courage was my first ever discussion as a DL. This was in 1998, still the early days of Books; we had only 3 or 4 participants and a grand total of about 100 posts. Click Here for archive. Today I am the only one of the active participants still active. We hope all of you will participate in the new discussion.

Also look for a George Washington Biography, probably "His Execelence, George Washington." in April or May after Marni finishes "Founding Mothers," I will be a participant there and hope to see all of you there also.

When we finish here at the end of the week I will need at least 2 months off to catch-up with other things.

Bill H led a discussion of the McCullough Truman Biography in 2002. Click Here for the archive.

I'm sorry your computer problem prevented you from being more active here during the past weeks. Congradulations on the new machine. You and your input are always welcome in our non-fiction offerings. Hopefully you will join in "Founding Mothers" and later "His Exelency. George Washington" and "Undaunted Courage."

Ella and Harold thanks for your shepherding us through 1776: I found it most enjoyable. I found "1776" disappointing compared to for instance "Washington's Crossing", which I had read 8/9 months prior. 1776 however should be a popular introduction to the Revolutionary war based on David McCullough popularity. A potential plus of "1776"would be to stimulate interest and additional reading and study of the Revolutionary war period..... Potsherd

McCullough on page 293 cites :

financial support from France and the Netherlands, and military support from the French army and navy, would play a large part in the outcome. But in the last analysis, it was Washington and the army that won the war for American independence.

I don’t think any of our concluding messages posted here have in any way taken issue with these conclusions, but I do think we have raised some additional interesting contributory factors including the Red Coat uniforms which today seems a strange way to outfit a fighting unit. Yet the American units clad in a blue coat with interesting multicolored sashes denoting rank seems at best only slightly more appropriate.

Perhaps of greater importance as Hats put it

I think the Patriot's won the war because of perseverance. Thinking about strategy also worked in their favor. George Washington had a spirit of not quitting, continuing to fight against all odds.

And Jean in agreeing with Hats used the following words:

The Continental Army was fighting on it's own land and for at least some of them they were fighting for independence --- .

Jean also added the fact that the British war in North America took on some of the characteristics of the 20ty century U.S. war in Viet Nam. Despite many basic differences, the British as the revolution progressed found themselves fighting a costly war against a determined opponent expending British money and military resources that might better be spent elsewhere defending their more important European and world interests. Certainly this in the end was a significant factor leading to the peace treaty recognizing the independence of the U.S.

Also I think lack the British of lack of perseverance at key times such as Howe’s Spring 1776 divergence to take the Boston Tories to Canada, instead immediately occupying the yet undefended New York and particularly Howe’s Dec 12 time-out for the Winter that lost them early opportunities to capture Washington and his army as well as the political heart of the revolution, the Continental Congress at Philadelphia. As was pointed out Washington and the American army was in too desperate a position to consider warm winter quarters in preference to the necessity of a winter campaign, As McCullough put it, “in the last analysis, it was Washington and the army that won the war for American independence.”

All of you have given excellent answers to the question of why the British lost the war and I certainly agree. We have covered the revolution very well through McCullough's eyes, but as POTSHERD said there are no doubt other resources that do as well and in more detail.

HAROLD, I would love a discussion of a biography of George Washington - I'm going to reserve the one you mentioned at the Library. I had forgotten we had mentioned this before.

MABEL'S post #527 comparing some aspects of the revolutionary war to that of Vietnam was interesting and she stated the following in connection with the British:

"In order to "win" they had to take control of all 13 colonies and that was impossible to do. They just couldn't send enough soldiers to do that, either in numbers nor could they finacially afford to do so - a la Viet Nam."

That remark reminded me of a world history class I took some years ago in which the instructor taught that the Roman Empire fell because of the vast territory it had conquered that could not be governed or controlled given the communications of the period and the necessary soldiers.

SCAMPER, I would be very interested to learn if Gibbon concluded the same in his classic book. What a project you and your friend are engaged in - I hope your hair survives it!

Thanks again all of you for a fascinating discussion!

I want to thank all of you who posted here. It was you who made this project interesting. The board will remain open for any last minute comment through tomorrow after which it will be made read only in preparations for its move to the Archive folder. Again it was a great, enjoyable experience working with all of you through our month long study.

Don’t forget to join Marni and Joan K discussing Cookie Robert’s “Founding Mothers” beginning March 1st. And watch for a George Washington Biography in April or May. Ella and I would sure like to see all of you reassembled again to discuss the rest of the War, and the beginning of the United States.

Harold and Ella, I am looking forward to all the coming reading adventures. I would love to read a whole book about George Washington. Surely, I would learn more about the man himself.

This discussion is now read only and will be moved to the archives in a couple of days.

Here Ella and I are offering a new David McCullough history title for January 2006 discussion. This book hones in on the year 1776, the year of our nation’s birth. The players include George Washington with his first command of an army and supporting players such as Nathaniel Greene and Henry Knox, apprentice Generals leading the new Nation’s Continental Army through events such as the Siege of Boston the forced evacuation of New York, and finally at the year’s end a brilliant Xmas crossing of the Delaware to gain a hard won victory at Trenton.

This book is a short, 300-page book, an easy reading history of the year, perfect for a short one-month, dead of winter discussion beginning Jan 2nd. It is available from virtually all public libraries or for purchase from B&N at an attractive discounted price (see the link above) or any bookseller. We will need four or five committed participants to make this discussion a reality. Will you be one? Just add your short post here indicating your commitment, get the book and be ready to begin the day after New Years.

Yes, Harold, here we are with another David McCullough book - much shorter than JOHN ADAMS! His books are always such a pleasure to read and I hope McCullough will be around for a long, long time. I believe he said in one interview that it takes him about 10 years to write a new one.

He will never run out of subjcects, of course, and I hope to see many old friends here and new ones when we open the book on Jan. 2nd.

Hi Ginny! Good to have you here. We discussed this book in the new book discussion we have here where I live and many people commented that it's amazing that we were able to win the war. Truly McCullough has shown us how close we came to defeat; our country has been fortunate so many times in having a good leader when we needed one.

We must, sometime, do a biography of George! He's rather a mysterious fellow to me, seems aloof somehow.

Harold and Ella I have "1776" coming as a Christmas present so would like to join the discussion. A couple of points from David Fishers "Washington's Crossing": Henry Knox developed a battle protocol at the battle of Trenton which decimated British troops, Knox kept numbers of cannon at the ready in mobile form and when the British troops massed to break through Continental lines Knox wheeled his cannons in position to repel British troops; the effects where devastating to the British troops. Also of great interest was after Washingtons end run from Trenton through the townships to Princeton and the successful American battle there Washington and his troops headed north to winter quarters at Jockey Hollow, Morristown NJ. During this period the New Jersey Militias totally disrupted British forts,outposts and road traffic. This was extremely effective however Washington did not approve of the tactics ( not in Queensbury rules?) however the milita was so effect Washington sent Continental troops to participate with the militias. The militia "Gorilla" warfare drove the British north to the Hudson river and the protection of Admiral Howe's shipboard cannons. New Jersey was secured for the Continental's.

Ok Potsherd, It will be good to discuss a history again with you.

Ok Potsherd, It will be good to discuss a history again with you. And also Ginny- this is starting out with quality participants.

Count me in, folks! I love McCullough and my husband bought me the book for a Christmas present. I can't wait to open it!

This discussion is perfectly timed to lead into the March discussion of Founding Mothers by Cokie Roberts which contains wonderful stories of the women in the lives of Founding Fathers we will read about in 1776. (Sign-up page to be available presently.)

Marni

Thank you Marni, We appreciate your support and presence in the coming discussion

Please include me in the discussion. Have the book!!!!!!!

Finally , this book has been waiting on my shelf for me since it first came out ..and what a great time to read it when the weather is cold and I limit my excursions outside the warmth of my home..I have kept from reading it knowing if I did I would enjoy it more when I could discuss it with everyone here ...anna

Welcome KIDSAL AND ANNA we're so happy to have you in the discussion; we have our quorum now so the discussion is on the front burner and we are looking forward to January.

So am I ...I bought the book as soon as it came out since I KNEW I would enjoy reading it and that someone would be leading a discussion of it ..looking forward to it .. anna

I'd love to join the discussion. May I ask how long you plan to take in reading the book? Thanks in advance.

SCOOTZ - we usually take a month to read a book, although if we want to take longer than that we can, of course. It all depends on what the participants want to do, it is you that make a discussion fun and one to remember!

McCullough has a bit to do with it also!! Such a good writer, he makes history come alive. The discussion I remember best is McCullough's JOHN ADAMS; I can still picture those founding fathers in my mind. That discussion lasted much more than a month - huge book!

We will be posting a Schedule in the heading soon and some sites on the Internet of interest.

Thanks for asking!

Hi Anna, I'm so happy you are joining us, this is a good one!

I picked up the book last night. I'll watch here for updates and info. Look forward to the discussion. This will be my first McCullough book.

It now looks like we have our quorum with Ginny, Potsherd Marni, Kidsal, Annafair and Scootz plus Ella and myself. Even so let’s leave this heading here as a proposed until the end of the coming week as an invitation to others to join. TWO, THREE OR MORE ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE MOST WELCOME.

Let me suggest that in reading the book in preparation we might look for 1776 events that McCullough either left out or that you as a reader feel should have been covered in greater (or possible lesser) detail. And what possible consequence good or bad might have resulted from these events. Also remember you don’t have to agree with McCullough or even like his writing or his book. We want you to express your view of the events covered to the book and your reaction to them.

I agree with Ella regarding schedule; This book is ideal for a single month discussion. We will finish by the end of January. Perhaps it will lead to another American History discussion in the spring. Lets keep this in mind as we discuss “1776.”

Ginny, I too had formed an impression that Washington was a rather staid individual, however David Hacketts "Washington's Crossing" dispelled that impression. His leadership was most democratic in his conferences and direction of the war with his staff. The marquis de Lafayette a familiar name in the war. I never realized how important he was and as close to Washington as he was. The Revolutionary war is of great interest to me having lived in NJ,PA, and DL.If I remember correctly New Jersey records the most engagements of the war. I and my girls( when they were young) have walked many of the battlefields and traced the routs of many battles. I look forward to 1776 it should be great read and discussion

Jean, I haven't read any of John McCullough's books. In the near future I hope to read John Adams. If you swoon, I will catch you.

I have my book, 1776. Harold and Ella May I lurk?

Hi Hats: We'd be delighted if you will lurk but I bet you can't resist posting a few messages along the way!

Mabel, I've always been in love with David McCullough, with the man himself (we saw him live in Washington, D.C. when a group of our "bookies" went to the first National Book Club Festival, maybe Ginny will put the picture here of a few of us with the MAN!) and his books. He's even in our age group somewhere - which is what? 55 or older plus? hahahahaaaa

I believe he has said he takes 10 years to research and write a book; I can believe that with John Adams but I think this book is not as complete with its characterization, but that will be a subject we will address when we begin.

Click here for a biography of David McCullough, what a smile!

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mcc2bio-1"

Wow!! That is a handsome smile.

What a cool photo of McCullough and SeniorNetters!! That's fun!!

I had never read anything by McCullough until I found out about him on SeniorNet. (Yay, SeniorNet!!) This year I read John Adams and The Path Between the Seas (about building the Panama Canal) which was incredibly interesting.

Marni

Thank you Mable and Hats for joining us here. Our Audubon group will now almost all continue here.

I'm here. I'm here. I've gotten the book (and started reading it) but forgot to post. I rashly volunteered to lead "Founding Mothers" in March and I know almost nothing about the Revolutionary War. I'm counting on you all and McCullough to enlighten me.

The two discussions should fit nicely. The wives of some of the lesser known but major figures in 1776 (like Knox) are major figures in "Founding Mothers". Between the two books, we should get a great picture of what I always wonder about with history: what was it like for ordinary people like us to live in those times?

--- your participation here carries over our core group from the Audubon biography discussion. You will like McCullough's writing and will get an interesting interpretation on some of the events occurring during the year of our nation's birth.

Discussion,

Late, as usual. I will be joining the Discussion. Have had the book for some time but will wait to read it along with the other participants.

Tiger Tom

I'm looking forward to this discussion, too, Ginny! Recently, I've become very interested in the American Revolution and the founding of our country. I don't know if it's just me or if there seems to be a whole slew of new books out in the last couple of years about the founding fathers. It's strange to me that after all these years, I've suddenly been reading up a storm about the period and people and discovering such fascinating stories that I have never heard of before. It amazes me that most of these stories were never taught in school despite the years of American History I had to take.

I think my dad's poor health has had an impact on my recent reading. He was always very interested in George Washington, Lafayette, Nathan Hale, and Benedict Arnold. He did a lot of research and gave speeches on them to various civic groups in CT. My dad has a large collection of books about the war and founding fathers. He is now blind and an invalid and particularly enjoys talking about his favorite historic events. So, I got hooked, started reading, and now we share many a wonderful discussion about history. We've grown closer and talk more together now than we ever did when I was young. It's great!

Marni

MARNI: you are wise. When I was older, I realized that both my parents enjoyed a lot of books that I didn't discover until they were gone. I would have loved to have talked about then with them.

Hi,

"1776" has been sitting on my shelf, and this is an excellent opportunity to read it with you. I love anything David McCullough writes, and I've read much of that explosion of American founding fathers history that has come out in the past few years. I'm ready!

Joseph Ellis has come out with a biography of George Washington and I must read it when I get a chance; I have a few ahead of that!!!

In 1998 we discussed Ellis' biography of Thomas Jefferson - An American Sphinx - one of our early book discussions led by a very favorite discussion leader - LJ Klein - who died of a heart attack. He was one of the best in the role of a DL and we will forever miss him.

Thanks for telling us about the American Sphinx discussion. I'm so happy to see that it's in the archives. I'll be reading it (the archives, i read the book a few years ago) until i get 1776 and have to start on that.....aarrggghhh! Why does it have to be the holiday season??? I need 36 hours in my day to get everything done i want to do......but it's so exciting.....thanks seniornet......jean

Ella: I think the Joseph Ellis novel about Washington you are referring to is His Excellency. I got it for Christmas last year. It is a wonderful biography! But, I have to admit, I enjoyed Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton better. What a book! I would highly recommend both of them, particularly the Hamilton. I would love it if we discussed the Chernow book in SeniorNet. I'm sure we will be discussing both of these fascinating men in our 1776 discussion.

---------------------------------------

Ginny: I'm not sure about my dad. Thank you very much for asking. He would be very pleased. I would have to pass everything on to our group since my dad can't read or write any longer. I don't have a laptop and my parents don't have a computer, so I'd have to hand write his comments with my arthritis. What I can certainly do is pass on tidbits if something comes up in our discussion and I ask my dad about it and he has something to add.

Hmmm...maybe a recording....

Marni

Make it a Proposed, Marni. In the meantime I'll read it on your recommendation. Ron Chernow's book on Hamilton. I keep looking at it. In the meantime I'm working on Jean Smith's JOHN MARSHALL, the great SC chief justice. What a great historical period.

Hi, The Middlemarch discussion is almost over and since I liked the John Adams book a lot I'll try 1776 since it too sounds like a fascinating read.. I learned so much about England in the Middlemarch discussion and with such a big group here it sounds as if it will be full of adventure (and fun too).

Judy

Marni, thank you for the recommendation.

I want to extend a belated welcome to both Tiger Tom and Scamper who have noted that they too plan to join us. We have a great group assembling here for discussion. Any one else out there are still welcome?

JUDY: great -- the fun goes on.

BUBBLE posted an interesting quote in SoC. As we go on, I'll be watching to see if we think it applies to the revolution:

""In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." -Leo Tolstoy, author (1828-1910)

One thing about this book is that it will raise issues involving many historical individuals and events worthy of subsequently discussions. Two of these mentioned in recent posts above include the Ellis biography of George Washington, and the biography of Alexander Hamilton that Marni mentioned. We must keep our eyes open looking for Book’s like these and others that will come up that might make popular follow-up discussions.

Our discussion of “1776” has made with a comfortable quorum of at least 11 participants, including Ginny, Potsherd, Mauni, Kidsal, Annafair, scooty, Mabel1915, Hats, JoanK Tiger Tom , and Scamper plus Ella and my self. We will begin as scheduled Jan 2, 2006. Meanwhile everyone have a happy Xmas and new year and reading of the book.

This book easily divides itself for discussion into 4 parts totaling 30 days of discussion with completion by the end of January. The following schedule should be considered tentative but it should be close to the schedule noted below

Proposed Discussion Schedule “1776” By David McCullough Jan 2nd – Jan 30, 2006



Part I: Chapters 1 & 2, Pages 1 – 69: Jan 2nd – Jan 8th (7-days).

Part II: Chapters 3 & 4, Pages 70 –154, Jan 9th – Jan 15th (7-days)

Part III: Chapters 5 & 6, Pages 155 – 246 Jan 16th – Jan 25th (10 days)

Part IV: Chapter 7 & Conclusions, Pages 247 – 294, Jan 26th – Jan 31st (6 days)

Ella, If you have any changes to the above division, please make them after which they will be permanently linked in the heading.

Re: ""In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." -Leo Tolstoy

That's an interesting quotation. Right now, I don't think that I agree with it, if Tolstoy is including rebellions as wars. There have been many rebellions throughout history, and I don't think they were all hatched solely by governments. The American Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the English king and Parliamentary legislation. The American colonial governments were really British when the rebellion was hatched. The rebel leaders had to create a new government.

Marni

Marni - The colonists did rebel against the king and parliament, but first they protested the actions of legislating taxes and quartering troops, etc. Instead of the King and parliament negotiating w/ them, they sent troops to enforce their legislation. Those troops were sent against the will of most of the families whose members would make up those troops.

I guess the question is "when" did the war start? Did it start w/ the French and Indian War? It was because of that war that the British had so much debt and wanted the colonists to help pay for those debts and for their own protection on the frontier by the British soldiers. Did it start when parliament passed tax legislation to collect the money to pay those debts? Did it start w/ the "Boston Tea Party?" Did it start when the British troops marched out of Boston and were attacked by the Minute Men?

Each of those situations could be stated to be the start of the war and each would have a different "starter," depending on your perspective, we could say the war was started by the British gov't, or by the rebels. But the arguement could be made that could support Tolstory's statement, that it was the gov't who started it w/out any regard for the British citizens who were going to have to fund it and fight it.....jean

-- Marni, would you agree with the 1940's American poet (It must have been Stephen Vincent Benét in "Western Star") who characterized the action of the rebellious North Americans, as never more English? They had already staged their own revolution some 130 years earlier that had included the overthrow and execution of a King. The Tolstoy quotation included in message #47 does sound a bit extreme to me since I think some modern wars had much popular support; but these are topics we might explore in greater depth as our discussion unfolds.

Hi, My post (#41) probably didn't have enough stamps so you didn't receive it. Hope theres still room on your bus.

Judy

Jean: I think I am interpreting the word "hatched" in the Tolstoy quote as "deliberately created." I don't think the British deliberately tried to create a war when they stationed troops in Boston, passed the Quartering Act and all the various legislation that got the colonists agitated. I think they were just trying to protect their possession and show the colonists who was boss. Perhaps I'm incorrect in my interpretation.

Marni

I just watched David McCullough interviewed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on TV channel 54, 8:00 p.m. EST. McCullough talked about 1776, of course. It sounded as if Jon Stewart had actually read the book.

I would love to listen to McCullough speak for a much longer time. He is so interesting! The book sounds so good. I can't wait to get it for Christmas!!!

Somehow Judy I seem to have overlooked your Message #41. You are in for sure! Anybody else?

Let me add that new participants are always welcome even if they arrive late in the middle or even near the end of a discussion. It is, however desirable for people to indicate their interest in a discussion early during its "Proposal" period since a certain minimum (in this case 5) are necessary for the discussion to go forward. In the past we have had good book proposals abandoned for lack of what we call a quorum. In this case we have a definite healthy quorum, and all expectations are for an intense, interesting exchange of individual opinions and reactions to the events described in the book.

Any late arruvals will be welcome!

Harold: Re: "Would you agree with the 1940's American poet...who characterized the action of the rebellious North Americans, as never more English? They had already staged their own revolution some 130 years earlier that had included the overthrow and execution of a King."

It certainly was in the English tradition! I'm remembering, too, in 1215 King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, agreeing to be bound by law, agreeing to limitations on the king’s power, and giving 'freemen' inalienable rights, notably trial by jury. This was considered to be the beginning of constitutional government in England.

Marni

Some of the "interviews" by the "reporters" I could do w/out, but i love JOhn's interviews of the guests. It appears to me as though he has always read the books of the authors he's interviewing.

When I read McCullough I can always hear his voice "saying" the words i'm reading. It is such a good, calm, kind but authoratative, caring about his subject voice.

Do you think he would be willing to participate in our discussion in some way?.....jean

McCullough's voice IS like that, Jean! I loved the way you phrased it. And he is so knowledgeable and does seem to love his subject so much. McCoullough looks very kind and has a beautiful face and smile. He said on The Daily Show that the Revolution was the most important war in America's history and that it could have gone either way through the entire war. He said that some wars are fought for good reason and the Revolution was one of them.

Marni

David McCullough's writing style is mesmerizing. I started the first chapter. I could not stop reading. Obviously, he has a gift for writing about history. I would love to hear his voice.

On Booktv, Monday 8:45 a.m.EST they are replaying McCullough at the TExas Book FEstival talking about "1776" and at 5:20 p.m. the same day the author is talking about a book on Martha Washington.

HATS: " I would love to hear his voice."

My SIL tells me that David McCullough was the narrator on the Ken Burns series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS a few years ago. So if you've watched that, you've heard his voice. It is a wonderful voice (and a wonderful series -- do get hold of it and watch it if you can).

Joank, I missed it. Boo hoo.

As I was looking forward to reading 1776, I was thinking last night about another book I read about the Revolution - an older book that my dad gave me last year - Valley Forge, a novel by McKinley Kantor (author of Andersonville and Spirit Lake). Has anyone read it? My dad saved it because it was one of his favorite books. I just loved it. It was very moving. It's a story told from the viewpoint of various people involved in the war, people from all levels - from Washington to lowly soldiers who spent the winter at Valley Forge. I looked for it on the web last night and found it is no longer in print. I would highly recommend it for anyone who can get their hands on it and is interested in a fictionalized account of a famous part of the Revolution.

Marni

Marni,

I will check my library. Thank you for the title. I bet you have enjoyed some wonderful conversations with your dad.

P.S. My library does own a copy. I will write the title on my long list.

I didn't realize Andersonville still existed! Is it actually the original prison? Or a replica? What a horror of a prison in the Kantor book.

Prisons are an interesting topic. Prisons of the Revolutionary period will be something fascinating we can discuss in Jan.

Ginny, I have visited Mount Vernon. It was many years ago. I can still remember the beauty of the home and the property. I would have loved to see a light show.

In 1940 I only saw the Jefferson home , Monticello from the distance. We were on our way to D.C. and did not have time to stop. A few days later we visited Mount Vernon, but never made it back to Monticello. Again in 1993 in Washington, I again took the usual Grey Line tour, with Mount Vernon one of the major stops. These great 18th century homes are of course interesting places, but I don’t think many modern families would want to live in one today.

Tomorrow I will leave for Xmas with family in Dallas but will from time to time check in, I will return next Wednesday or Thursday.

Everyone have a Merry Christmas!

My husband and I visited Monticello last fall and enjoyed our tour immensely. It was a lovely sunny autumn day and beautiful on the mountaintop with the Blue Ridge off in the distance. Jefferson's house is fascinating - filled with him and his inventions and interests. His library, which he sold because of all his debts and which became the beginnings of our Library of Congress, has been replicated with the volumes he originally owned. The front hall is filled with Native American artifacts sent by Lewis and Clark. There is an interesting privy built over a stream which carried away the waste. His document copier is in a study - it's a gadget in which a pen is linked up to write a duplicate of what the writer writes. We visited Jefferson's grave in the Monticello cemetery.

Here's a link to an online house and plantation tour of Monticello:

http://explorer.monticello.org/index.html

The tour shows an unfurnished house, but the house is furnished today with Jefferson's actual possessions or, in some cases, replicas.

Marni

that was wonderful.....jean

can anyone tell me how i can sign in on someone else's computer? I will hate to miss the discussion, if i can't get in to SN......jean

mabel1015j - type www.seniornet.org/books un the address line of the browser. -- Click go and you will be taken to the Main Menu of Books & Literature.

In the upper right corner will be a box to login. Scroll down to find the book discussions you wish to read and post in.

For mystery story readers, Jane Langton has written a mystery that takes place in (modern) Monticello -- "Murder at Monticello". Not her best mystery, but gives a good feel for the house and grounds.

With Christmas behind me and my cookie factory closed ( I baked hundreds of cookies for my family gave away 8 13x9 inch disposable aluminum pans with a high plastic cover FULL of cookies My grandchildren ( say NANA makes the best cookies LOL Nana is the ONLY one who bakes cookies ) I started reading last night, What a treat ,, Mr McCullough has a way of making his books so alive ..you feel you are THERE ..this should be a fantastic discussion and am glad to be aboard with so many good discussees! if that isnt a word then we will just have to add it! Loved the posts about MT Vernon and Monticello When we moved to Virginia 35 years ago they were among the first places we visited and have been back a couple of times as we introduced our children to them. Looking forward to THE NEW YEAR and this discussion...anna

I agree with Anna's comments concerning McCullough’s writing. I too must make a quick switch from Xmas activities to the book discussion that in my case will require minimizing New Years activities.

I have been in Dallas over Xmas with family. On Tuesday some of us went to Fort Worth where we visited the Amos Carter and Kimberly Museums. At the Amos Carter, I saw the four original George Catlin Indian paintings. One of these was painted in Texas during his early 1840's trek into the Texas panhandle with a U.S. cavalry regiment to restore a Kiowa woman captive to her tribe. The expedition resulted in near 50% causalities from what was termed bilious fever (possibly yellow fever). Catlin was late in contacting the disease and made it back to the Arkansas base where he recovered in the post hospital.

At the Kimberly we saw a large collection of paintings by Paul Gauguin from his early impressionist period. My brother, sister-in-law and I left Fort Worth about 3:00 PM returning to Fredericksburg. We drove through the prairie fire zone that according to the morning news are still burning. I spent Tuesday night at Fredericksburg returning to San Antonio yesterday.

This may be my last post before our discussion begins Monday morning. At that time introductory statements from everyone including further initial individual assessment of the book will be welcome followed by general discussion of the subject matter included in the first five chapters.

Everyone please free to ask questions, answer question, and present topics important to you that you feel require discussion. Also all participants are encourage to raise for discussion any corollary points suggested to them as individuals reading the book even though the point is not directly raised in the book. Though we will follow the schedule, subject to it, the forum is open to all. We are an informal group of friends not always agreeing with one another, but always respectful of one another’s interpretations presented during the discussion.

Ella Do you have any comments or additions to add?

The Schedule for next week (Week 1) is Part I: Chapters 1 & 2, Pages 1 - 69. not Chapters 1 -5 as I said in my #77 post. That would be more than half the book..

The full schedule will be linked in the heading above shortly.

Ella I did not get your E-Mail. My best address is hhullar5@sbcglobal.net I check this in-box at least daily.

No, Harold? Well, just wanted to let you and everyone know that I'm ready to roll Monday; this is going to be a wonderful group and what a happy way to start the New Year. Nothing is better than a McCullough book, he just keeps getting better and better - long may he live!

You all have a safe and Happy New Year's Eve!

Harold: I hope those Texas fires are not near your neck of the woods. What a year!

I was interested in what you said about "bilious fever." So many people I've read about in the 18th century came down with it, whatever it was. I read that it bilious fever was a catch-all phrase in the early 19th century. Apparently, it could have been yellow fever, or malaria, typhoid, hepatitis, or jaundice from liver disease. James Madison had numerous attachs or bilious fever.

--- Tuesday some of us went to Fort Worth to the Amos Carter and Kimberly Museums. About 3:00 in the Afternoon in my brother's car we left Fort Worth by auto for Fredericksburg. As we left Fort Worth and for the next 100 miles we could see the smoke from the grass fires. The big smoke clouds originated miles west of us but they dominated the view. At no time was the fire close to us. Now I am concerned for the safety of my Guadalupe County property. Though so far there are no active fires, the grass is very dry, and what with New Years fireworks, anything could happen.

Regarding my comment on the bilious fever that killed so many of the troupes participating in the 1934 operation the painter George Catlin wrote about. I thought it was in the 1840, but I find I was wrong and 1834 appears to to the correct date. The mission was to show the flag to the Comanche’s and return a Kiowa woman that the Army had taken from other Indians who had captured her. It involved about 500 troops commanded by General Henry Leavenworth and a Colonel Dodge in a sweep across Indian Territory and what is now the Texas Panhandle. The General was one of the many causalities of the bilious fever that killed him and many of his soldiers.

Tuesday in Fort Worth I saw the four George Catlin Indian Paintings that are in the permanent collection of the Amos Carter Museum. Catlin painted one of these on the 1834 Comanche operation.

I started reading 1776 today and noticed on page 6 that George III's madness (20 years after the revolution) was caused by porphyria, an inherited physical disturbance. Here's some ino of porphyria, which I had never heard of:

Porphyria is a group of different disorders caused by abnormalities in the chemical steps leading to the production of heme, a substance that is important in the body. The largest amounts of heme are in the blood and bone marrow, where it carries oxygen. Heme is also found in the liver and other tissues.

Multiple enzymes are needed for the body to produce heme. If any one of the enzymes is abnormal, the process cannot continue and the intermediate products, porphyrin or its precursors, may build up and be excreted in the urine and stool.

The porphyria disorders can be grouped by symptoms—whether they affect the skin or the nervous system. The cutaneous porphyrias affect the skin. People with cutaneous porphyria develop blisters, itching, and swelling of their skin when it is exposed to sunlight. The acute porphyrias affect the nervous system. Symptoms of acute porphyria include pain in the chest, abdomen, limbs, or back; muscle numbness, tingling, paralysis, or cramping; vomiting; constipation; and personality changes or mental disorders. These symptoms appear intermittently.

The porphyrias are inherited conditions, and the genes for all enzymes in the heme pathway have been identified. Some forms of porphyria result from inheriting an abnormal gene from one parent (autosomal dominant). Other forms are from inheriting an abnormal gene from each parent (autosomal recessive). The risk that individuals in an affected family will have the disease or transmit it to their children is quite different depending on the type.

Attacks of porphyria can develop over hours or days and last for days or weeks. Porphyria can be triggered by drugs (barbiturates, tranquilizers, birth control pills, sedatives), chemicals, fasting, smoking, drinking alcohol, infections, emotional and physical stress, menstrual hormones, and exposure to the sun.

Porphyria is diagnosed through blood, urine, and stool tests. Diagnosis may be difficult because the range of symptoms is common to many disorders and interpretation of the tests may be complex. Each form of porphyria is treated differently. Treatment may involve treating with heme, giving medicines to relieve the symptoms, or drawing blood. People who have severe attacks may need to be hospitalized.

I am ashamed that I know so little about the Revolution and that period. I've done some reading about the Civil War, about none about the Revolution. My excuse was that, living most of my life around DC, I am surrounded by Civil War battlegrounds. But that excuse doesn't hold. Two of the battles McCullough describes took place in places where I have lived (Brooklyn and Princeton) and I had never heard of either of them!

Like Ginny, I find the focus on 1776 unfortunate for a first book -- I want to know how they got there.

Hi Ginny and Joan! DM could have gone into more detail of "what went before," of course; however, he chose to just details the events of 1776 but on Page 7 you will find a brief description of how it all started on April 19th, 1775. If you like, just go to the Internet and type in the Battle of Bunker Hill - or Lexington and Concord - you'll find plenty of material!

Thanks Scamper for that information, very interesting.

We can discuss the battles above in more detail when we begin Tuesday, if you like. I'm far from an authority on the subject and I just bet Harold knows more than any of us, his is an analytical mind far superior to my own; perhaps he'll come and summarize what you are asking.....

Here is an excellent site although there are many more:

The Revolutionary War

Even music - enjoy reading!

Did someone ask about how George Washington became the leader of the American forces; if not, I apologize, but here is a site that is very good also.

George Washington

Just one more...... HAROLD, if you look in here, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was John Adams who wanted to call dear George, when he was elected president, Your Excellency, and it was dear George himself who said no, no, I will be called Mr. President.

Something like that............

Otherwise, we might have more pomp and ceremony to the presidency tha a mere "Hail to the Chief" when he appears.

My John Adams book was loaned out to a friend after our discussion and it just never made it back home.

Our offical opening is Jan 2nd, tomorrow, so these posts are not much too early.

Actually Ella, John Adams proposed an even more resounding title for our President. As Vice President he proposed that the President should be addressed as “His Majesty, the President of the United States.” It just did not catch on. I think the 1st Congress by legislation set the proper address as: "his excellency” which appears from our book to be the way Washington was addressed in 1775 and 76 as Commander of the Army. Washington was very much the aristocrat and seems to have relished the laudatory address. Makes me wonder if perhaps he would really liked to have been King as Hamilton proposed.

I think the official title of address remains His/Her Excellency today but of course the more republican (small r) “Mr/Ms President is now always used.

Regarding King George III he was an interesting character. He had an extraordinary squeaky-clean married life. There is no record of mistresses common for most Royals of the day. His German princess queen bore him over a dozen children. His many sons quite the contrary all married to German royals produced only two legitimate children eligible to inherit the Throne. Yet by their commoner mistresses there was no shortage of bastard offspring.

The Prince of Wales who in 1812 became regent when the King became mad, and King George IV in 1820 when the old King fianlly died had one legitimate daughter, Charlotte, who would have become queen in 1830 when her father died. But she was already dead, having died in childbirth in 1817. Her unexpected death set off something of a contest among the Royal Princes who suddenly started to pay attention to their German wives. In 1819 a daughter named Victoria was born fathered by Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent. “It looks like I’ve won the Lottery,” the proud father boasted to his unsucessful brothers. Be that as it was, the Duke of Kent died the next year, but his daughter, Victoria became Queen in 1837.

The American Revolution Home Page is very useful. Here is a quick chronology, showing the passage of laws that inflamed the colonists:

TIMELINE

Thanks for those wonderful links. The three of them together give a great concise history of the colonies getting to 1776. If any of you reading these posts haven't gone to the links yet, it probably is easiest to understand if you read the "timeline" then "geo Washington" then "lexington and concord." It goes from the broad to the specific.

I'm reading an interesting book on Washington, "An Imperfect God: G.W, His Slaves, and the Creation of America" by Henry Wiencek. Has anyone read it or anything else by Wiencek? It's kind of rambling and i can't decide where the author stand on G.W. Maybe that's a good thing. Unlike McCullough who seems to fall in love w/ his subjects....jean

I think you all are correct in that McCullough gives a very brief sketch of the events leading up to where this book starts. I noticed somewhere that 1776 is advertised as a companion to McCullough's John Adams book, which does go in to these things in more detail. I'm one of those who without planning to have suddenly read a lot of excellent revolutionary history books in the past couple of years because so many good ones have come out on Adams (McCullough), Hamilton (Chernow), Washington (Ellis), Jefferson (Ellis), Franklin (Brand, Morgan, Isaacson), and just recently a new Brand book about Jackson. If this book sparks your interest in American History, you've got some excellent books to look forward to! Those posted links summarize things much better than I could, and hopefully they'll keep you on track for this smaller book!

I do see some repetition from John Adams and other books. I wasn't all that enthused about 1776 since I've read so much of this type of history lately, but I do love David McCullough and have read so many wonderful books he has written. It was wonderful to read The Path Between the Seas and then take a cruise through the Panama Canal!

McCullough does hone in on a very specific time period, making assumptions that we know the prior history leading up to the events of 1776. Once in awhile, he explains briefly prior incidents. I do like his focus, though. I'm learning many things about some important events and leaders that I knew almost nothing about, particularly Nathanael Greene, my new favorite hero of the Revolution. I had never even heard of him before last year! I'm going to have to read a biography of Greene. Wonderful stories and tidbits in this book. Has anyone read a good bio of Greene? Interesting that he was a fighting Quaker. Here's a very brief web bio of Greene with my favorite portrait of him:

http://members.aol.com/JonMaltbie/Biography.html

One thing that I'm finding a bit difficult in this book is the lack of decent maps to correspond to McCullough's battle descriptions. He goes into wonderful and fascinating detail, and he has included several old maps, but they are not enough. We'll have to find some other maps on the web, I think, to help in our discussion.

Thanks for the links!

Marni

You are just what my inept memory needs, HAROLD! It was a good day, a good idea, that we became co-discussion leaders way back when and I can always count on you for the historical facts which will keep all of us on the right track; whereas I tend to get just the general overview of it all.

It overwhelms me, SCAMPER, to think of reading all those books; one McCullough every two or three years is enough for me, but I want someday to read his PATH BETWEEN THE SEAS and if I live long enough I may. I have 3 other books I'm delving into on my bedside table right now.

No, MARNI, I haven't read anything about Greene, but I also found it fascinating that the man was a fighting Quaker. Thanks for the link.

GOLLY, GINNY, I JUST REALIZED IT IS JANUARY 2nd having glanced at the paper and we are to start our discussion today!

Were all of you as startled as I was to begin reading the book and discovering that McCullough starts this book with English history – and were you as delighted as I was that he did? He grabbed my attention from the outset with this unique approach to the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps several of you have read the history of England and their outlook on our rebellion but I never have and in looking over DM’s Source Notes and Bibliography I am – but shouldn’t be – amazed at the work he put into his research.

If you are interested in the history of how “God Save Great George Our King” became “My Country Tis of Thee” click here: Words and Lyrics The song, written by one Samuel Francis Smith who was translating it from a German music school book, had been around the world before it was first performed in the United States in 1831.

It must been devastating to the ego of England to have lost more than 1000 men at Bunker Hill, don't you think? We were the "rabble." As one British officer said in a published letter he wished that all those who were in favor of more vigorous action in America could see the slaughter.

What did all of you think of DM's approach to our Revolutionary War?

And England had to hire foreign troops? Why? And why Hessian soldiers? I mentioned this to a couple of friends and one said that in his family history there was a record of a German soldier having fought in the Revolution; he believes it was because the German government got a stipend for every soldier they produced for England and Germany needed the money at the time.

Does anyone know any more about this?

Back later, eg

--- the film, “The Madness of King George;” in England the title was “The Madness of King George III.” When it was released in the U.S. the distributor dropped the “III” from the title. The reason of course was obvious, American would interpret the “III” as its being the third sequel of a series and since it would appear that they had missed “I” and “II” they would not go to see the third.

And England had to hire foreign troops? Why? And why Hessian soldiers? I mentioned this to a couple of friends and one said that in his family history there was a record of a German soldier having fought in the Revolution; he believes it was because the German government got a stipend for every soldier they produced for England and Germany needed the money at the time.

They were Hessian because George III was also King of Hanover one of the major separate German states. This had been the case since George I of Hanover had inherited the English Throne in 1714. The preoccupation of the first two Georges in Hanover led to the increasing power of the House of Commons and the development of parliamentary government. Throughout his reign George III was an even more absolute ruler in Hanover than in England and it was the logical place to recruit soldiers for his army.

The English Monarch was King of Hanover until 1837 when William IV died and Victoria became Queen in England. Since Hanover followed the Continental rule that prohibited a woman from becoming sovereign, a younger son of George III, Frederick, became King of Hanover and the governance of the two nations was completely separated.

Welcome Scamper, Ginny, JoanK, Ella, Jean, and Marni. Still to check in are Potsherd, Kidsal, Annafaiar, Scooty, Hats, and Tiger Tom. Also any one else out there who is interested in this book or can offer comment on its subject matter are welcome.

Negotiations by London prior to the Battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill were being conducted with Hessian States who"s troops would control the American Colonies however the discussions failed because the " price was to high". The British then conducted negotiations with Russia,the Netherlands,the Moors from Morocco. The desperation of the government brought them back to the German States and agreements for 34,000 troops was consummated.The greatest number of Hessians(18,960) where from the State of Hesse-Cassel. The "solders trade" Typically started when a male child reached the age of 7 years old and was required to be registered with the state. When the boy reached 16 years of age he was reviewed before a board and if his work or education was found substandard he would start his military training. Why where the Hessians hired by the British. The language difference was a major consideration;thought to reduce fraternizing,also the Hessians had a great distain for the American Rebel rabble. Of the total 34,000 Hessian troops about 50% were killed and some remained in country with most in lancaster county, Pa.

I'm so excited to start this book discussion. I know it's going to be very informative and fun!

Thanks Marni for the Green site, he has been "getting some press" lately. Cokie Roberts includes his wife in her "Founding Mothers" book, which i understand we're going to read later in the year.

A few yrs ago I had a student who was a descendant of Daniel Morgan. I wish i had had a chance to talk more w/ her about him. Have to go find a book on him.

Several years ago i read a book about Queen Victoria, appropriately titled, or sub-titled "Grandmother of Europe." That is an amazing story of all the heads of state of the major European countries having some relationship to her, and for a couple generations. It might be an interesting book for discussion.

I'm trying to read the posts and watch the Rose Bowl Parade. They are both just wonderful!......jean

Potsherd that is an interesting story of the Hessians that you gave above. I had assumed that they were from Hanover since it seemed logical by reason of its control by the English King. As you said this seems to have been a practice of long duration by the various princes who controlled the many little German states. Essentially it involved the sale by the petty princes of young peasant men as soldiers to fight in foreign wars.

Click Here for a long,detailed Web History of the practice or Click Here for a much shorter facts sheet with information about this source of foreign soldiers. This material indicates that Hanoverians were not involved.

One thing that is very interesting to me is finding out how the Revolution was our first civil war. For some reason, I hadn't really thought of it as civil war in my history courses long ago. It was not just British fighting Americans or Hessians fighting Americans; it was Americans fighting Americans. That made it a much more difficult war for the Americans. The rebels were literally surrounded by enemies from within and without.

McCullough shows the struggles of Americans trying to make up their minds which side to be on. What a big decision! The British had such a large army and it owned the seas with its splendid navy. Americans had relatives in Britain. They were dependent on Britain for many things. What an amazing story!

I've been particularly interested in the Revolution as a civil war since I found out about my husband's ancestry. He is of Dutch descent. His ancestors lived in New Netherland before the British arrived in New England and New York. They spelled their last name as "Lydekker." During the Revolution, some of the family remained loyal to King George. Others joined the rebellion. The loyalists were eventually forced to flee the country for their lives, going up to Canada. Those rebels who remained in America changed the spelling of their name to "Lydecker" to distinguish themselves from the loyalists.

It's interesting and horrifying to find out how the American loyalists and rebels treated one another during and after the war, torturing and killing each other, plundering homes, turning each other in to the "enemy."

Marni

King George III concerned about the crisis in America recognized he must act. Writing to Prime Minister Lord North indicating disobedience and unrest in the colonies must be addressed “ America must be made to obey.” In the House of lords when challenged as to” can we win a war in America” Lord Sandwich said” they are raw, undisciplined cowardly men. My analysis of Lord Sandwich statement would be:

RAW__ Yes, as far as formal military training and education. UNDISCIPLINED__yes, they emigrated to America for freedom, opportunity, denied them by the British system/hierarchy. COWARDLY MEN__ No, this was a gross misunderstanding of the British for which they would pay dearly.

Freedom, a foreign word In the Kings vocabulary however a word of major prominence in the Revolutionary war: a word so powerful it defeated the mighty British Empire. The King and the “Houses” simply referred to the British people in the Colonies with lots of derogatory words and statements. All of which some where probably uiiered to placate “King George III” The British army a well trained military force backed by the most powerful navy in the world. However the Colonial militias with men from the French and Indian war experience recoginized that against superior forces the Indian way of fighting using natural cover such as trees ,rock walls and fences a small force could raise havoic against superior forces: today this is known as guerilla fighting ( not much new is there) . In time French,German and Polish military officers provided formal military training to American troops. However I find most interesting the self taught Colonial milita such as Henry Knox, a Boston book seller who learned the art and science of the cannon and mortar from his military books. he endeared himself to General Washington when he and his brother in the dead of winter crossed the mountains to Lake George, recovered and brought back to Boston the cannon and mortars of Fort Ticonderoga. Knox in the second battle of Trenton,NJ rewrote the book for guys that play with cannons. Remarkable!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for all the links. It is interesting to read about the Naval power of Great Britain. Also, their total readiness to win this war quickly. I think the Americans must have looked like a raggedy bunch of country bumpkins in their eyes. Little did the Britains know, right? It amazes me that the Americans won the American Revolution. At times, I think George Washington must have felt victory was unlikely too. It seems, at times, more soldiers were dropping their guns and heading home than ones coming forth to fight.

I do have a question. I see the mention of "a new flag in honor of the birthday of the new army--" This is on page 69 in the last paragraph. More than once while growing up in Philadelphia my family or the schools visited Betsy Ross's house. During that time teachers taught that Betsy Ross sewed the first flag. Did Betsy Ross really make the first flag? If so, why is her name not mentioned in 1776? Is it because in modern times there is some dispute about who did make the first flag?

The likes of Knox, Greene and Washington himself as commanders of armies amazed me also Potsherd. The first two, both still in their 20’s, had had no previous military experience except maybe reading in books. In Knox’s case there must have also been an immense amount of Engineering skills involved in moving more than100,000 pounds of iron across Lake George and overland about 300 miles on sleighs over winter snow to Boston. McCullough does not tell us the details of how Knox recovered the heavy gun from the shallow water of Lake George after the barge carrying it sunk.

Regarding Washington as Commander of the army, he had been a mere major 20 years before in the French-Indian war, but a civilian planter after that until his sudden appointment to the high command. Can you imagine a WW I Major discharged to civilian life in 1919, being appointed to lead an army in Normandy? Not at all likely!

The flag mentioned on page 69 us not the Betsey Ross flag, rather it was an a new flag of the united 13 colonies. Call it the Union Jack and stripes since it was the British Union Jack in the upper corner with the alternating 13 red and white stripes. The stars and stripes were yet to come.

McCullough’s account in Chapter 2 is somewhat confusing since he is describing the Siege of Boston as it began in 1775. At the end of Chapter 2 he reaches Dec 1775 with the Boston winter and the Rebels eager to go home. At the time Sentiment for independence was growing but it would be another six months later before it became the announced objective of the struggle.

Wasn't the story of Knox moving the Fort Ticonderoga artillery to Boston the most amazing story!!!! Better than fiction!!! Sounds like it did take him and his men awhile to figure out how to use the guns, though, despite the book learning. Some guns blew up and some men were killed in the experimental stage.

Regarding the first flag - I read somewhere (this book???) that the first American flag had the red and white stripes, but the British flag in the upper left hand corner rather than the circle of stars. I read somewhere that John Paul Jones was honored to be the first to raise the new American flag on an American ship.

Here's an article about the American flag:

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/history.shtml

Marni

Marni, thank you for the link.

More interesting info about the American flag:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875838.html

http://www.usacitylink.com/usa/?file=/citylink/usa/history.html

Cowpens was an extremely important battle of the Revolution in 1781, starring Daniel Morgan and his crack shot riflemen and the British villain, Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, the most hated British officer of the Revolution, and his "Tarleton's Raiders" who "gave no quarter." There was a wonderful program about Cowpens on the History Channel this year.

Here's some info:

http://www.nps.gov/cowp/batlcowp.htm

Marni

This is my first real post on this new site. Although I knew much of the material in the first part which we read I had given little thought to the death by illness of so many troops. I began exploring that and although it might seem tangential I will report my findings.

First I wanted to understand the term "Bilious". It is a word generally made use of to express disorders which arise from a copious secretion of bile. Thus bilous colic, bilous fever etc. It is mainly used to describe Yellow Fever or Yellow Jaundice. This is a liver disorder and is highly contagious.

On a personal note I contracted this disease myself in 1953 while living in New Jersey where ther was a huge outbreak. It took three months to recuperate including a two week Hospital stay. I was left with a Liver that does not toleratre oily foods. This experience really gives me a feeling for what the troops suffered.

During the Rev. War smallpox was deadlier than combat.It could lay an army lower than anything in its enemies arsenal. The British knew this and began to purposely infect the Indian tribes as well as parts of the Boston population in an effort to halt the Revolution.There was a possibility of a primitive type of vaccination which Washington tried to enforce. However the few Doctors that volunteered very quickly became ill themselves since few knew how the disease was spread or the importance of sanitation.

Judy ( I have more material on this if anyone is interested)

I found another good timeline - events of the Revolution - on the Cowpens site:

http://www.nps.gov/cowp/Timeline.htm

Judy: I'd like to see that info. Thanks. Washington contracted smallpox on his one and only visit out of the country when he visited the West Indies with his brother when he was, I believe, a teenager. He was extremely concerned about smallpox and his army from the very first. When the British fled Boston and Washington's army took back the town, Washington wanted every man who had never had smallpox to be vaccinated first before they set foot in Boston because of the smallpox epidemic that raged there. This was before the days of using cowpox for vaccine and the smallpox vaccine was very dangerous. Some died from it. I think McCullough wrote about the Adams family getting innoculated in John Adams.

Marni

--- for your first post on the role of health and smallpox. etc. It was quite common in pre 20th century wars for more casualties from disease than from combat. In the McCullough John Adams book I remember Abigail had the children vaccinated against smallpox while John was away in Europe despite the great risk inherent in the primitive vaccine.

I was interested in the smallpox vaccine in the Revolution because I read a novel in which the wife of the British ambassador to Turkey (Lady Mary Wortley Montague) in the early 18th century brought back to England information about a smallpox vaccine invented by the Turks. She spent much time speaking about its benefits and trying to pursuade people to have it done.

If you're interested, here is an interesting article about smallpox and the development of vaccines.

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/vaccinehistory.htm

Marni

Ginny: You might be interested in this!! In the article about smallpox in my link in post #117, it says that the word "vaccination" comes from the Latin for cow. (Jenner's smallpox vaccine was made from fluid from people who had cowpox.)

Here I am checking in and am glad I delayed a bit with all of the extra bits provided ..Since my husbands family on both sides were prominent in America from the early days when we met I learned a lot .. they were part of the Morris line and each generation produced a Robert Morris and my husband was one..of course his last name was Alexander but from all the work by various descendents and a huge family tree I know a lot about some of the other people who became prominent in the Revolutionary war .. And when we went east I visted many of the places mentioned ..and of course I am only about 14 min from the Yorktown battle fields and the spot where Cornwallis surrended to Washington and Williamsburg where so many early Americans lived and served ..gee it is great to be in area where so much of our early history occured So I was caught up in McCullough story from the first word AND I am glad he started with how the English felt and how it was decided to take care of these poor subjects...

I thank everyone for the links which just enhances our discussion and am looking forward to knowing more. While I think there may have been some early Americans who might have thought we should perhaps become a monarchy I think the fact that so many came to America to be DIFFERENT that any one who felt that way would have been rebuffed and when you stop and think about it the idea of Being FREE has such a unique feeling ..

Well I am going to re read what I have read because I did go ahead a bit and I want to think about what every one has said ...and for that I need to re read ..GOOD FOR US though and thanks to DM for doing it again ..taking me with him with his story .. anna

Oh, I'm learning so much from all your posts. JUDY, I never knew yellow fever or yellow jaundice was contagious; isn't jaundice what some babies have when they are born and they must change their blood? And I thought yellow fever was what one caught from mosquitos? Tell me how wrong I am, please!

Some years ago, we took in an Elderhostel trip to historic Yellow Springs, PA - it was shortly after the surrounding neighbors had formed a trust to keep developers out of this area. It was one of the best we have ever been to, but I bring it to your attention because there are still the foundation stones where George Washington had a hospital built for the soldiers - the first military hospital in America. The land was given to him for that purpose and if you click here you can take a tour:

Historic Yellow Springs

I remember reading in one of the other revolution era books of recent vintage that Hessian soldier were hired because 1) the English were short-handed and need to hire extra help 2) Germany made it a practice to keep a large army and hire it out when they didn't need it 3) the English were friendly with the Germans (for obvious reasons of relations) 4) the Hessians were cheaper than some other soldiers for hire 5) they were pretty good fighters and 6) it was thought that the fact that they didn't speak English was a benefit - that way they wouldn't get to know the Americans and possibly be swayed to their cause!

Thank you very, very much for your information about the flag. I must apologize. Yesterday I missed your post. It is easy for my eyes to miss a post. I do go back over and over again to read and reread because each post is packed with information.

I have been thinking and rethinking of George Washington. What must it have been like to become the very first Commander in Chief? The title called for such weighty responsibilities. I think George Washington's quote at the beginning of the book really conveys the emotions he dealt with during the Revolutionary War.

"The reflection upon my situation and that of this army produces many an uneasy hour when all around me are wrapped in sleep.
Few people know the perdicament we are in."--General George Washington January 14, 1776

Thanks HATS and SCAMPER for your posts; those Hessian soldiers are of great interest to us aren't they? Why? Perhaps because we were taught that the war for freedom was fought between Americans and the British and now we learn that there were 34,000 Germans involved; that's quite a number.

In reading the lst chapter did you get the feeling that England was as divided in opinion as to the merits of fighting this war as we are today in fighting a war in the Middle East?

In re-reading the posts of yesterday, I am amused at Harold's statement that we would think that the movie THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE III was a sequel, hahahaa! Wouldn't it be tiresome though for the children of England to learn all the Kings and their titles.

That's a thrilling sentence POTSHERD - "Freedom, a foreign word In the Kings vocabulary, however, a word of major prominence in the Revolutionary war: a word so powerful it defeated the mighty British Empire." Those revolutionary soldiers and those courageous founders of our country would like to be remembered with that thought.

The word "macaroni" on page 17 intrigues me because I've always wondered what exactly it means. WE all know the song of Yankee Doodle Dandy in which it is used - did it come from the British? Does it mean "dandified?"

later, eg

Ginny__ Welcome aboard the World War II aircraft carrier USS Cowpens (CVL-25). The "Mighty Moo" was an Independence Class light fleet aircraft carrier (CVL) which saw duty in the Fast Carrier Task Force in the Pacific from 1943 to 1945. She was awarded twelve Battle Stars and a Navy Unit Commendation for service during World War II.

The Cowpens was named in honor of the Revolutionary War battle of January 17, 1781, fought seven miles north of the town of Cowpens, South Carolina. This battle was a victory in the campaign which led to the surrender of the British at Yorktown, Virginia. Ginny anyone who has studied the Revolutionary war as well as WWII naval ships and engagements knowns the word "Cowpens" well. regards........potsherd PS: I believe the number of battle stars cited for the USS Cowpens is in error. There were 12 battle stars awarded for the Pacific Campaign starting December 7,1941. The Cowpens saw active duty from 1943 to 1945 thus it would have been impossible to be awarded 12 battle stars.

Hey Hats, I made a mistake yesterday too. Remember I assumed the Hessians were from George III's domain in Hannover. Thank you Potsherd for putting me straight on that.

Ella, I suspect it is easier to learn the names of the Kings of England than the Presidents of the U.S, The kings all go by their first name and are conviently numbered. I find I can name them in order back to the end of the War of the Roses with the Henry VII) in the 1480's.

When I first read about the release of “1776” my first thought was that McCullough was using his “John Adams” research and reputation to produce another title for a quick profit. Looking at its content,it seems only to hone in on certain military events with little or no detail relative to major political and other events. For example there are only a few pages telling of the political events leading to the most momentous event of the year, the Declaration Of Independence.

But the thing that makes this story interesting and what I like most about it, is the coverage it gives to the individual participants. Reading it gives me the impression of actually meeting and knowing the individual actors be they British loyalists or American revolutionaries.. be they Generals, junior officer of soldiers from either side, or be they civilians, American fighting for freedom or American Tories loyal to their English roots. All seem to spring from the pages as real people telling the story of their experience. I think this prospective is what makes it interesting and saves it from being just another “cash cow” title hastily written from previous research and reputation.

HAROLD, I feel familiar with the individuals too. I think David McCullough spends a great deal of time telling each person's feelings about the Revolutionary War.

ELLA, From King George on down the line I can feel intense and opposing views about the war. King George is extremely focused. He believes the Americans have gone astray. Only through force, he feels, will these rebellious "children" learn their lesson.

Not all of the King's subjects agreed. For example, Duke of Grafton believed the harsh acts, like the Stamp Act, caused the problems. Without harsh taxation the people in the colonies would quiet down.

David McCullough writes about Duke of Grafton. "--he boldly proposed the repeal of every act concerning America since the incendiary Stamp Act of 1765."

It's almost like reading about war in Iraq and the present administration and the American people. All have a different opinion about one war. Thank goodness, the war we are disagreeing about is not one taking place on American soil.

or for anyone else who can enlighten me.......

On page 18 King G calls North his "sheet anchor." Is that a naval term and what is it? I've never heard it before. On pg 21, DM says the Greenes family interests included a "coasting sloop." To me that means a hill to go sledding on (LOL) but i'm sure there must be another explanation.....

On pg 22 DM says Greene "handsome, though an innoculation for smallpox had left a cloudy spot in his right eye." Does anyone understand that connection?

On pg 42 they mention Mt Vernon's purchases which included "limes by the hundred." I know they were used for fending off scurvy, but why is it always "limes" as opposed to other citrus, are they easier to get, keep, grow? Have more vit c per unit? I remember hearing that that was the reason the Enlish sailors were called "limeys." Can anyone verify that?

Repeating history: JAdams nominating GW as c-i-c and Lincoln choosing Johson as his v.p., also JFK choosing LBJ - all to "bring in the South" - we seem to keep needing the South in percarious times.

I have, since Viet Nam, always been struck by how similar the Rev'nary War and VN are. A little group of soldiers fighting against the greatest military in the world, using guerilla tactics as oppored to traditional military tactics, thousands of miles away from home, many of the professional soldiers did not want to be there. Was Ho Chi Min the GW of VN? Was he as concerned as GW about his chances of success?

And i am always struck by how young the leadership of the colonies was. Knox - 24!!! Do you know any present day 24 yr olds who would take on his task? Alex Hamilton was also early 20's and most of all the others were under 50 - except for good old Ben, of course, whose celebrating his 300th birthday this year.Come to Phila for the celebrating events. Most of today's leadership is over 50, does it make a difference?

I loved DM's pointing out that Knox' ideas could "get to" GW because of the informality of the military, which probably wouldn't happen today and wouldn't have happened in the English army. Sometimes being unsophisticated is beneficial.........jean

A sheet anchor would be an extra ,heavy, anchor used for emergencies.

I had to laugh reading about the "macaroni." I missed that word on my first reading. Charles James Fox wore high-heeled shoes. What made me laugh is that he wore different colored shoes at the same time! Now I would love to know the definition of a "macaroni." Maybe a "macaroni" is just a guy who dresses ahead of his time?? Maybe a macaroni is the one who sets the style for others???

I thought it was very interesting how the Continental Congress was avoiding creating a long-term standing army. There was a real fear of an internal standing army. Congress went a long way avoiding providing enough money for Washington to do the job. And for a long time, every decision he made, it seems, had to be approved by Congress. That could really slow things down. Washington was extremely careful about handling things politically with Congress in mind. I imagine Congress thought of other countries where standing armies eventually took over governments - military coups and all that.

Marni

GINNY, thank you for the links about Sacred Harp Singing and Early American composers. All of this is new and interesting information for me.

I would also like to know more about the fife too. I always picture a small boy leading the men out to battle playing a fife and/or a drum. I don't know where I got the idea about a young boy. That's the picture in my head. Is a fife different from a flute? Are fifes still played in our time? A fife had to make a very loud sound, didn't it?

To answer Mabels question What was a "Coasting sloop" It was George Washingtons Money maker/saver. They where small sailboats ( with oars) that preyed on British merchant ships. The 3,000 mile British supple line was a major negative factor for the "King". I am most familiar with the Jersey coast so will address that specific area. The small coastal sloops where fitted with center board keels rather than a fixed keel which allowed them to as we say " to sail on a wet meadow". They typically had a swivel cannon mounted in the bow of the boat, was fitted out with sails and oars. The Privateer as they were referred to would many time operate in force (many boats attack) overwhelming the merchant ship and crew. It was a lucrative business for the Privateer crews and it was a major problem for the British. Just north of present Atlantic city,NJ is a small hamlet of Port Republic that was burned and destroyed by British. A tall granite obelisk marks the battle of "the den of pirates "as the Brits called Port Republic".

I live in the oldest town in CT - Windsor. It is really into recreating scenes from the Revolution and has its own Windsor Fife and Drum Corps where members dress up in Revolutionary War costumes and march in all the parades. I think many towns in our vicinity do the same thing.

Here's a picture of the fifers and drummers marching:

http://www.windsorfifeanddrumcorps.com/

A fife is a small, high-pitched, transverse flute often accompanied by drums in a military fife and drum corps. A fife is similar to the piccolo, but louder and shriller due to its narrower bore. Fifes were commonly used for signaling on the battlefield in the U.S. Army and elsewhere until about the time of the Civil War because they are quite loud. Fifes were one of the most common musical instruments in America's Colonial period, more so than the violin or piano.

The fife originated in medieval Europe and is often used in military and marching bands. Someone who plays the fife is called a fifer. The word fife comes from the German Pfeife, or pipe, ultimately derived from the Latin word pipare.

Another Latin derivative!!!

Marni

Hi' In answer to Ellas Question re: Yellow Jaundice, babies and Adult varieties. Jaundice is caused by too many red blood cells retiring at once. The yellow is caused by bilurubin, a byproduct of old red cells. When you see yellow in a bruise you see bilurubin. The ordeal of birth causes many red blood cels to retire at once causing an overload on the babies liver and turning their skin and eyes slightly yellow.

The type I had, as did the many American Soldiers is a Viral form also known as Hepatitis A (there are also B, C, D, and E forms). This form of the disease (A) is spread through contaminated food or water which has come in contact with feces from an infected person. Thus the lack of cleanliness in the Revolutionary Camps made this disease prevalent in 1776. There is no cure but rest, huge amounts of fluids and time that will cure it or at least make it less lethal.

MARNI: For info on Smallpox go to Google and then write in "Revolutionary War + Smallpox". Fascinating !

Judy .

Here are pictures of drums and fifes. Click on the "Play fife and drum music" button to listen a fife and drum corps play music of the Revolution. Let the fife play for a minute, then the drums pick up. It goes on for quite awhile and is pretty cool.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/guco/gucomusic.html

Marni

Holy smokes, Judy! The first thing I found when I clicked on that was "Smallpox killed at least 130,000 North Americans during the Revolutionary War."

Yikes.

"macaroni" is a well-traveled dandy in 18th century Britain; an affected, foppish, young man who adpoted the fashions, manners and customs of the other countries he had visited. It's derived from 16th century Italian maccarone - meaning dumpling????? Our American English is so wonderfully full of words from the world's languages. I love it.

Hats: By putting a feather in his hat and calling it MACARONI, Yankee was proclaiming himself a country bumpkin. "Macaroni" was a fancy,overdressed dandy style of Italian clothing widely imitated in England of the time. The English regarded most Americans as exactly that: Upstart country bumpkins.

The music and words go back to 15th century Holland and went "Yanker dudel doodle down"......... A doodle is a dumb person and Yankee was a mispronunciation of the word "English" in the Dutch language.When I looked this up I came upon a verse of the song I had never heard before:

There was Captain Washington

Upon a slapping stallion

A-giving orders to his men

I guess there was a million.

Judy

and other music from the Rev'y period, I tho't you might like to see a lecture i give on that song for my U.S.History 101 course. I'd like to teach a whole course of U.S. History based on music, but i haven't had the time to do enough research yet, so i throw it in when i have the resources.

I don't yet know how to make the links, so I'll just post it here.

The first rich harvest of our American tunes (prior to this time the colonists were singing/playing European songs/hymns/classics/folk music) coincides with the Rev'n. Our first popular tune was Yankee Doodle and it is still one of the most important and popular "folk" songs. There has been a lot of discussion of where the tune came from, or how old it is, or when it was introduced into the colonies. Regardless, it became a rallying cry of the Rev'n. It crystallized a figure that had been slowly emerging in the yrs before the war - the "yankee," symbol of the new America; shrewd, dry of speech, lovable, he was at the same time fiercely independent, bowing his head to no one. (There are also many versions of how the term "yankee" came to use.)

The British first used the term yankee as a term of derision and doodle might have been a corruption of "do little," meaning a simpleton, but whatever its derivation, its use by the enemy was unmistakably derisive. Jms Warner in "Songs that made America" says the lyrics of YD were originally written by anonymous members of British Redcoats after the Boston Tea Party, and were meant to taunt and belittle the shabby, unmilitary appearance of the colonials. They sang it at the top of their voices at every occasion, even standing in front of churches. The Br soldiers under the command of Burgoyne, sang the song as they disembarked in the Boston Harbor. their mission was to put down the upstart Yankee dandies who were rattling sabers and throwing about careless talk of a break from England. When the Br marched out of Boston on on April night in 1775, bound for Lexington to capture John Hancock and Samuel Adams, they kept step to the strains of YD. At Concord the Br were routed with YD as well as Yankee fire, and forever after it was to be an American song.

It became the most popular marching tune of the American armies in 1777 and was played both for Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga and Conwallis at Yorktown. Adopting the Redcoat tune as their victory song, the American soldiers rewrote the lyrics as the sarcastic story of "Cornwallis' Country Dance" which includes the lines "Cornwallis led a country dance, the like was never seen, sir!....his music soon forgets to play, his feet no more can move, sir!...and all his bands now curse the day, they jigged to our shores, sir!"

On Oct 19, 1781, the new Americanized version was played as the final, vengeful touch during the ceremony in which Cornwallis and his officers officially surrendered their swords to the American troops.

YD is one of the best marching tunes ever written, particularly effective on fifes & drums, as in the celebrated picture, The Spirit of '76. Its vitality is amazing, & it is the unique example of a humorous national air. Politicians used the song in many campaigns, including Lincoln, "YD does as well as anybody can, sir, and like the ladies he's for Abe and Union to a man, sir." It's an easy song to make up lyrics for and everybody knows the tune. Dvorak suggests the tune in the finale of his "New World Symphony." The music appears in almost every medley of Am'n tunes and is more characteristic of Am'n people in its comic nonchalance and quiet effrontery than many of the more serious national airs. The "offical" version today is the one established by Sousa in his "National Airs"(1890)

YD was a completely Am'n song by 1776 and it has become more and more "Am'n" thruout its long and acitve life. It is one of the best examples of what we mean by the term "popular music.".

(I love the story of the song almost as much as i love the song. You have to say Americans are - if nothing else - creatively humorous. ............Jean

What a wonderful, diverse group of experts we have in this discussion. We're all going to learn a lot in the next month!

Potsherd - thanks for the naval expertise. I know practically nothing about that area.

All the links have been great!

Ginny - my husbands' cousin was married to a man from "96" and we always wondered how a town got that name AND here it is in the Rev'n!We had no idea it was that old.

Can you imagine being a cmdr and never knowing how many soldiers you will have for a battle? That continues to happen to GW all thru the war. How did we win this thing? (that's a rhetorical question, i'm sure we'll get to the answer before the discussion is over).....jean

WE MUST HAVE THE MUSIC NOW - and the words are below, keep scrolling down the page.

Yankee Doodle Dandy

This is SO FUN!!! Thanks, Jean, Judy and Ella!!

Did you see all of the songs you can listen to by clicking on the bottom of Ella's Yankee Doodle Dandy page?

Tuesday Afternoon is my day of volunteer work at the S.A. Missions National Historical Park so I’ve been out of touch since noon. But no difference as I see you have been doing fine with out me, having fun talking about the book and 18th century military music.

Thank you jean for mentioning the use of the Sheet anchor term and Potsherd for providing an answer. I’m impressed with the King’s nimble use of the phrase to describe his minister, Lord North on who he relied.. The King seems to have been quite capable of verbal expression.

Regarding Jean’s mention of Green's Eye cloudy spot, it appears to be saying that some reaction to the vaccine caused the Eye condition. And limes of course had vitamin C that fends off scurvy. I don’t know why limes were used over other citrus fruits, but I suspect economics and availability had something to do with it.

Hats, there were a substantial group of liberal politicians and intellectuals in England who were sympathetic and even supportive of Home rule for the colonies. Ben Franklin had proposed a home rule plan at a Conference in Albany in 1755 that was essentially the plan approved by the Parliament in the 1830’s granting home rule in Canada. Franklin spent many years in London in the 1760’s and until 1775 representing the Colonies and lobbying for such a plan. He was certainly not with out support, but in the end the effort failed and Franklin returned to America to become and advocate of Independence. I guess his plan came some 60 years before its time.

Wow, what fun.

The only time I'd heard a fife and drum unit was -- at the White House.

I managed to wangle a ticket to be part of the audience on the South Lawn when President Clinton greeted Nelson Mandela for the first time as a head of state. Part of the ceremony was a fife and drum corps that marched out and played (including Yankee Doodle, as I remember). It was very nice, except for one detail: they were dressed in Revolutionary War uniforms, including skin-tight white tights. Not everyone can wear skin-tight white tights gracefully, and I'm afraid they were not among that group. But hey, I'm not either.

I wonder what Mr. Mandela made of this? I assume they do it for every head of state. They also gave a seventeen gun salute. (I always wondered if the guns fire together or separately. They go together).

JoanK, I would love to meet Nelson Mandela personally. What a wonderful experience. He is one more person who knows the price of freedom. I remember the day Mr. Mandela was released from prison. I watched on tv. My husband and I just felt so much joy and happiness for Nelson Mandela and Africa.

I had the chance to visit the White House. I treasure that experience. I would love to go again. Unfortunately, I never had the chance to take my children. I also would love to visit the White House at Christmas time.

HAROLD, thank you for the information about Ben Franklin and home rule. I always think of Ben Franklin as a man with a magnificent mind, a thinker far ahead of his time.

ELLA, thank you for the link. Now I am in a patriotic spirit. Discussions like this, I think, make our blood run hot or cold. My blood is running hot with a patriotic spirit.

Marni, that fife is a beautiful sounding instrument. I love it without the drums. Then, when the drums chimed in my feet started tingling and one wiggled a bit. I love the fife. This is my first time hearing one. If asked, I would have picked the Harpischord or the piano as the most common instruments during the Colonial years. I would never have said the fife.

Mabel and Judy, thank you for all the information about Macaroni. Isn't that interesting about the Italian derivation? I never will call a person a doodle, simpleton.

Judy, I didn't know all of that about Yellow Jaundice either. I am in a hurry to read the Smallpox link.

This discussion is as YUMMY as eating a piece of chocolate. HAROLD and ELLA thank you.

I might note two very different methods of selecting officers between the American and British forces. In the British system the lower rank officer commissions went to the aristocratic or landed gentry class. Higher rank went by purchase a method on the surface a method designed for disaster. Yet in practice there must have been some controlling factor that kept the gross incompetent generals in the background since as a matter fact some of their high command officers were quite good (Wellington and Nelson for example).

In the American army lower rank officers were often elected by the troops. Again this is certainly not the best method to choose officer material. High command seems to have went to the man who happened to be at the right place at the right time with military experience not a prime prerequisite (Washington, Greene. and Knox). Perhaps they were all that was available, and in any case America was lucky and they won.

Incidentally the British system of purchasing high command rank positions continued until the disaster of the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade. I remember reading an interesting 1950's book by Cecil Woodham-Smith entitled “The Reason Why” that detailed the reforms that resulted, Click Here.

1 The State of the Americah Army sieging Boston- Supplies, living conditions, Health, Dicipline etc., Pages 28 -33.

2.Indians and Blacks serving in the Army. Washingtonn's position. Pages 36 -37.

3. Washingtons Headquarter. His way of conducting Business, The role of his secretary, Joseph Reed (Did Reed stay through the Winter?). Notable visitors including Benjamin Rush etc, Pages 41 -44.

4.Washington's style of Military Plannig. His "Councils of War" Was the Plan to attack Canada while the Siege of Boston was pending, a wise one? Pages 50 - xx

5 Why did the Americans Fight (according to Greene)? Page 54

Hey, Harold, I emailed you, do answer!

Good questions, but first I want to go to Boston! Anyone want to travel back in time? Have you been there? I was there years and years ago and walked the Freedom Trail: Freedom Trail I was so impressed and I saw my very first helicopter land in Boston Commons - true!!!!! Am I telling my age!!!!

Let's set the scene for the Battle of Boston, of which DM begins his tale and which took place in June, 1776. Nathaniel Greene, whom we all admire, is the commander of the Army which is camped on Prospect Hill.

Just a few words about Greene before we start the battle - this young man who "laments the want of a liberal education." And yet he has read Caesar and Horace, Swift, Pope, Locke, Euclid - would you want to be discussing any of those here online? I would be frightened at the prospect of a conversation with him, although if we could stay off those weighty subjects I would have loved a "merry jest or tale" or a comic imitation of characters and he liked to dance!!!

What a guy!

"The first of all qualities of a general is courage. Without this the others are of little value, since they cannot be used. The second is intelligence, which must be strong and fertile in expedients. The third is health."

Well, how and where does one obtain all those qualities? How does one psyche(sp?) oneself up for battle? Does it just come when you are faced with an enemy who is going to kill you if you don't kill him first? I don't know.

Perhaps this site will give us a better understanding of the battle: Battle of Boston - particularly the following two paragraphs:

"The, British, taught by the experience of this day to respect their rustic adversaries, contented themselves with taking post at Bunker's Hill, which they fortified. The Americans, with the enthusiasm of men determined to be free, did the same upon Prospect Hill, a mile in front. It was here that General Putnam regaled the precious remains of his army, after their fatigues, with several hogsheads of beer. Owing to some unaccountable error, the working parties, who had been incessantly labouring the whole of the preceding night, were neither relieved nor supplied with refreshment, but left to engage under all these disadvantages.

This battle was generally admitted, by experienced officers of the British army who witnessed it, and had served at Minden, Dettingen, and throughout the campaigns in Germany, to have been unparalleled for the time it lasted and the numbers engaged. There was a continued sheet of fire from the breastwork for nearly half an hour, and the action was hot for about double that period. In this short space of time, the loss of the British, accortfing to General Gage, amounted to one thousand and fifty-four, of whom two hundred and twenty-six were killed; of these nineteen were commissioned officers, including a lieutenant-colonel, two majors, and seven captains; seventy other officers were wounded."

The map shows Bunker Hill in the backgroun - put your mouse on the hill to the right, and to the front of the hill is Prospect Hill.

Oh, I must go for now - later, eg

We must get to Harold's questions - someone start us off.

Beautiful Ginny! Thank you so much for that, we are posting together and I'm in a hurry, but reading your words this struck me:

Even when we feel that we have discovered a place where peace and gentle joy reign, we must remember that it will end, and that all will vanish."

So sad, so true! Gotta go!

Ella, Thank you so much for the site on The Battle of Boston. Actually on the side of that was a list of articles and I was curious about the one titled "The opening of the Revolution". This gives a history of deprivations before the war began. I was shocked to read that England did much offf its distressing restrictions because of Spanish influence. Re; England's decisions:

"The unsure policy of oppressing her own subjects to oblige foreigners were complained by the people of England as well as by Americans."

"Ministers (in England) were equally chagrined and astonished to find that a great portion of the British nation espoused the cause of America."

I know this has nothing to do with Harolds questions but you all are giving me so much to think about and investigate further that I must discipline myself to look with serious contemplation at his questions. I will though.

Judy

ELLA, thank you for the link to the Freedom Trail. It is very good to see Crispus Attucks remembered with the other Patriots. These words are from the link.

"Five men were killed in this clash of Patriots and Redcoats on March 5, 1770, including Crispus Attucks, the first African-American to die in the Revolution."

HAROLD, I hope the above words from Ella's link can answer a little bit of question two, although the information is not from those pages.

GINNY, thank you for your link with the Arcadian painting and the information. The information is all new for me. The painting is beautiful. Reading the article helped me understand the meaning of the word "Arcadia." After reading the article I understood why ELLA wrote the quote.

These words are from the article.

" From Poussin's painting, Arcadia now takes on the tinges of a melancholic contemplation about death itself, about the fact that our happiness in this world is very transitory and evanescent. Even when we feel that we have discovered a place where peace and gentle joy reign, we must remember that it will end, and that all will vanish."

I might have quoted the same words as ELLA. Duuuh.

Re: "Was the Plan to attack Canada while the Siege of Boston was pending, a wise one?"

No, the Americans did not have enough men to serve in the army as it was, forget about sending a portion of the army off to make war on Canada. The attack on Canada was a complete and total disaster. But, it wasn't the only time it happened. Some Americans really desired Canada. They wanted to conquer it so that it expanded the American territory. Americans did it again in the War of 1812.

Hats: I can just picture your foot tapping away to the military music!! That was so cute!

Marnie - where in the book does DM discuss attacking Canada, I missed that, but that would have made a nice addition to America - hahahahaaaa!

Black powder - does anyone know of a place on the Delaware River (I think) where 2-3 Frenchmen made black powder - was it the Duponts? Years ago, over East, we toured a historical site where it was made and they have kept all the original buildings, it was neat! They were so careful about sparks setting off explosions - they had several at the site - and even the horses they used had mittens on their shoes. I'll look that up.

Were you surprised that in Puritan America the British were "appalled to find prostitution so in evidence" and the drinking that went on? "for without New England rum, a New England army could not be kept together" - hmmmm

And wine and brandy sling and even something called "flip."

For all its filth, open latrines, camp fever, etc.. DM tells us the army was well fed and the troops were in good spirits although they didn't understand the necessity of order or obedience. "They simply had had little experience with other people telling them what to do every hour of the day."

What is the old saying - an army travels on its stomach?

No doubt what GW did to restore order and obedience has been studied through the years - what a job it must have been.

Where is everyone this morning?

Here is a site about the Duponts and black powder, but it came after the Revolution - Black powder

It was an impressive place to visit. Here is a paragraph from that site:

"Pierre’s son, Eleuthere Irenee Dupont, had studied powdermaking as a young man in France, and was impressed at the lack of quality domestic powder in the young American nation. Urged on by Thomas Jefferson, whom the family knew from Jefferson’s tenure as ambassador to France, and who understood the importance of domestic powder production to the country’s independence from both the British and the French, Eleuthere Irenee established the E.I. du Pont de Namours Company in 1802, and began construction of the powderworks on the Brandywine Creek."

MARNI - I see that Harold has clearly and conveniently given us the page numbers for his questions so I shall do more reading in the book later today. The thought is tantalizing though! Is Jonathan around? He would have something to say about this, I'm sure.

Ella, I would suspect you visited the DuPont powder mills on the Brandywine river in present Wilmington Delaware. The gun powder buildings are constructed of three stone walls (rear and both sides)The roof and front of the building was wood construction. Reason for this strange design was when an accidental explosion occurred the blast force, "took the easy way out" with the blast forces destroying the wood structures rather than the stone walls. The on site Hagley Museum is renown for their research library and in particular early American industries.

Discussion,

Eyes have been playing up since late December. Two Laser Surgeries have not corrected problem. So damn many things wrong with them Now they continue to drain all of the time making it difficult to read anything. Also have Calcium deposits coming back to complicate the Cataracts. So, I will be with you in spirit but cannot do the reading, yet.

I am writing this thorugh a veil of drainage.

Tiger Tom

Re gunpowder - The Americans were terribly short of gunpowder, as we've seen in 1776. I've read that gunpowder was one of the very important contributions of the French in our Revolution, once they got involved in the war. But, I also read somewhere that gunpowder was manufactured in colonial....Pennsylvania?? somewhere...but the manufacturers guarded the process closely so they cornered the market?

I remember reading about Paul Revere and gunpowder. Revere was quite a handyman. It seems he could look at something being built or manufactured and remember all of the steps and then do it himself. He was sent to this gunpowder plant where he watched the manufacturing process, memorized the steps and ingredients, and then came back to Massachusetts and was able to make gunpowder for the war effort and explain the process to the army.

I'm going to have to try to find something about this on the web.

Marni

Here's an interesting article about Paul Revere and stuff he was involved in, including manufacturing gunpowder:

http://www.copper.org/innovations/1998/03/revere.html

I have not yet been able to find where he found the process.

Marni

Copper was one of the most important items that Paul Revere produced - such as copper sheathing for ship bottoms to prevent the growth of barnacles.

This year I visited Old Newgate Prison in Granby, CT, one of many national historic sites in CT. What an interesting history of the prison. Originally, it was a copper mine which produced copper ore for the colonies. I had been wondering if it had been one of the sources of copper for Paul Revere's works.

Apparently, it went out of business as a copper mine because King George demanded that all of its copper ore be exported directly to England where English plants would handle the smelting, etc. They didn't want the colonies to do it.

So, the mine was turned into a prison - I think it was the first state penal institution. During the American Revolution, Newgate Prison was used to imprison captured British soldiers and loyalists. I read on the internet that this was the prison where Ben Franklin's son, William, was interred for years after being arrested. (Turns out this was wrong; it was another prison in Litchfield, CT. William Franklin had been the Royal Governer of New Jersey and the rebels put him in prison for years. His dad never helped him out, either.)

I toured Old Newgate Prison and it was absolutely horrifying. It was literally a mine underground - rock tunnels dripping with moisture, dark and damp. What a horrible experience that must have been for prisoners there.

DM just momentarily touches upon prisons in our book and doesn't get further into them, but they are one of most interesting things about the Revolution.

Marni

I found the story about how Paul Revere discovered how to make gunpowder. It was in Philadelphia:

"...A committee of the Provincial congress, which had been appointed to inquire into the condition of manufactures in Massachusetts, reporting, December 8, 1774, “that gunpowder is also an article of such importance, that every man among us who loves his country, must wish the establishment of manufactories for that purpose; and as there are the ruins of several powder mills, and sundry persons among us who are acquainted with that business, we do heartily recommend its encouragement by repairing on or more of said mills, or erecting others, and renewing said business as soon as possible.”

Bust the “sundry persons” acquainted with the gunpowder business do not appear to have responded very generously to this suggestion that their services would be in demand, and the Provincial congress accordingly was moved to commission a capable man to go to Philadelphia, where the only powder mill known to be in actual operation was located. For this mission Paul Revere was selected.

Revere made the journey to Philadelphia in ten days. He, no doubt, called at once on John Hancock, who was in attendance on the Continental Congress, and communicated his mission, obtaining a letter of introduction from Robert Morris to the proprietor of the powder mill, a Mr. Oswell Eve:

[PhiladA Novr 21st 1775]

“Mr. OSWELL EVE

“SIR

“I am requested by some honorable Members of the Congress to recommend the bearer hereof Mr. Paul Revere to you. He is just arrived from New England where it is discovered they can manufacture a good deal of Salt Petre in consequence of which they desire to erect a Powder Mill & Mr. Revere has been pitched upon to gain instruction & knowledge in this branch. A Powder Mill, in New England cannot in the least degree affect your manufacture nor be of any disadvantage to you, therefore these Gentlm and Myself hope you will cheerfully & from Public Spirited motives give Mr. Revere such information as will enable him to construct the business on his return home. I shall be glad of any opportunity to approve myself.”

“Sir

“Your very obed Servt

“Robert Morris”

“P.S. Mr. Revere will desire to see the Construction of your mill & hope you will gratify him on that point.”

The note was endorsed by John Dickinson, but its appeal, as it proved, was not made to a man of generous heart and instincts; for Mr. Oswell Eve was a fair type of the thrifty patriot who is to be found in every great crisis when the country’s welfare, or even its life, is at stake, and who does not scruple to coin her distress into personal gain.

In this case neither the character of Revere’s mission upon which he had traveled hundreds of miles at the instance of the Massachusetts miles at the instance of the Massachusetts Congress, nor the pleas of Morris and Dickinson, could induce Eve to part with The secrets of gunpowder-making. He had, he thought, a monopoly of what in modern commercial terminology would have been regarded as “a good thing,” and he proposed to keep it so that the war managers would be obliged to pay him his own price.

So he flatly refused to give Revere the desired facilities for acquiring information relative to the manufacture of powder. Fortunately, however, he softened to the extent of condescending to permit his visitor to pas through his establishment, not reckoning upon retributive justice defeating the ends of private greed.

For Revere was no ordinary sight-seer. If not allowed to ask questions and receive informing answers he kept his eyes wide open, and filed a mental note-book with the results of his observations. This he was able to do intelligently, for he had a good practical knowledge of chemistry, gained from reading and experience, as well as a familiarity with mechanics. So, when he reached home, he was ready to put his skill at even the dangerous business of powder-making to the test."

http://earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/chapt4/

Marni

Why did the Americans fight according to Greene?

To summarize his reasons:1) "to defend our common rights." 2)" to repel the hated invaders". 3)"neither glory nor extent of territory, but a defense of all that is dear and valuable in life".

However the same article which I quoted previously "The Opening of the Revolutionary War" claims the following:

"Great Britain had given cause of complaint to her colonies by restricting each province to the use of its own manufactures, and preventing the reciprocal importation of their respectrive fabrics -thus completely discouraging all manufactures. To prevent a whole people from following any branch of Industry, is a measure which human nature cannot bear with tame submission."

"...the orders of Parliament (1755) , restricting the American trade with the West Indies, which had hitherto been a source of large revenue. The prohibition of so profitable a commerce shook the vitals of American prosperity......"

Like all Wars there is an economic component which can easily be overlooked when the more easily acceptable ideas of pariotism, freedom and liberty are thrown into the arena. My most excellent H.S. teacher made us learn what "Taxation without Representation" really meant and the lesson remains till today .

Judy

MARNI: fascinating!

I note the first link talks about Paul Revere's famous ride without mentioning that he never got there. He was captured, and someone else spread the warning.

Did you notice Revere's bulging forehead in the picture? That was generally held in those days to be a mark of genius. Whether from his forehead or some other cause, Revere possibly was a mechanical genius. (One of my grandsons has that forehead. We'll see!)

JoanK: That bulging forehead thing reminds me of how people used to think every bump on the head meant something. Wasn't there a science of this? I don't remember the country or the name of the science, though.

Judy: I think the story of the Newgate Copper Mine is a good example of this very thing about economics in the colonies and reasons for going to war - Connecticut wasn't allowed to smelt the copper ore and make copper items from the ore. They had to export the copper ore to England where it was smelted and made into copper items. Then the colonies had to import any copper items needed. It probably cost them much more to import than to pay for things made right in the colonies.

Marni

MARNI, thank you for all the very interesting information.

RE:2.Indians and Blacks serving in the Army. Washingtonn's position. Pages 36 -37.

It seems many Native Americans and Blacks served in the Massachusetts Regiments. General John Thomas the commander of the Roxbury troops wrote about the beneficial services of these men.

"...Many of them have proved themselves very brave."

George Washington, a southerner, at first did not want Black men to serve in the Revolutionary army. However, when he needed men desperately to fill the ranks, he changed his mind. Free Blacks immediately volunteered their services. George Washington's new order allowed all men to contribute their services.

Hats: I thought that was interesting, too, about the native Americans and blacks in the Revolution.

I found out something interesting recently from my dad. He went to Hamilton College in upstate New York his first year of college. I read about the school in Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, an immigrant from the island of Nevis in the West Indies, believed strongly in freeing the slaves and in educating native Americans to make them a viable part of American society.

Hamilton College was founded in 1793, 10 years after the war ended, by Samuel Kirkland, a missionary to the Oneida Indians, to educate native Americans. Alexander Hamilton sponsored Hamilton College, which was originally named the Hamilton-Oneida Academy, and he was a member of the school's first Board of Trustees. The school was chartered in 1812 as Hamilton College. It's the third oldest college established in New York State.

I think Alexander Hamilton was interesting in helping to educate the poor and downtrodden because he had been poor as a youth, the illegitimate son of a man who had left Hamilton's mother, dependent on the help of others. Recognizing Hamilton's brilliance, some families on Nevis chipped in and raised money to send Hamilton to King's College (now Columbia) in New York, which he attended until the Revolution disrupted his studies and he joined the army. The rest is history!

Marni

MARNI,

It is so interesting how little I know about these Founding Fathers. What you have written about Alexander Hamilton makes me very interested in reading his biography. I am glad you have given the author too. I like what you share about your father too.

I Just returned from my local auto mechanic who diagnosed and repaired an elusive engine problem. Total Cost was $300 but an annoying tendency for the engine to studder on acceleration now appears to be cured..

Ella Washington’s two part plan was outlined on Page 50. It involved capture of Boston and the invasion of Canada. Some of the initial unfortunate results of the Canadian operation are mentioned on following pages. One, General Benedict Arnold led the American offensive into Canada (no relation, He was English, My Arnold is German). The probe was met with effective resistance and many American causalities. We will discuss more about the American operations aimed at Canada in next week’s reading including an order to Washington from Congress to send regiments from the pending New York defense to aid the Canadian probe.

That is interesting language that you used ,in post #158; “ that would have made a nice addition to America – hahahahaaaa!" How wonderfully those words describe the American motive. Also how wonderfully similar words would describe one, A.Hitler’s interest in 1940’s Russian real estate.

Judy, I think you are right as your research indicates the reasons why Americans fought . They went far beyond the limited summary attributed to Greene in our book. Thank you for the specific economic grievances mentioned in your Post #166. Come to think of it the Declaration of Independence contains an even longer list of specific grievances.

Marni; Another Comment on black Powder is that during the mid 19th century and Civil War years it was manufactured at a site near San Antonio at the New Braurnfeles, Comal Springs. The manufacture process apparently is quite simple but it required large quantities of Bat guano for nitrogen and perhaps water, both of which were available there.

Black Powder seems to have been in short supply throughout the siege of Boston. I’m not sure McCullough ever really explained where the supply came from that permitted heavy use of the cannons.

Marni, Was there a Newgate Prison in England? I remember somewhere in Audubon’s “1826 Journal” he describes a visit to a prison that I remember was so named. It was either in Liverpool of Manchester. It is not mentioned in the index and I don’t have time to manually scan for it page by page. Audubon was quite impressed with the design of this Prison that minimized the possibility of escape and maximized the efficiency of its operation

Hats; thank you Hats for your comments on Black soldiers serving in the Revolution. As you say Washington being from the South was at first not inclined to accept them and had issued an order to that effect. Later, according to McCullough. he rescinded the prohibitory order with a new order permitting their enlistment. Looking ahead to next week we will read more concerning Washington’s changing attitude toward Black Americans.

Incidentally Washington does not seem initially to have been real enthusiastic about the ability of New England troops either, and attitude that seemed to change as the siege of Boston resulted in victory.

--- I am distressed to hear of your continuing eye problem that keeps you from reading. Please feel free to have someone read the posts for you and to post any general comments that you might care to make even if your can not read the book

Ginny: That's it! Phrenology! What an interesting article. I remember the Nazi's were really interested in this.

A decade or so ago i read a great biography of the Duponts of Deleware. Just now when i went to Amazon to see if i could find the author, the first listing was "the duponts; a SATANIC dynasty" aluding to the freemasons, of course. There is such a fasination w/ the freemasons, it keeps popping up time after time; were they just a men's organization? ( many of hte founding fathers were members, including GW and Franklin) or were/are they a conspiratorial group who are controlling the country covertly?

Alexander Hamilton is one of the most fascinating founders IMO. At age 12 in Nevis, he was given the responsibility of running an export/import warehouse by the owner while the owner went to Europe! Yep! That is not a typo - age 12!!! He was sent to the colonies at age 16 by a group of Presbyterian ministers to go to college. He wanted to go to Princeton, but he wanted to start as a junior, since he felt he knew the basics, but Princeton refused to allow him to do that, so he went to Columbia as a junior. (I believe I am remembering the college names correctly.) Then he became "a son" to WAshington as his aide-de-camp at about 19 yrs of age.

DM gives a list of the lives/occupations of the soldiers indicative of their being a hard working lot, but it interested me in that each group's title could be the surname of families today:"shoemakers, saddlers, carpenters, wheel(wrights), black(smiths), coopers, tailors(taylors), ship(chandlers.) There could be so many more: painter, carter, wheeler, mason, sailor, cook, weaver, all the German"machers" ex. Fenstermacher which is window maker, gardener", etc. etc. I'm sure you can all come up w/ many more.........jean

Benedict Arnold, Henry Knox, General Cornwallis, John Hancock, Lafayette, General Israel Putnam, Paul Revere, and John Paul Jones were freemasons. From what I've read about the Masons at that time, it seemed to be a men's club that people joined in order to make contacts. If you were a member of the Masons, an international organization, you could go anywhere, find a Mason, and have a place to stay and be introduced to society.

Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code draws heavily on Masonic lore and symbolism. He wrote that the pyramid and the "all-seeing eye" were masonic symbols. Look at a picture of our American dollar bill and find the pyramid and the all-seeing eye:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/All_Seeing_Eye.htm

Here's info about Freemasonry from Wikipedia:

"Freemasonry is a worldwide fraternal organisation. Its members are reportedly joined together by shared ideals of both a moral and metaphysical nature, and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being. Freemasonry is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public, but it is not an occult system, and in recent years, it has become less and less a "secret society" than a "society with secrets".....

A Lodge is the basic organisation of Freemasonry. Every new Lodge must be warranted by a Grand Lodge, but is subject to its direction only in enforcing the published Constitutions. A candidate for freemasonry must apply to a Lodge and be elected by its subscribing members after due enquiry; a single black ball (adverse vote) will often suffice to exclude a candidate. Once initiated, a freemason must take further degrees in his "Mother Lodge" before he is certified as a full Master Mason. At least in theory, a Master Mason is generally entitled to visit any Lodge, provided that he hails from a jurisdiction that is "in amity" with that of the host Lodge.

Freemasonry has been said to be an institutional outgrowth of the medieval guilds of stonemasons, a direct descendant of the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem" (the Knights Templar), an offshoot of the ancient Mystery schools, an administrative arm of the Priory of Sion, the Roman Collegia, the Comacine masters, intellectual descendants of Noah, and many other various and sundry origins. Others claim that it dates back only to the late 17th century in England, and has no real connections at all to earlier organizations.....

The origins of Freemasonry are unknown. The Masonic ritual claims that the fraternity was founded by the workmen who built King Solomon’s Temple but there is no documentary basis for this claim, and Freemasons themselves will admit that this ritualistic foundation myth is allegorical rather than factual....the first appearance of the word 'Freemason' occurs in the Statutes of the Realm enacted in 1495 by Henry VII...

Because of the sometimes secret nature of its rituals and activities, Freemasonry has long been suspected by both church and state of engaging in subversive activities. Due to the appearance of secrecy, and the possibility it might be implicated in rebellion, Freemasonry inserted words into its ritual that say to the newly initiated Freemason (similar to), '... you are to be a quiet and peaceable citizen, true to your government, and just to your country; you are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority, and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live.' In similar manner, a promise made by a Mason before being made Master of his lodge is to, '... pay a proper respect to the civil magistrates....'

Nowadays, the main theme of anti-Masonic criticism involves the idea that Masons involve their organisation in covert political activities. This assumption has been influenced by the assertion of Masons that many political figures in the past 300 years have been Masons. Opinions vary concerning this: some say the Masons constantly plot to increase their power and wealth, while others say the Masonic Brotherhood is engaged in a plot to produce a new world order of a type different (and usually more sinister) than the existing world order...."

More Widipedia's info about masons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

Here's a list of people who were Masons. Scroll down and you'll a section of people in the American Revolution who were Masons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons

Here's info about Masonry and the American Revolution:

http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_mabook_revolution.html

Marni

Having the list of Masons from the Amer Rev'n starting out w/ Andre and ARnold doesn't bode well for the Masons, does it?

Thomas Paine lived in Bordentown, NJ, near Trenton,NJ about 1/2 hour from here. They have T P tours 2 Saturdays a month. I live right in the middle of this book. Moorestown, NJ is a 1/2 hour from PHila and 45 minutes from Trenton and Washington's Crossing, and the soldiers of both sides marched thru, and camped in, Moorestown. For those of you who were in the JJ Audubon discussion, Ed Harris' house was one of the houses that was used for officer hdqts by both sides.....jean

Jean: You're so lucky to live there in the middle of history! I can't wait to visit some of those sites.

Thomas Paine was an interesting character. I want to find out more about him. I read that his Common Sense was one of the most popular writings that was ever published - translated into a number of languages in his time. It made a lot of money for him and, I read, he donated his earnings from it to buy socks (or was it mittens?) for the soldiers in the American Revolution.

My computer has been acting up and I have had a terrible time with it ..I guess I need to more computer literate ..so many things to consider ,so many links ..I can see everyone is enthusiastic about this book and learning more about the Revolionary war .. Yellow Jaundice I had when I was about 6-7 but what it turned out I really had was malaria and the jaundice was associated with that. I never really knew what it was so I am now informed..one think I recall no one seemed particularly concerned and I have no idea why my mother took me to the doctor who diagnosed malaria ...

Freemasonary ,,my oldest brother was one and also my husband ( who really only becamse one and was never really active because his grandfather had been one ) I do know there is a lot of secrecy in the organization but wonder if part of that wasnt due to the times when it became organized here in early America ..they did and do help each other and that helped members in business etc, And they do help each other if needed > My older brother went with me to take care of some business years ago ..the person I was dealing with was being a bit difficult My brother laid his hand on the counter so his Masonic ring was visible and immediately the person I was talking to helped me resolve whatever it was ..I even commented on it afterwards and my brother told me that the man was a Mason and as soon as he showed his membership with the ring I recieved the help I needed..In some ways I sort of resent that ..shouldnt every one try to be as helpful as possible to everyone regardless of what organization you belong to???

But the fact that is was secret might have been because they really didnt want Tories as members. All of my husbands ancestors were Masons and it has different levels and from the portraits etc I recall they were in the higher levels of the organization Whatever that means. I do know that young people are not joining as they did years ago and so I have a feeling in some ways it is not the same as in the beginning ...

Back To David McCullough .. we all seem to agree he has written just the kind of book we can learn a lot from and he has a way as someone said bringing History ALIVE ..I know for the first time I feel I really do understand and KNOW the men who fought and were the leaders of that time..Even with all of my previous interest in this time frame I am seeing it as ALIVE and real ...back to my book and if there is a COMPUTER entity I need to know how to placate it so my computer behaves...anna

Why did the Howe brothers when retreating from Boston go north rather then directly to New York? I believe there are a number of reasons as follows:

1.General Howe recognized he could not leave the large number of the Kings loyal subjects in Boston. The number of families evacuated probably taxed the capacity of many ships. Also with the upcoming battles of New York: Howe may also had concerns for the Loyalists safety if allowed to remain shipboard. 2.The British troops had suffered from poor food and living conditions and needed an opportunity to recover their physical health and repair equipment 3. The evacuated families would be settled into the Halifax area where they would be more protected than Boston.

That was a novel i found in our library several years ago that was a fun read about Boston, BFranklin, and the "two Georges" - Washington and the III, of course. I remembered now because there was a theme of the Freemasons running thru it.

I'm going to be away for a week, I hope i can get on a computer and at least read your postings, but i don't know if i'll be able to post, but I'll be lurking........jean

.Marni Phrenology involves the study of the shape and protuberances of the skull that were thought to reveal the character and mental capacity of individuals. The theory is now discredited. I seem to remember Audubon discussing the theory with an Edinburgh practitioner in the 1826 Journal, but again it is not in the index and all I can find now is a casual one sentence reference to the theory on page 278 that is not the Incident I was thinking of.

Regarding Free Masons It was and is a secret fraternal organization that has been and still is popular world wide. I think my father was a member though he was not active and never spoke of it. I know several of my late friends were members a fact I discovered when they died and the Funeral service involved a Mason led ritual. Masonic connections also appear connecting many prominent historical Americans and Europeans to the organization.



A google search yields many hits. Click Here for one.

Click Here for a better, more connected to our subject, site entitled “Free Masonry.” and the American Revolution”. In summary it notes that most of the stellar Revolutionary names such as Washington, Jefferson and Adams were not masons. Of the 56 signers of the D of I only eight or nine were Masons

One notable exception was Benjamin Franklin who apparently was not an ardent member since he is quoted as answering a Family member's question about possible membership with something like, “one fool in the family is enough.” Another Mason was Lafayette who apparently joined in France possible after the Revolution was over

To enter the “1776” discussion from a strange computer open the Web browser and do the following:

(1) Click File/open (2) Enter http://www.seniornet.org (3) Click Books and L:iterature from the menu near the top of the page. (4) Click Books from the menu near the center of the screen. This will be our books menu so scroll down the “!776” and Click. To read and post

Remember to take your seniorsnet name and password.

I had thought, until I read in Wikipedia, that Alexander Hamilton was a Mason. Apparently not. But, I had been wondering about it. I visited his grave in April and his gravestone has a pyramid on top of it. I don't know if this was common. It just struck me. The pyramid is a Masonic symbol, as on the dollar bill. (Maybe too many thoughts of The Da Vinci Code!)

Here's a photo of Hamilton's gravestone at old Trinity Church in NYC. What do you think?



Marni
(resized)

AS someone said, this is a whale of a lot of fun and we're learning, too!! What else can you ask of a discussion on Seniornet. Thanks everybody for all your posts, what a treat to come in and find so much to read.

I don't know where to start tonight; there is so much to absorb in this book that we could take 2 months to talk about every character from Benedict Arnold, Major General Charles Lee, Colonel Henry Knox and numerous others but what strikes me in these first two chapters and, of course, you too is George Washington - he is the man of whom David McCullough is writing about - do you feel that way?

On and on he describes the qualities of George W., both positive and negative, but the positive images far outweigh any other. I've learned just enough that I must read a biography of the man; for example, I never knew he had a brother named John did you? (p.51) Did he have any sisters? Am I the only one that notices all the many references to George and who feels as I do?

And, Harold, there is our old friend, John Adams, warning about the prejudices that could ensue from those "to higher notions of themselves and the distinction between them and the common people than we are." And GeorgeW "struggled with his own mounting contempt for New Englanders."

Fortunately it all worked somehow!

But here I must say something about my own firsthand experience with the accommodations that GeorgeW had in comparison with his soldiers. We toured Valley Forge one year and heard of the hardships endured there and then over a hill we saw this yellow (if I am remembering correctly) little house where we were told (by audio) that GeorgeW lived during that dreadful winter, with his wife, his cook, his valet and his servants. Well! I know, I know commanders of the army are entitled to the best quarters, etc., and thereby command respect from the troops but such a contrast!!!!

I think this has been mentioned in a post but I think it fascinating that GeorgeW did not have independence on his mind when he took command; "exery exertion of my worthy colleagues and myself will be equally extended to the reestablishment of peace and harmony between the mother country and the colonies."

Biological weapons in the Revolutionary War, had you ever heard that:

But when 150 desperate people were dispatched from Boston (by the English) as smallpox continued unabated there, Washinton described the disease as a 'weapon of defense they are using against us.'"

As early as that and it is still a threat!

Enough for this evening, so much more to talk about! Thanks again for your enthusiasm for the book - it's one of DM's best! A must reading for history students, do you suppose they do?

Hi Marnie: Here is a site built by the Masons and dedicated to GeorgeW:

George Washington

TIGER TOM: I did want to acknowledge your post and hope your eyes improve soon so that you can post again; but in the meantime, as Harold urged, do get someone to read the posts for you and have them give us your opinions and ideas concerning this momentous year of 1776 and George Washington.

from a strange computer, where and when do i enter my name and password?......jean

Any one can enter and read the messsages following the steps I described above and no pass word is required until you post. When you enter a post you will get a screen asking for a name and password.

Something just don't sound right with my choice of words, "a strange computer." After all are not all computers strange?

Ella think back to our Ben Franklin discussion. Was it not the Howe family in England Including Admiral Richard Howe and General William Howe that offered support to Franklin’s 1774 home rule plan? My Franklin Biography is at the Seguin place and it will be Monday before I visit there again. But what do you remember about the Howe’s position on the Franklin compromise plans?

I’ve been thinking about the fact that our book stresses the great training and military skill of the British Army units against the untrained North American soldiers, and my conclusion is that the disparity was no where near as great as the text seems to imply. To begin with the British units were trained more for parades and ceremony and much less for actual hand-to-hand warfare. As children they had no day-to-day contact with physical danger, self-defense or the use of firearms.

In contrast the American troops in rare cases might have been 7th or 8th generation North Americans and the majority were at least 2nd or 3rd generation born and bred on the frontier where self defense was necessary for survival. They were trained to use firearms from an early age. Also some of the Americans had a superior rifle; as was mentioned in the book the units from the west had their own distinctive long rifle that had a significantly longer range and was more accurate.

I am not surprised that given the distinct advantage of their frontier training they scored well in comparison to the European soldiers.

Ella: That was interesting to see the Masonic National Memorial to Washington.

I was just browsing through my latest Smithsonian Magazine and read the article about the hippopotamus. It stated that one of the sets of George Washington's false teeth was made of hippo tooth/tusk ivory because hippo ivory doesn't yellow. (Their teeth can grow up to one foot long!)

We see that Washington lives somewhat more luxuriously than his soldiers. However, we also see how he can get right into the middle of things with his men in a battle, putting his life on the line with them. That was one of the things the army admired about Washington.

Marni

there may have been. Both sides were skilled, but in different areas.

There is no doubt that the use of firearms was an everyday experience for many of the colonial troops and it was a survival skill - they killed to eat and were very good at it, as well there were some who killed to defend themselves against enemies, human and animal. Some of them also had the distinct advantage of owning a Penna long rifle, which was many times more accurate than the musket. In one of the videos that i show for my class, DM (yes! DM is narrating the video) says in the narration that Europeans were amazed at how accurate colonials could be a hitting a squirrel on a tree at great distances.

The major advantage that the British had, I believe, was psychological. They WERE considered the greatest military - army and navy - in the world at the time, or so i have heard experts say. So when they marched out of Boston, or anywhere else, in those bright red uniforms - not so good for fighting a guerilla style war - they must have looked splendid and formidable and to be fulfilling their reputation, to young, non-military experienced colonialists.

Of course, the "rebels" frustrated the heck out of the British because they hid behind bushes and jumped out of trees and refused to line up and march against an enemy like professional soldiers would have. These "children" just wouldn't behave!!! KIng GEorge actually used that comparison about the colonists - they were "children" refusing to listen to their parent.

I just love this story, or stories, for there are so many wonderful scenarios thru these 8, or so yrs. I just don't understand why more of them have not been told on the big and little screen. They seem primed for popularity IMO. There are all kinds of heroes and action and spies and intrigue and the little guy beats the "goliath" over and over and little things like weather have huge consequence.......but i'm getting ahead of the book.......hope to join you at the beginning of next week.......jean

I think at times we are afraid to touch on the flaws of our heroes or heroines. We are no longer children. As adults we know that life or people are never all bad nor all good. A person is more admirable, to me, if I can see both sides of him or her. This is why I liked HAROLD'S question #2. It gave me the chance to look at one of George Washington's flaws.

Surprisingly I can still admire the man. Without his courage, his ability to strategically think ahead of Gen. Howe the war would not have been won.

This is why I like David McCullough's writing. He writes about "real" people. He tells what makes us sad about a person's character. He also tells what makes us proud that this person is part of our history. He tells about soldiers liking a bit of rum, he mentions a redlight district, I think General Howe liked parties more than trying to strategically place the rebel soldiers. We need to know about the heroes and villains in order to learn from history.

If I am told only the perfections of a person in a biography, I feel the author is treating me like a child. The author, at that point, takes away my ability to reason and make clear decisions about the worth of a person's character.

I am trying to say what Mabel wrote in her last sentence. She wrote it so well. _____________________________________________________________________

MARNI and ELLA, GINNY and others, thank you so much for the links and all the information. All of it just makes me really enjoy the discussion.

Benjamin Rush is one of the famous doctor during this period. I always wanted to read a whole book about him. I also have wanted to read about Charles Wilson Peale, the Colonial American Artist.

Benjamin Rush made a wonderful compliment about George Washington.

He "has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among 10,000 people. There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side."

Wow! That really is some compliment. I have been trying to think of men in our time who have that ability to stand out from the crowd excluding their politics. I always thought Anwar Sadat had magnificent presence.

Hi, HATS. Are you up in the middle of the night too?

I like the people we are meeting that I'd never heard of before. Young Knox the bookseller (wonder if Fort Knox was named after him). And Greene. And General Lee (who sounds like a real politician -- I suspect GW should watch out for him).

Too bad the men who didn't fight don't show up so much. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson.

My husband got a package from a math society he belongs to, and I noticed their address was "Monticello Circle" in a town in Rhode Island. I wonder if there is a replica of Monticello their.

Hi JOANK,

Yep, I am up reading. For some reason I always wake up in the middle of the night. I love Nathaniel Greene and Knox too. There are so many different people we are meeting. DM makes you want to read more about each one.

I missed reading John Adams by DM. I would like to read that one too. It would have been more fun reading with the group.

Maybe someone will tell us whether there is a replica of Monticello there.

Joan K, I am looking forward to Founding Mothers with you and Marni.

I hope Tiger Tom's eyes will improve quickly.

I have tried to capitalize the names of discussion leaders to show my respect for their hard work. I am going to stop capitalizing names. It is too easy for me to leave someone out. Plus, there is no end to capitalizations because I respect the hard research and comments of other posters too. I hope this post makes some sense.

I've read all your posts, I'll be back later today but I thought if any of you need more to read (hahahaaaaa) today, this site provides plenty. 1776 was just the beginning -

Valley Forge

Harold, I don't have the memory for that but I'll look up the Howe's tonight.

--- regarding your comment concerning the minor roles assigned in this book for such Revolutionary luminaries as Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, the fact that the one most significant event of the title year, the Declaration of Independence, gets only a few pages of coverage caught my attention too. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were of course in Philadelphia preparing this great document. It took sometime for me to realize that the details of these political events were not a part of McCullough’s plan for this book which was the story of the individuals in the field fighting the battles. We got the specific details of the political events in Philadelphia in our previous discussions of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, but since this event was not a part of the present story, these founding fathers get but little mention here.

Thank you Hats for your comment on Dr Benjamin Rush the well known Philadelphia doctor. I first run into him when I did the Ambrose, “Undaunted Courage” discussion in 1997. Jefferson sent Lewis to Philadelphia to Dr Rush for training relative to his mission that resulted in much valuable advice. One of the results was the Rush’s Thunderbolt, a cure-all pill of jalap and calomel (a mercury compound) that the corps stocked in large numbers and administered freely to both ill men and Indians. Later John Adams consulted Dr Rush when his daughter developed breast cancer. He advised surgery which was preformed in Boston by another doctor. Benjamin Rush was a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence and certainly has a way of appearing prominently in every history of his time.

Hello, Harold, Ella, and Everyone,

I would like to join your book discussion. Thank you, Harold, for mentioning that anyone can join at any time. This is my first book discussion.

I have a copy of "1776" from the library and have read the first four chapters. I have also read all your posts and have gone to many of the web-sites mentioned.

This is a very interesting, informative discussion, and I'm enjoying it tremendously.

Evelyn

By all means post any time. Your comments, questions, answers, thoughts and whatever arising from your reading of the book are welcome

This afternoon I was discussing our book with a group of associates at the Institute of Texan cultures, when our conversation turned to the original derivations of the Word, “tory.” None of us knew the answer but a Google search on the string, Derivation of the Word Tory led to the following businessballs.com page entitled Cliches and expressions origins. According to this site, the word seems to have converged from two Celtic Words meaning Kings Party and partisians of the king. It first appeared in use in 1679.

Click Here and scroll down to Tory to read the full report. This is an interesting site with information on the origin of many common cliches and expressions.

EVELYN, WELCOME! WE'RE SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU JOIN US.

You may want to click on the DISCUSSION SCHEDULE in the heading to see where we are and where we are headed. We are taking the whole month of January for the book and we have divided it into 4 weeks; we do, however, as you may have noted, find much to talk about outside the parameters of the book - in other words, we have a good time with it and talk of many things......cabbages and kings.....

Oh, heavens, Harold! I went to that site and it goes on forever so I'll take your understanding of the word "tory" for the truth of the matter; interesting that none of us questioned that.

I also was telling a few friends here about the smallpox that GeorgeW thought the British were using as an offensive weapon and one person said we did the same thing to the Indians when we came here. I looked at several sites on Google and, although, it was true that the Europeans brought the disease to the American Indians I could find nothing that stated we did it deliberately! Of course, it could be true as feelings ran very high in those days on both sides.

Both the British forces and the rebels were suffering as winter approached; the British were suffering from the cold and hunger and disease and the rebels were deserting. Can one blame them for deserting if they were issued spears to fight with as gunpowder was so scarce??? And I think I read somewhere that they could look out onto 400 British ships in the harbor??? Can't find that reference now but it sticks in my mind.

It's a wonder any rebels stayed the course; I do believe the sight of those ships would have been enough to frighten me either into going home or joining the British.......

Hundreds, no thousands, were involved in a deadly snow battle, good grief! But our gallant heroic President-to-be:

"leaped from his saddle, threw the reins of his bridle into the hands of his servant, and rushed into the thickest of the melee, with an iron grip seized two tall, brawny, athletic, savage-looking riflemen by the throat, keeping them at arm's length, alternating shaking and talking to them." (p.61)

Tis the stuff of movies starring John Wayne!

Tomorrow we start on Chapter Three and back to the British!

EVELYN: WELCOME, WELCOME!! I'm glad you're enjoying this. Do check out our other discussions: there is things going on here all year long, 24/7.

I looked in the Chernow biography of Hamilton (I highly recommend this book!) to see if Free Masonry is mentioned, and it is not in the index. I don't remember reading anything in it about Hamilton being a Mason, either. The biography was quite extensive, so I'm thinking if Chernow thought Hamilton was a Mason it would have been discussed.

Here's a google to a controversy over this subject. Apparently some claim he was, some say he wasn't. I don't know about the sign on his grave, though: http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_mabook_revolution.html

Someone mentioned wanting to read a book on George Washington. "His Excellency" by Joseph Ellis is a good one.

True Ella It seems to take a time interminable to scroll down to the T and the Tories definition on the Clichés and Expressions Origins site that I linked yesterday. Actually on fast scroll it takes less than a minute. I think I summarized the material pretty well but at the site you get the actual Celtic words that are the root of the modern English word.

Tomorrow we will begin the week 2 materials that is page70 through page 154. This material will conclude the Boston siege with a brilliant American military occupation of Dorchester Heights, a fortuitous winter storm that inhibited an effective British counter attack, and the sudden British departures for Canada. Today let us conclude with final comment on the Week one material, and come out bright and early tomorrow morning on the new material.

It seems the Continental Congress had placed a curious limitation on Washington's command Authority. This was the requirement that he submit any plan for offensive action to Council of War composed of his subordinate Generals for their approval. During the summer and fall of 1775 Washington had proposed several offensive operations against the British in occupied Boston. Pursuant to his instructions he submitted these plans to a council of war consisting of the several general officers serving under him. In this case the council refused to approve these plan and the plans were abandoned.

I thought it quite an unusual restriction on a General in command in a military situation. Essentially the Commander had to submit his operational plans to a popular vote of his subordinate commanders. I do not recall any such restriction on any Command level General officer in modern war operations. However in this case the requirement may well have prevented a disastrous defeat from an untimely premature operation.

Hats and others interested in a biography of Dr Benjamin Rush, Click Here for a 12 page extended biographical sketch of Dr Benjamin Rush that can be read on line in about 15 minutes. A Google search on his name will yield many other hits including other biographies.

The winter cold and snow is very intense in Boston. It is hard on Washington and his troops. Not knowing about the English weather I wonder were the British soldiers familiar with such harsh weather?

It might have been mentioned already. Before we leave these first chapters I would like to know is the bookstore belonging to Henry Knox available for historical viewing today?

Hats, Re: the British soldiers: They suffered even more than the Americans who were used to the weather. DM gives an excellent description of this on pages 72 through 75.

Harold, Thanks for that link to the site on cliches and expressions. It was so fascinating that I almost drowned in the wealth of info on such diverse expressions as "screaming meemies" etc. before reaching Tory, which in itself was interesting.

The Biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow is a fascinating read about the man ,the politics of the time and the economics of the Colonies and Britain before, during and after the Revolutionary War.

Judy

McCullough mentions that some crack shot Americans used rifles rather than muskets. I found out a bit more about the difference between these guns used in the Revolution. The musket had a smooth bore and the rifle had a rifled, or spiral, bore.

"For centuries, men had known that by cutting spiraled grooves inside a musket barrel to impart spin to the bullet, they could increase its range and accuracy. Hunting weapons were usually rifled and some eighteenth-century armies contained special rifle regiments. But the smoothbore remained the principal infantry weapon until the 1850s. Why? Because a bullet large enough to "take" the rifling was hard to ram down the barrel of a muzzleloading weapon. After a rifle had been fired a few times, the residue from the black powder built up in the grooves and made the gun impossible to load without cleaning. Since rapid loading and the reliability of repeated and prolonged firing were essential in a military weapon, the rifle could only be used for special purposes......This dilemma was solved by the creation of the "minie ball" in the 1840s....

The maximum range of a smoothbore [musket] was 250 yards, but a soldier could not hit a specific target at distances greater than 80 yards. Because of the poor accuracy and range, fighting tactics with smoothbores called for soldiers to stand shoulder to shoulder in lines. Sometimes one line would fire, fall back, reload, and the line of soldiers behind them would follow suit. At other times, the soldiers would make a formation so that four lines of soldiers could fire at once. The idea was to put a large quantity of lead in the air at one time, so that even though an individual soldier would not hit what he was aiming at, he would hit something, because the enemy would be fighting the same way. (At least according to the rules of civilized warfare). Infantry charges were a classic part of this tactic because with a range of only 250 yards, a defending army would only have time for a couple of shots before the opposing army would be on them with bayonets.

The rifle's range was four to six times that of the smoothbore. It's maximum range was 1,000 yards with an effective range of 4,000 yards. The old smoothbore tactics were no longer effective because an infantry charge would be cut to pieces well before reaching enemy lines because advancing soldiers could be hit from further away. US Army units were not completely armed with rifles until into the Civil War, although some infantry units may have had "Mississippi" rifles at Fort Scott after the Mexican War."

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/weapons_info4.htm

Marni

Ginny's remark about Julius Caesar leading his men in a red cloak was interesting.

George Washington led in a striking manner, also. He rode a white horse. Pretty hard not to notice him. Washington was reputed to have been the best horseman in the American colonies. He must have been quite a sight - the 6' 3"-tall, strongly-built, dignified man on a white horse. I've read that his horse was shot out from under him at least 4 times during the war. It was very lucky he wasn't killed in battle.

Marni

Hats, I think Judy is right in her report that British soldiers were less tolerant to cold than the Americans. Their Islands were even further north than Boston, but tempered from extreme cold by warming Gulf stream currents, more fog, but less cold and snow.

Marni Thank you for your information on rifle technology. If I am interpreting this report correctly the improved technology did not come until the 1850's. However McCullough mentions that certain western (Pennsylvania) units at Boston is 1775-76 had a long rifle with the spiral grooves that increased its effective range but not to the extent stated in the site.

From your link I suspect that the 1775 Pennsylvania rifles were more subject to the clogging of the groves requiring frequent cleaning. McCullough perhaps should have provided more detail on possible negatives in the use of this gun.

Ella and I led a discussion of Benjamin Franklin in 2003 using two Franklin Biographies, one by Walter Isaacson and another by James Strodes. As I remember it Ella centered on the Strodes source; I had both books but my work was more based on the Isaacson title. I have now checked both of the books for what I remembered (and posted) the other day as a friendly contact between Franklin representing the Colonies in England and members of the Howe family, The Admiral Lord Richard Howe and his younger brother General William Howe. I find that the Strode book does not mention this contact but Isaacson describes several meetings arranged by Franklin’s London Chess partner, Lady Caroline Howe a sister of Richard and William.

There were several meetings between Franklin and Admiral Lord Richard Howe in which the Admiral served briefly. as a middleman between Franklin and the Government. These occurred during Xmas 1774 and early January 1775. Lord Howe had suggested the possibility of the Government sending a high ranking official to the colonies to negotiate settlement of differences. Quite likely the Admiral saw himself in this position. Franklin agreed it would be a good ideal. The meetings ended quickly when Howe reported that he saw no possibility that the Government would accept the 17 points Franklin had drafted the approval of which would compromise the dispute.

In undertaking this negotiation I do not see any particular sympathy for the colonial cause in Lord Howe’s action. It was only and effort to restore the peace that had previously existed. As it turned out neither party was inclined to make the necessary concessions; there was just no grounds for there agreement. Within a few month Franklin gave up on reconciliation and by April 1775 he was back in America an active supporter of the revolutionary cause.

Harold: You reminded me of something I read about Ben Franklin's chess playing. Ladies of the French aristocracy apparently could be quite open with their toilettes and they loved to flirt with the....randy?...older American. Franklin played chess with one of his French lady friends as she bathed. I don't remember which lady it was, though. Does this sound familiar?

Marni

Harold and Judy thank you for your replies about the British winters.

Marni, your above post made me start laughing. Do you think Franklin kept his spectacles on or let his "real" eyes do all the work???? Some guy that Franklin.

Harold, excuse me for interrupting. This is your question.

HAROLD, that was a long time ago but I do remember that discussion and Benjamin Franklin, the great ambassador; he was such a charming fellow and as MARNIE said the French ladies loved him even though he was of advanced age. He could speak their language and, therefore, was a "hit" not only with the ladies but with the French king and the court, as I remember. He was quite successful at getting money for the revolution whereas John Adams, with the greatest intentions and a very hard worker, could not coax the French into giving us anything!

However, most of my memories of Franklin come from reading the John Adams book, one of my alltime favorite discussions here in the BOOKS.

No doubt those that are interested in strategies and tactics of warfare would be fascinated in reading our next chapter; actually the personalities of the men and their thoughts are of greater interest to me.

I cannot escape the fact that DM writes more about George Washington than other figure and he comes off as being exceptional; even in this chapter devoted to the British and their decisions our dear George, the savior of our nation, father of our country, takes time out to write to a black poet, Phyllis Wheatley, who had sent him a poem.

Where did DM dig that up - it's just too early in the morning to look up the Source Notes.

However, he can be very stern with the troops isssuing an order that if any soldier "shall presume to skulk, hide himself, or retreat from the enemy, without the orders of his commanding officer, he will be instantlyl shot down, as an example of cowardice."

Good grief! Did it ever happen I wonder, has it ever happened in any of our wars? Would we know about it if it did?

I have tried to find pictures of Faneuil Hall, where the very first seeds of rebellion were hatched, but was unsuccessful; likewise with Old North Church. When I was in Boston many years ago I purchased a print of the church and framed it and had it on my wall for years.

There is so much history in that city.

The British are described by DM as full of arrogance and confidence in this chapter, do you agree? William Howe, for all of his ability and courage was "procrastinating, negligent, only interested in his creature comforts and pleasures, as many of the officers were and all of them were totally ignorant of George Washington and his leadership.

A huge mistake!

And what a feat it was to have brought those mortars, just three of them weighing a ton each and one cannon weighing more than 5000 pounds, all the way from Lake Champlain to Boston - as DM says it was a story to be told and retold for years to come.

What are your thoughts on reading this chapter - and I never even mentioned Dorchester Heights, its title!

More later - eg

Wheatley poems

Wheatley poems

Wheatley

Thank you Hats for your Comments on Phyllis Wheatley. McCullough’s notation of her poem dedicated to Washington, and His Excellencies reply appears in our test on Page 90. In San Antonio our old Black High Schools was named for Phyllis ‘Wheatrley. Isn’t her poem melodious? There is not a hint of free verse only perfect meter and rhyming. She must have had an unusual understanding of the English language. The Washington reply sure indicates he was sincerely impressed as Indeed he should as been.

Click Here for another poem by Phyllis Wheatley commenting on “her being brought to America.”

Apparently the key to the Siege of Boston was Dorchester heights. Heavy American Guns properly placed on the heights would endanger British ships supplying Boston. Through out the summer and Fall of 1775 the Americans, in response to General Gates announced threat of immediate counter action if the Americans were to occupy it, had left it unoccupied and essentially neutral ground..

In the late fall of 1785 London had sent an order to General Gates to abandon Boston and send his force to occupy New York,. The order had arrived too late for him to execute before winter set in. So through the winter of 1775 the stalemate held until March 4, 1776 when a Council of War finally approved Washington’s plan to end the stalemate with the sudden occupation of the heights. In one early March night with unusually good weather American units including some 100 heavy guns moved into position. As he had promised General Gates immediately ordered a counter attack but by the time it could be effectively ready the weather had changed with a late winter storm preventing the counter attack to materialize. Quite quickly Howe pursuant to his order to abandon Boston ordered the evacuation of Boston and within a few weeks the entire British fleet sailed for Halifax with all British Troops, their women and children dependants, and 1100 Boston loyalists . On March 18th Washington entered Boston.

I thought the story of Knox bringing the guns from Fort Ticonderoga and the setting up of trenches and guns on Dorchester Heights were the most fabulous stories! I've never read about them in such detail as DM provided. Fabulous!

It seems that one thing the Americans truly excelled at was establishing strategic defenses quickly and quietly. Imagine them forcing the British to evacuate Boston. It must have seemed quite unbelievable to the British back home when they heard about it. Of course, we paid for it.

let's see if this works!! Hope i get it posted......

Yes, GW did shoot deserters, many of them. He tho't he had to in order to keep soldiers......sounds convoluted, but it worked.

Wheatley is included in most American literature text books these days, actually has been for a couple decades. She was really quite remarkable, but having been bought by the Wheatleys, i believe they were a Quaker family, was very helpful to her getting an education, but of course, she was still a slave....... Jean

Even today desertion from the army can be punishable by death. I found this below about desertion in today's army:

"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Guide Note: The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm

-------------------------------------------

I found the info below about the army prior to the Civil War:

"Probably the most serious common crime during the first half of the nineteenth century was desertion.....The customary punishment for desertion was hard labor and dishonorable discharge. During time of war, death by hanging or a firing squad was the normal punishment for desertion.

Before the Civil War, deserters might be flogged or branded as a matter of course. In one case at Fort Scott, a soldier was sentenced to "receive fifty lashes on his bare back" and to a stoppage of pay for six months. In another incident, the soldier was sentenced to confinement and two months hard labor and to refund the United States thirty dollars paid for his apprehension."

The info is from Crime and Punishment on the Frontier: Fort Laramie Case Study by John McDermott, The Old Army: A Portrait of the American Army in Peacetime, 1784-1898 by Edward M. Coffman, copyright 1988 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/guard_info2.htm

Marni

I finished the reading for this week . As I read and examined the maps I was truly shocked. I went to school in Flatbush for 13 years and learned American History for most of them and never knew about the battles that took place there during the Revolutionary War. We studied the history of the Dutch in N.Y, the Indians in NY, the Governors etc. etc. We learned about the Battlefields in Concord and Lexington etc but not a word about the material that DM presents. Since I never got anything but an A in Hist. it couldn"t have been that I missed that material. It truly didn't exist in our books. If anyone had a different experience going to school in the 40's and 50's please let me know.

Well better late than never!

Judy

There were Revolutionary War battles around my town also. A royal Governor, Manuel Salcedo, was assassinated here in 1813 after one of the battles. Come to think of it we did not study that in highs school here either. The revolution was the Mexican Revolution against Spain 1811 - 1821.

My home town (New London, CT) was burned down by Benedict Arnold!

My niece and her husband, who have lived in the Boston area for a few years, were here for Christmas. I talked to Erick about the American's driving the British out of Boston. He said that they celebrate "embarkation day" , the day the British left, every year. It just happens to also be St. Patrick's Day, and it's very handy that people don't have to work on that day.

I commented that it was amazing that the British never thought to secure Dorchester heights. He said -- I didn't understand. That was outside of Boston, and to Bostonians things outside of Boston aren't important.

After page 69 I could not stop reading. Real life truly is stranger than fiction. The rebel soldiers standing above the British soldiers on Dorchestor Heights is an amazing history. I wanted to holler hurrah so many times through this chapter. One line in particular struck me. Reverend William Gordon wrote.

"A finer {night} for working could not have been taken out of the whole 365. It was hazy below {the Heights} so that our people could not be seen, though it was a bright moonlight night above on the hills(92)."

Isn't that amazing?

I also liked the part Marni mentioned. The soldiers pulling the ammunition, cannons across the ice. I think one cannon fell through the ice. It was pulled out again.

I felt very sad reading about the lack of food too. The British suffered hunger and some of the troops are described as "looking like skeletons(74)." General Howe gave the command that one married couple needed severe punishment.

They were publicly whipped for stealing food. Do you think General Howe's punishment was too harsh? I just can see that poor woman in such pain. Probably, she had never stolen anything in her life. This time her hunger overcame her strict values.

"Howe initiated punishments more severe even than the standard for the British Army(74).

Marni, thank you for those links. The links are always helpful.

Click Here for streaming Judicial Committee hearing through the internet. If you have a fast DSL or cable connection the audio will be high quality. If you have dial-up try it, since it is audio it may be acceptable.

Scroll down to the Judiciary listing and click SH 216 to listen

My thought on General’s Howe’s decision to with draw was that he saw it as the execution of his orders from London. The order requiring him to withdraw from Boston and occupy New York had arrived too late for him to execute before winter set in. Howe reacted to the sudden March 4th American occupation of the heights with the launch of a counter attack that ran into a sudden winter storm preventing an effective counter attack against the American positions. So far as Howe was concern in launching the counter attack he had done what his honor and duty required and his orders were clear requiring his withdrawal.

I note that one of the casualties of the Boston siege was the Old North Church that the beleaguered British in Boston tore down and used for firewood.

Marni: are you sure Benedict Arnold was involved in Connecticut? In 1775 and 76 our text has him further North in Canada. Perhaps it was a later year.

1. Why did Howe sail North to Halifax instead of South to New York as his orders directed? Potshard has already broached this thread in message “184. How did Washington know Howe and the British fleet were heading for Halifax?

2. Why was New York considered strategically more important to the British than Boston? Page 80 and following.

3. How did Washington redeploy his forces after the British left Boston? Moving military resources to defense of New York and the allocation of resources between the two areas of action. Did Washington really have sufficient resources to maintain the two geogrphically diverse campaigns?

Harold: Yes, Benedict Arnold's campaign against New London was later in the war after he had turned traitor.

Re: "2. Why was New York considered strategically more important to the British than Boston? Page 80 and following."

New York was strategically located on a beautiful deep harbor at the mouth of the Hudson River which was a natural border between the New England colonies and the rest of the colonies. New England was quite a hotbed of rebels, as we've seen. New York had a large loyalist population. It was strategically important to the British to cut New England off from the rest of the colonies and to take over New York and establish a base of action there. From New York, it was fairly easy to get to Philadelphia and New Jersey, plus to Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

Marni

I went to a site on the Rev. War and found a walk through NY sites of the war with none other than our esteemed author. DM.In relation to what I wrote about NY History I was very happy to hear (read) DM relate to the problem I mentioned.I will quote him:

"It is a shame thatso few NYers know about this (the war sites). How many know? One in 500,000? Part of what people miss in the scale of what happened here is because it has all been built over. If the site were a National Park like Gettysburg it would spread over six miles. I can't tell you the number of NYers who have read 1776 and told me they had no idea so much happened here."

The article also mentions the fact that DM was an indifferent student who got a B minus in History.

Standing in the Morris-Junel Mansion from which Washington commanded his troops in the battle of Harlem, DM says: "the house survived although it is not honored with as much as a plaque" DM also states that "NY is a place where History is made, not remembered."

Judy

American Experience -- John and Abigail Adams -- Airing Monday, January 23, 2006 on PBS.

Thanks, Pat, for the info. I'm going to mark my calendar. Abigail Adams is my kind of person. I have always enjoyed reading about her.

Evelyn

Harold,

Regarding your questions. I was under the impression Geo. Washington did not know Howe was headed for Halifax, and thought he was heading for New York. That's why GW sent the troops there posthaste and got to NY as soon as he could.

This book is great, and exciting. I can't wait for the story to unfold.

Evelyn

Last spring my husband and I went with some friends on the self-guided Manhattan walking tour called the "Patriot Trail." It was fabulous! We visited Revolutionary-era historic sites that DM mentions in our book such as the old Custom House, Trinity Church, the Battery and the old fort there.

One place on the Patriot Trail we particularly enjoyed, and have visited a couple of times since, is Fraunces Tavern, where the Sons of Liberty met to plot and where George Washington discussed plans and later said farewell to his officers when the war was over. It is still a tavern/restaurant and also a museum. One whole corner is devoted to Nathan Hale.

Here's a photo of Fraunces Tavern: Fraunces Tavern

Here's the info about the Patriot Trail that I used, including a map of the self-guided tour with a description of each stop along the way:

http://www.downtownny.com/assets/patriot%20trail.pdf

Marni

Harold, thank you for the mention of the Mexican Revolution too.

Marni, thank you again for the wonderful links. There are lots of photos on one link. I would love to walk the Patriot Trail.

JUDY - I echo your sentiments exactly - "We learned about the Battlefields in Concord and Lexington etc but not a word about the material that DM presents. Since I never got anything but an A in Hist. it couldn"t have been that I missed that material. It truly didn't exist in our books."

That is why DM's books are truly a treasure; he puts history before us and lets us understand the details of what it was like to live there and be faced with imminent fears.

JOAN, most of us have never heard of ""embarkation day" , the day the British left, every year." How would we unless we lived there, but it's great to know about it isn't it?

As your nephew said - "That was outside of Boston, and to Bostonians things outside of Boston aren't important." True of a lot of us in our home cities.

HATS, you and I have tender hearts, I can see that. I think all this punishment meted out by commanders were too harsh. Imprisonment is bad enough, but public whipping! And death for desertion! I don't know, perhaps they knew best, I would never make a good general for sure.

DM states that after the "miracle" of Dorchester Heights, Washington was never again to speak ill of New Englanders because they were New Englanders.

That would have made John Adams happy if he knew that!

All those portraits of men in wigs and heavy coats and lacey collars, times gone by. I'm always dismayed by a portrait of John Adams because they are not what I picture him to be; he is stouter and not at all the quick-minded irritating picture of him I have in my mind. I like my image of him better than the actual one, hahahaa!

And onto New York....Marnie has already given us the reason for the importance of the city. What an exciting chapter this will be, I love NYC; I've been there a number of times and could go every year. I remember Battery Park, where we boarded the ferry for Ellis Island the last time we were there and spent a day there with audios learning the history of the immigrants who came to our shores and at that time the twin towers were in the foreground as we came back. So much has happened since then.

Thanks, Pat, for that notice about Abigail and John, I shall be sitting there to watch. EVELYN, I love the two of them also and I often am tempted to take out the book "THE LETTERS OF ABIGAIL AND JOHN ADAMS" from the library but it is huge and I usually have 2-3 to read before that and I just haven't. We got a smattering of them in DM's JOHN ADAMS and they were a remarkable couple!

later, eg

Oh, dear, here I must confess to lurking. This a great discussion!
I have read many books by DM, and I did read and enjoy 1776 when it came out,
but have loaned out my copy.

Here are some links that are just in time for this chapter, I hope:

Green-wood in Brooklyn

Fort Green Park

Morris-Jumel Mansion in Manhattan

Thank you, Marni and Mippy for the interesting links.

All this extra info really enhances this discussion.

Evelyn

Mippy, thank you! The links are always helpful.

I've been reading some truly fascinating info about New York and the surrounding environs in The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, a book about New Netherland and the Dutch influence on America.

I just read about Gravesend which is in 1776 - the area on Long Island where the British landed before the Battle of Brooklyn Heights. You can see Gravesend on the map of Long Island in our book near page 117 at the bottom of the page in the center of the map. Turns out that Gravesend was the first New World settlement founded by a woman!

Lady Deborah Moody, a London aristocrat, had converted to "Anabaptism." Londoners were shocked and she was forced to flee England. She fled to Salem in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But the Puritans threatened to banish her unless she "renounced her mad ways." New Netherlands, in their religious tolerance, gave her and her followers title to the southwestern tip of Long Island which she named Gravesend. Today this area of Brooklyn includes Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, and Bensonhurst.

Marni

Another interesting thing I read in the Shorto book was that in 1646 the English settlements of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New Haven formed a league, the United Colonies of New England, to strengthen themselves, prinicipally against the Dutch province of New Netherland.

So New England was a consolidation even before the British took over New Netherland. I had always wondered why that area was called New England.

Marni, thank you introducing us to Lady Deborah Moody. I have never heard of her.

What is "Anabaptism?" I am not familiar with that term.

I didn't know what it was either. Here's something from the web:

The name Anabaptism "was a applied to a variety of extreme and revolutionary groups during the Reformation of the 16th century who questioned the validity of infant baptism. Groups today which trace their roots back to the Anabaptists include the Amish and the Mennonites....These early Anabaptists were heavily influenced by the ideas of the Protestant reformer Ulrigh Zwingli, but they objected to his perceived subservience to secular authorities and they grew impatient in their desire to institute more radical measures to change Christian practices.

A principle characteristic of anabaptist groups was the rejection of infant baptism, which was normal in the Catholic Church, and the insistence that only willing adults should or could be justifiably baptized. This was because infants could not make a conscious profession of Christian faith, whereas adults could. Early on adults were simply baptized by a sprinkling of water, but later this was changed to full immersion in water, just like it is described in the New Testament.

At the time, such rebaptism as an adult was a crime punishable by death. One popular method of execution was drowning, seen as ironically appropriate because of the reformers' interest in baptizing with water....Some estimates place the number of martyrs at around 50,000 by 1535, and it may be that other Christians killed more Anabaptists than Romans killed Christians during their 300 years of persecutions.

Because the Anabaptists were viciously persecuted wherever they were and often had to flee their homes, many came to regard the baptism rite not simply as an initiation into the Christian faith, but also as an initiation into Christian suffering. The persecution only backfired, however, because it served to increase the spread of their ideas through more towns and cities. Thus, the harder the authorities pushed, the more this faith was able to spread and attract new converts."

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_anabaptism.htm Marni

I was struck when reading about the British evaculation of Boston that it reallg wasn't a defeat, as someone else here mentioned. General Howe was supposed to leave Boston anyway, so rather than lose men defending the city in bad weather he just left. Admitedly, he left a bit more hastily than planned - but it is certainly possible he could have dug in and given a good fight it that had been his orders. The significance of the victory, of course, was that it gave the Americans self-esteem and the idea that they were a fighting unit and indeed a country! Perhaps if General Howe had realized how much this victory would raise the Americans' morale he would have stayed and fought...

Scamper your comment on the British Evacuation of Boston, I think pretty well parallels my thoughts on the event. General Howe had a direct order from London to evacuate Boston before winter set in that arrived too late for him to comply. His orders from London were for him to occupy N.Y. So in early March 1776 after the Americans occupied Dorchester Heights and his counter attack was defeated by a late winter storm, he executed his orders and left Boston.

I am inclined to agree with Potsherd who wrote the following in his early message #184 concerning the reasons why Howe chose to go to Halifax rather than direct to NY.

1.General Howe recognized he could not leave the large number of the Kings loyal subjects in Boston. The number of families evacuated probably taxed the capacity of many ships. Also with the upcoming battles of New York: Howe may also had concerns for the Loyalists safety if allowed to remain shipboard. 2.The British troops had suffered from poor food and living conditions and needed an opportunity to recover their physical health and repair equipment 3. The evacuated families would be settled into the Halifax area where they would be more protected than Boston.

Was the British evacuation of Boston, an American Victory? I certainly think it was. It had been the American Objective for the past year to drive them out and this was certainly the result. Strategically it, had been the American Objective for the past year to drive them out and this was certainly the result. Strategically it was, I suppose, also a plus for the British since they were now able to attack N.Y. witch potentially offered them more opportunity than Boston.

And Evelyn M you are probably right about Washington not knowing Howe was bound for Halifax, not N.Y. The American’s were probably lucky Howe first went to Halifax delaying his strike on NY. Had he left the Boston Tories to their fate and hurried on to strike N.Y. They would have occupied the more strategically important area before the Boston troops could be moved south to defend it. As it was the British did not reach N.Y until late summer after defenses were in place. Though the Americans were defeated at Brooklyn Heights, they were able to withdraw in reasonable order to counter attack in New Jersey before the end of 1776.

Had the British Forces arrived in N.Y. in March with the whole summer available to them, Howe would have had a golden opportunity to capture the revolutionary capital and the Continual Congress at Philadelphia and end the rebellion before winter

Thank you mippy for the links in your message #249. The second one on the Fort Green Park is at the site of two of the 1776 American fortifications. And the last link is about the house that served as Washington’s headquarters.

And thank you Marni on your comment on the Graves End area and Lady Deborah Moody, and Anabaptism. I had never heard of her though I had read of Anabaptism probably in one of the Durant titles. The Fraunces Tavern from its picture seems particularly well preserved. Did you eat there? If so comment on their menu and food?

MARNI: as usual, fascinating information. "Today this area of Brooklyn includes Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, and Bensonhurst".

I lived in exactly that area for two years ans never heard of Lady Deborah Moody. I'm glad to know about her.

Harold: Fraunces Tavern is a lovely place to have dinner or lunch or just a drink. It is a very beautiful old building with its old look preserved. A big fire crackles in a sitting room between the bar and the restaurant. You have to have reservations for a meal. It's quite expensive, but you don't have to be very dressed up. The bar is casual. When we had lunch there, the food was delicious. One time we just stopped in for a drink and I had the biggest and best manhattan I've ever had in a bar. I guess Manhattan is the place for manhattans!!

The museum is upstairs. You can see the long room with fireplace at the end where Washington said farewell to his officers. DM doesn't get that far in 1776, of course. But I'll never forget reading about the farewell in His Excellency. It was so very moving. Washington wanted to shake hands with each of his officers. They didn't quite know how to begin. Suddenly, Henry Knox rushed forward to Washington, threw his arms around him, and they hugged each other farewell. Washington's officers cried.

I'm telling you, I get goosebumps when I am in a building like that with such history and drama that occurred there.

Marni

Ella, We will have to do a Washington Bio sometime after marni does Hamilton (late spring or early summer). I'm looking forward to that one too. I have had a good tuitorial on the political side of the war with the John Adams and Ben Franklin Biographies, and here in "1776" we get quite a bit of the military developments in 1775 and 76. So a good Washington Biography ought to fill out the rest of the military events through the end of the War.

Marni, Am I right in my thinking that the dollar cost of a dinner for a modern family of four at the es Fraunces Tavern would equal the total cost to feed an 1770's Family of four for an Entire year?

You got me on that one, Harold!

By the way, that's news to me that I'm involved with a discussion on Hamilton this spring!!! Where did that come from?

Marni

Marni, your description is wonderful. Your post gave me "goosebumps."

YES! We must do a bio of GW - after Marni's post I'm excited at the prospect. What a farewell to a commander, has there ever been one like it. How admirable he must have seemed to his men! In talking with someone last night, they mentioned GW had a sister so we must explore his life together.

HAROLD, the very fact that this book is full of military movements and strategies is a bit difficult for one such as me who has never studied or cared to study maneuvers of wars, but I'm trying and am finding that the personalities of the men such as Knox and Greene, and all those British are just about as fascinating.

I'll be back later, eg

Wow! I am frightened out of my boots reading about the British ships coming in at the New York harbor. It must have almost overwhelmed the Americans to see such a mass of strength coming their way.

"Still, by the scale of things in the American colonies of 1776, it was a display of military might past imagining(148)."

The British had such power over the seas. What happened to their Naval power?

Photo Plate 12

The British armada that sailed into New York Harbor in early summer, 1776, numbered more than 400 ships. It was the largest naval force ever seen in American waters, the largest sent out from the British Isles to defeat a distant foe..."

It is very sad to read about Nathaniel Greene's illness. He put his whole heart into serving George Washington and the troops. It must have been an even sadder day when Gen. George Washington had to relieve him of his services. This happened only because of the dreadful illness. I hope Nathaniel Greene survives for the sake of his family.

From the very beginning, it seems that "Americans" (rebels at the time) have had confidence in themselves, where did it come from? They were outnumbered, ill trained, with no ships for heaven sakes! Yet "there was scarcely a militia man who did not think himself equal to two or three of the British."

"New York was not at all like Boston, geographically, strategically, and in other ways. At Boston, Washington had known exactly where the enemy was, and who they were, and what was neededf to contain them......Here, with their overwhelming naval might and absolute control of the waters, they could strike at will and from almost any direction. The time and place of battle would be entirely their choice, and this was the worry overriding all others."

In thinking about this attitude, I was reminded that for years, however, we thought our country was protected by two oceans between us and the rest of the world. When was it exactly that we were disillusioned about that? Was it the submarines in WWII? Was it the threat of nuclear bombs from Russia?

Another problem for Washington - a big problem - was the fact that two-thirds of the property in New York belonged to Tories and the owners were loyal to the king. Washington couldn't depend on any of them for sources of intelligence or help; in fact just the opposite - they were the enemy.

At any rate, here we are back at the beginning of our country and the British are in control of the seas. This reads almost like a novel doesn't it? DM does this so well........

We must turn the page and see what happens next.

HATS, you are ahead of me, but I'll catch up later.

Ella, I am enjoying DM's writing style so much. It's hard to stop reading. At times, it feels like I am behind George Washington fighting.

Harold, some thoughts to your questions.

General Howe had received word from London to abandon Boston and " remove the troops to NY. However the word came to late as winter had set in.also he did mot have the ships to move troops and loyalists. The move must wait till spring. Why move to NY two reasons Water, Water, everywhere_ for the greatest navy in the world plus the central location to the heart of the Colonies. Howe was aware NY would present ice problems for his fleet in NY (Hudson river)which he resolved by taking the fleet to Newport, RI for the winter; reason to Newport,RI because the gulf stream was a moderating weather force eliminating or certainly reducing the ice hazard on wooden hulled ships.

Was Washington spread thin_ yes and by two disloyal Generals Lee and Gates. Both where British trained military men and both though they knew more about the execution of a war than Washington.

Potsherd; I see no significant difference between my interpretation of the Boston situation in the Winter of 1775-76 and yours as outlined in your post #’s 184 and 270. In particular I agree with your summary of Howe’s reasons for diverting to Halifax in March 1776 rather than going direct to N.Y. I also think per My message #258 that the Americans were lucky he felt obliged to take the Boston Tories to Halifax instead of immediately sending his army to N.Y. quickly by sea before the American’s could move their army from Boston. This would have been a slow overland operation for them. It would have given the British the opportunity to occupy an almost undefended N.Y. in March 1776 and the further opportunity of an immediate move on Philadelphia, the civil center of the rebellion.

Howe’s diversion to Halifax meant that he did not arrive at N.Y. until August and It was the end of the summer before he had effective control of N.Y. This gave the Americans time to move their Army to N.Y. and build defenses. Later, in September Howe was able to drive the Americans Army from N.Y., but they were able to retreat still intact and able to counter attack in New Jersey during the winter. Had he hit N.Y. early in the spring he stood a better chance of crushing the rebellion by capturing or disbursing its central Governing body, the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Of course I suppose other factors might have figured in Howe’s Halifax decision. It would appear that while strong RN naval support was available in March, it was not the overwhelming 100 plus warship count that he had in August. Yet considering the fact that the Americans had no Naval opposition his fleet in March would seem to have been sufficient leading to the appearance that Howe goofed in diverting to Halifax.

The British had such power over the seas. What happened to their Naval power?

From the late 18th century through the WW I period the British Navy ruled the waves. During WW I the German Navy became a formidable opponent with the great shoot out between large heavy gun capital ship at Jutland in 1916 essentially a draw. In that engagement the British lost the greatest number of capital ships but the Germans were forced to turn to port where they stayed bottle-up for the rest of the War.

In 1939 the British and U.S. fleets were about equal with 15 capital ships each, about the same number of aircraft carriers but the R.N. still held a large numerical superiority in cruisers and destroyers and smaller units. Throughout WW II the RN remained a potential force Winning several notable surface engagement as well as in the end the war against the submarine that threatened for a time to starve Britain into surrender.

It was during the course of the war that the U.S. navy grew to great superiority particularly in aircraft carriers. Since the end of WW II the US navy has retained worldwide superiority and other nations including Russia and China have become formidable naval powers. Yet the U.K. still has significant naval strength a fact shown by their ability in 1982 to launch an amphibious operation some 6,000 miles away to recover the Falklands after the ill-advised Argentine military had seized the long establish English community living there.

I have read Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer who covers some aspects of "the War" in much greater detailthan DM. For instance the British amphibious landing at Gravesend Bay Long Island August 27,1776. The British men of war softened up the beaches with cannon fire, the troop transports loaded special elite assault troops ( 50 per boat, rowed by naval seaman. Next came special boats in which the bow dropped down when they hit the beach. These boats were designed to transport Wagons , cannons and horses. We used this concept in WWII as Higgins boats and Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP's). Harold is there a means that I could post battle maps to the site? Author Fischer has excellent maps illustrating all the engagements. A map many times complements the authors descriptions.

--- for further discussion from this weeks schedule: Part II- The Fatal Summer, Chapter 4.

Discuss the pictures following page 112. What is your opinion of the artistic quality of the paintings by American Artists compared to those by English artists? What are your thoughts regarding the clarity of the maps made by British Engineers? Do you (who are familiar with the areas) recognize the area, as it would appear today?

Discuss the logistics of moving the American regiments to NY. Compare NY’s size and position to other Colonial cities such as Philadelphia. Why was it strategically important? Discuss the make–up of its population-Tory and Rebel.

Discuss changes in American Command authority. Were there changes in the requirement that a War council composed of subordinate generals approve GW’s operational plans?

Discuss the beginning of the British attack on N.Y. and the American Defense.- the relative strengths of the American and British Positions on the eve of battle that will be our subject next week when we move on to Chapter 5.

And every one, here is an opinion question. Based on your reading in your mind what percentage of the Colonial population actively supported the rebellion, what percent remained loyal Tories; and what percentage had no opinion (didn’t much care either way)

______ % Patriotic

______ % Tory

______ % Didn’t care either way.

The more I read about the events of the Revolution, the more I'm amazed that the colonies thought they could wage war against such a great power and succeed. To see the massive numbers of soldiers, British and mercenaries, and the huge naval force including ships-of-the-line, the largest battleships of the day, opening fire on the dinky rabble of an American army, much of which is about to finish their terms of service. It boggles the mind.

And some of you have noted the disagreements among the American generals, such as Charles Lee who thought he should be Commander-in-Chief, creating such headaches for Washington.

One thing that DM makes clear is the gift that Washington had for recognizing talent and surrounding himself with gifted brilliant men. I think this was Washington's greatest strength as Commander-in-Chief and as first president of the U.S. Not all leaders can do this. But Washington excelled at it. He recognized the talents of Henry Knox, Nathanael Greene, Joseph Reed, Alexander Hamilton, and others. He counseled with these men, got their opinions, and listened to them. Washington could accept advise.

Some, such as Charles Lee, suggested that Washington was a vacillator, that he couldn't make a decision and needed others to make decisions for him. I personally don't think it's weakness to seek advise from those in the know. Some people in charge don't want strong people around them because they are worried that they might look bad in comparison. Washington was the opposite. He took advise and often followed it, luckily. And he had the gift of placing them in appropriate strategic places where they could do the job necessary (most of the time).

Washington created almost a family of brilliant officers. He wanted them close by. He treated some officers like his sons. (I wonder if this was because Washington couldn't have his own children.) He was very loyal to his officers, and he rewarded them for their efforts with promotions and offices. For example, when Washington became president, he selected Henry Knox as the first Secretary of War and selected Alexander Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury. I bet he would have selected Nathanael Greene for his cabinet if he had been alive at the time.

And Washington was almost a father figure for some of his officers. Some of W's officers nearly worshiped him. Nathanael Greene and Lafayette both named their sons George Washington.

Potsherd: I just saw your post. That would be so great if you could get some decent maps out for us to look at. The maps in our book are not great and don't have enough detail. It's hard to picture some of the activity of the battles.

Harold: One thing I noticed (looking at maps of changes in lower Manhattan that are in the museum at Castle Clinton in the Battery) is that the coastline has changed a lot due to landfill. New Yorkers added quite a lot of territory with landfill just like Boston did. I wonder if we can see the original coastline and today's coastline in maps on the web?

--- thank you for your comment on the NY British amphibious operation and its comparison to WW II operations. Though it was definitely different from the 20th century operations, it was surely similar and a valid 18th century prototype.

Regarding your question, subject to possible copyright restrictions a map could be scanned as a jpg picture (No larger than 35K) and attached directly to the post. If it was larger it might be put on a private web page and linked in the message and of course it the map was already on the Web it could be linked in a message here. Click Here for a picture of me at the helm of a LCVP (the WW ii landing craft that that you mentioned) at Ulithi Lagoon in 1945.

Harold: That is wonderful seeing your picture. My dad was a captain in the Atlantic arena. He commanded LST's which I think were landing craft also. I wonder what the difference is between your craft and the LST?

the LCVP (Landing Craft-Vehicle Personnel) was a smallcraft designed for ferryying small vehicles and or platoon sized units of Personnal from a transport ship to shore. Your Fathers LST was a much larger ship designed for transporting Tanks and their crews over open seas to a beach landing.

I regret I am going to have to go to Seguin to fix a plumbing problem with my Well yard water system that I found yesterday was pouring water out of a corroded section of galvanized hydrant pipe. I will be back this evening. Do continue the discussion perhaps with some of the topics suggested in my message posted earlier this morning.

DM mentions that New York City was surrounded by water. Several of the military mentioned in our book that it could not be defended without a naval force. And they were right. On the south was New York Harbor, deep and large enough for huge battleships and Howe's force of 400 (?) ships. On the east was the East River; on the west was the Hudson River; on the north was....what? the Harlem River?

There were a number of islands in New York Harbor where forts could be built or had already been built, such as on Staten Island and Long Island, plus forts overlooked the rivers on both the New Jersey side and the New York side. Whoever commanded New York and its waters commanded the forts.

The Hudson River led up to Albany and the Mohawk River that headed west towards the Great Lakes. Just a trek north of the Hudson led up to Lake George and Lake Champlain and up into Canada. Philadelphia was accessible easily from NYC by water and by land. An army and a navy could easily maneuver around from NYC.

Just a side note....I saw the neatest thing last spring when I visited West Point, which is north of NYC overlooking the Hudson River. West Point was a fort before it was the military academy and was strategically located at an S-curve in the river. Guns guarded the river from West Point and from a battery directly across the river. A huge chain was laid across the Hudson from the fort to the battery on the other side, under the water so it could not be seen by approaching ships. The chain could be pulled up as a ship passed that point and halt the ship's progress whereupon the guns could fire directly onto the ship from both sides of the river.

There is a piece of the huge chain on display at West Point.

In the portrait pictures, the subjects nose, cheeks and chins are painted in reds. Is this because they WERE redder then the rest of their faces, or is it a painting technique to make the picture more interesting, or to make the subject seem healthy or attractive?....

I'm getting on-line infrequently, but i'm keeping track of you.

The weather has been so great here in Roswell, Ga that i was sitting on the deck yesterday, knitting and reading "1776". Today it's pouring rain...I'll be back home at the beginning of the week, so I'll catch up then.....Jean

Just like most things, New York Harbour is way more complicated than I would understand from 1776. If anyone is truly, truly interested there are on Google for Harbour NY, 1,000,000 (Yes, One Million) possible hits.

However, for the purpose of our discussion the following facts will be enough to understand how complex were the issues that the British Navy had to deal with when entering those waters: Rivers and Streams, - 22. Tidal Straights - 14, Bays, Inlets,and Coves - 24, Islands - 26 (This includes Manhattan and Staten Islands).

From the "Geography of NY Harbour: " NY Harbout is at the confluence of 3 Major Bodies of Water. The Harbor opens to the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound-both are tidal bodies but are out of sync with each other by several hours. The Hudson River adds a non-tidal flow component at the North."

Judy

My several great grandparents ago arrived Mid 1600's to help his Uncle Peter Stuyveson build New Netherlands, probably was one of the drunken Dutchmen that massacred the Mahuat indians and started the, 300 year Indian War, we are engaged in today. I digress, Peter and his boys built the wall to repel Indians. over the years it turned into a traders Business street and now is Wall Street.

The rest is little known History it is however, interesting how influential 150 years of New Yorks, Dutch & English treaties, bear on our freedom from, Theocracy's and Monarchies, today and we have such an abiding flexible Democracy, ruled by their treaties, the foundation of our Constitution.

LITTLE KNOWN NEW NETHERLANDS HISTORY

For what its worth a Stiver is a Dutch coin, contains a dimes worth of silver mined and minted in South Africa. The value was in the coin, it was a valued international medium of exchange since the 1200's.

FASCINATING HISTORY - ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING!

Gee, I'm so impressed with so much history here, and history that is not in the book. Not only is the book very good, but our digressions are every bit as interesting!

We can learn so much from each other!

THANK YOU KNUGURU!!!

Are you new to Seniornet or just new to the BOOKS? I would never have known the history of Wall Street if you had not posted and to think of how far back the name came from and why it was named, that is so interesting.

Here is another little known fact which I looked up on the Internet from a site called SCOPE:

"The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.)

The English later applied the term to Dutch pirates, and later still Dutch settlers in New York applied it to English settlers in Connecticut, who were known for their piratical trading practices. During the French and Indian War the British general James Wolfe took to referring derisively to the native New Englanders in his army as Yankees, and the term was widely popularized during the Revolutionary War by the song "Yankee Doodle." By the war's end, of course, the colonists had perversely adopted the term as their own. Southerners used Yankee pejoratively to describe Northerners during the Civil War, but found themselves, along with all other Americans, called thus by the English during world wars I and II.

The alternative explanations--Mencken lists 16 of them--are that Yankee derives from various Indian languages, or from Scottish, Swedish, Persian, etc. James Fenimore Cooper claimed that Yankee resulted from a fractured attempt by the Indians to pronounce the word "English." But most others think Cooper was about as good an etymologist as he was a novelist."

Harold, you obviously know the answer to the percentage of loyalists but I will guess 60%?

KNUGURU: I'm going to check out your link. Have you read The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto? It's about New Netherland also and is fantastic!

Your ancestors and my husband's ancestors may have been working side by side in New York! My husband's ancestors received title to a large tract of land in New Netherland in New York and New Jersey. We have a photo of my father-in-law and the mayor of NYC signing away the family's last claim on Manhattan! Apparently they used to own part of Wall Street. All that's left of the family property is in Englewood, NJ. My father-in-law grew up in what is today the oldest Dutch colonial farmhouse in America. He and my husband were in the Holland Society. So, I'm getting a real kick out of reading about the Dutch in America! (I think I'm more interested in it than my husband!!)

Ella: I just read in The Island at the Center of the World that in the Netherlands, the Dutch word for a young squire or a gentleman of property was "Jonker" or "Yonkheer." These words were used in New Netherland. Adriaen van der Donck was given in payment a vast tract of land north of Manhattan and van der Donck was called by Dutch and Native Americans alike the "Jonker" or "Yonkheer."

Today this land is called Yonkers.

Other land owners of large tracts in New Netherland would have been called this also. I wonder if this is the derivation of Yankee. (I haven't finished the book yet.)

Marni

Did you know that the Dutch invented the stock market?

I'd like to recommend a wonderful novel about the Dutch 17th-century Amsterdam stock market: The Coffee Trader by David Liss. It's a "richly suspenseful" mystery novel about Amsterdam in 1659 and the world of trade, particularly trade in coffee on the commodities exchange.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375508546/102-1011812-0721728?v=glance&n=283155

Marni

Thank you, Knuguru, for the info on Wall Street and the site "Little Known New Netherlands History". This is all very interesting.

Evelyn

I just received an email about upcoming TV programs next week on the History International Channel. It is "Great Leaders" week.

Tuesday, January 17: Ben Franklin @ 8:pm EST/7 Central

Wednesday, January 18: The Presidents 1789-1825 (Begins with George Washington, of course!) @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1825-1849 @ 9/8C

Thursday, January 19: The Presidents 1849-1865 @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1865-1885 @ 9/8C

Friday, January 20: The Presidents 1885-1913 @ 8/7C and The Presidents 1913-1945 @ 9/8C

Also....

Monday, Jan. 16, 8:00 EST - Lincoln, the Real Abe

and for Civil War buffs:

EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL- Sunday, January 15 @ 10/9C (Camp Douglas in Chicago, Illinois):

"One of the history’s most horrific prison camps wasn’t in Vietnam or Nazi Germany, but right here at home during the Civil War. In the three years of its existence, 6,000 of its 12,000 inmates died of exposure, filth, disease and despair. Doctors who inspected the prison, nicknamed 80 Acres of Hell, called it an “extermination camp.” This unrelenting picture of the wretched conditions sheds new history on the War Between the States.

EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL reveals that the Union was more than capable of matching the Confederates atrocity-for-atrocity. While 12,000 prisoners entered Camp Douglas, only 6,000 left. The rest were victims of calculated cruelty, torture and neglect. And southern soldiers were not the only targets of this treatment--many prominent Chicago citizens were incarcerated under the banner of martial law, unjustly convicted of imagined offenses by ruthless military tribunals. From the establishment of the camp to the terrible toll it ultimately took, EIGHTY ACRES OF HELL is a troubling look at a long-ignored chapter of the Civil War."

Harold, were you aboard an APA? They had lots of LCVP's. I was a Quartermaster/sigmalman on the USS Sabine AO-25 we were a fleet oiler. You must have had a right arm rate as well!

DM, does not address the British use of of 16 British prison ships in NY. After the battle of Long Island and New York plus American seaman captured by the British they soon ran out of prison space in NY. The British resorted to old ships fitted for housing prisoners. The death toll was estimated from 7,000 to as many as 11,644. The American death toll determined by the DOD for the entire war was 4,435. The death toll for American prison ship prisoners was estimated to be 7,000 to as many as 11,000. These ships were anchored in the area of the present Brooklyn Navy yard. Thousands of bones were dredged up as the yard was expanded. The bones where interned in a mass burial grave and is identified with a stone grave marker.

Thanks, MARNIE, for the announcement, I'll try to watch them all if they are scheduled in my area.

POTSHERD, that's a terrible statistic! All those men who left loved ones behind who didn't know what became of their sons and husbands; what an awful toll. Certainly we have made progress in reporting deaths in successive war and burial grounds, haven't we?

POTSHERD, why were the boats called "Higgins" boats? Who was he?

Washington was very worried about his men during the NYC siege and he had cause certainly; the city was crowded (he should see it now, hahaha); and he viewed "the city as the most sinful place in America, a not uncommon view. And the Holy Ground, owned by Trinity Church with 500 prostitutes roaming around was the worst place of all!!!

I don't think NYC is known as "sin city" today, I have no idea what would be considered the most sinful place in America, does anyone?

And what is sin?

GW had but 7,000 men fit for duty and he received intelligence stating that 17,000 hired German troops were on the way to serve with the British, bringing an estimated total of enemy to about 30,000. Whew! And 5 of the warships in the harbor carried more ammunition than all the Americans had and 45 more ships had arrived within a matter of hours.

All the "spade" work done by the soldiers must have been colossial - I hope it wasn't too hot of a summer.

But what odds!

Must leave right away, more later, eg

At Ulithi I was a member of "Ship's company" of SLCU-34 from early August 1945 to mid Nov 1945. It was my first assignment after leaving Boot Camp and Electrician Mate School. This was a Standard Landingcraft Unit serving the great Supply Base/anchorage supporting the Philippine and Okinawa campaigns and the planned for assault on the Japan. The war ended two weeks after I arrived and we decommissioned and closed the Ulithi Base by Thanksgiving. I was then assigned to the Commander of the Marianas Headquarters on Guam. This was the ofd Nimitz Cin-Pac headquarters that he used until the end of the war

Two years ago I put together a dozen Ulithi pictures with text describing my service there that mentioned the names of several of my Buddies I knew there, Click Here With in three weeks of the initial web appearance I had an E Mail from one of the people who I mentioned. Actually it was his son with the same name telling me that his father had died young in the 1960.s. The contact resulted from the son's googling of his own name which as a junior was the same as his father. He was amazed to find the pictures and mention of his late father. I too was amazed at the awesome outreach of the internet.

I found yesterday's comment on the early history of Dutch New York very Interesting. It is a faze of our History that I am not too familiar but Potsherd will remember that I did get a bit of introduction when we discussed "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire" by Francis Jennings, Click Here for the Reader’s Guide.

This book was about the history of an interesting Indian trading system begun by the Dutch in the middle of the 17th Century. Initially the early Dutch Traders chained their ships to trees on the Hudson near Albany, hence the term "Covenant Chain" was the name applied to the system as it developed and as it was continued by the British. Its history and particularly how it affected the history of the Iroquois was the subject of the Jennings book.

I thought it interesting that at least two of our group had family connections to the early Dutch N.Y. settlers.

Ella, Higgins was the designer/builder of the plywood hull boats. The LCVP boats were steel hulls. Harold, enjoyed your site, interesting to look at the old photos. Yes Ulithi was a big base. We seldom got ashore, Merchant tankers replenished our cargo of Av. gas(130 octane), black oil ect from Pearl Harbor. We were replenished with food and stores at sea via cargo nets, ect. When we did get ashore it took awhile to walk on something that was steady.

This is from our local newspaper, "The Sentinel-Record", Hot Springs, Arkansas for January 14,2006:

Today in History - On January 14, 1784, the United States ratified a peace treaty with England, ending the Revolutionary War.

Thanks, Harold, for the WWII pictures. Interesting.

Evelyn

Evelyn: I was surprised to see the date the treaty was ratified - Jan. 14, 1784 - because I had thought the war ended in 1783. I looked at a timeline to see what was going on. The finalities of the war did drag on for a long time. Here are some final events:

1782

November 30 - A preliminary peace treaty is signed in Paris. Terms include recognition of American independence and the boundaries of the United States, along with British withdrawal from America.

December 14 - The British withdraw from Charleston.

1783

January 20 - England signs a preliminary peace treaty with France and Spain.

February 3 - Spain recognizes the United States of America. Sweden, Denmark and Russia follow suite later.

February 4 - England officially declares an end to hostilities in America.

April 11 - Congress officially declares an end to the Revolutionary War.

April 26 - The total of Loyalists who have fled for Canada reaches 100,000 as 7,000 leave New York.

June 13 - The main part of the Continental Army disbands.

September 3 - Treaty of Paris signed.* Congress will ratify the treaty on January 14, 1784.

November 2 - Washington delivers his farewell address to his army. The remaining troops are discharged the following day.

November 25 - The last British troops depart as Washington enters Manhattan.

http://www.americanrevolution.com/Timeline.htm

*Treaty of Paris signed. - I wondered what was going on here. I clicked on the word. It took me to another page that said this: "The Treaty of Paris 1783 - This treaty, signed on Sept. 3, 1783, between the American colonies and Great Britain, ended the American Revolution and formally recognized the United States as an independent nation."

Maybe it was just the time it took for the documents to be sent across the ocean that the ratification took so long.

Ratification is the process of adopting an international treaty, or a constitution or other nationally binding document (such as an amendment to a constitution) by the agreement of multiple subnational entities.

Ella,

In answer to your question "Where is Sin City today?' The accepted answer is Las Vegas , Nevada. The reason is the fact that a huge percentage of the Citys' inhabitants (but certainly not all) make their living off of mens (and womens) propensity to gamble (many become addicted) , get drunk (many are addicted) , pay large sums for prostitutes and strip clubs and in general try to wrest money from others by possibly illicit means. But the victims all go willingly to the slaughter. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the USA today.

As to your second question :"What is sin?" That is everyones personal and individual decision. Perhaps when we get into a discussion of a book on Philosophy we can deal with it or expres opinions on the subject. I'm sure you and everyone else has given it much thought. My info on Las vegas is a factual answer and not an opinion.

Judy

Marni, thank you for the tv. listings. I have printed the dates out. Now I am going to mark each one on the calander.

Harold, here is my guess at the percentages.

40% Patriotic
59% Tory
1% Didn't care either way


I think all of the people had some feelings about what was happening. Then again there are always some people out of touch with what is happening politically in the world. When there is a civil war happening in your country, with the involvement of your family members is it possible not to have any strong opinion about what is happening? Maybe I should have counted 1% who didn't care either way.

New York had strategic importance because of the amount of water surrounding it. Also, there were more Loyalists and Tories in New York than in Boston. All of these factors worked in Britain's favor. Was there any way George Washington could have avoided going to New York? What, if anything, was strategically favorable to George Washington and the Patriots in New York? Wasn't it a no win situation?

At that time was New York jam packed with houses and other buildings? Was there any open forest land available? Was it strategically possible to draw the British from the sea and on to land to fight? It seems fighting on land would have been favorable to the Patriots. I guess it was a no win situation. There were so many Tories and Loyalists in New York. The numbers of those supporting King George would have been an insurmountable obstacle for the Patriots. Plus, with all of that water there would have been no way in the world to draw the British out of their comfort zone which was water.

So, why did they need to head for New York???

Harold ,have e-mailed Oxford University Publishing requesting permission to use the David Hackett Fischer maps from Washington's Crossing. Keep your fingers crossed the maps are outstanding. Have started " Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America" by Francis Jennings. It was the winner of the 1986 Distingnished Book Award of the Society of Colonial Wars. It appears to be an excellent read and well documented as are all Jennings works as you know.

Hats and Marni, regarding my question concerning colonial public opinion division into groups labeled, Patriot, Tory, or didn’t care, there are no actual poll results archived to give an answer. Yet there is much historical evidence indicating there was substantial division in each of the three groups. After my experience with the John Adams and Ben Franklin discussions, I came to see the size of each of these groups perhaps roughly equal. I asked my only professional historian contact, a Local community college professor, the question and he came up with essentially the same division. This leads me to think that perhaps one or more of recent authors, David McCullough, James Strodes, or Walter Isaacson or others, had mentioned a division iin this order. Perhaps previous reading subconsciously influenced both of us. In any case any answer today at best must be educated guess based on reading of the sources.

Perhaps we would be on firmer grounds by concluding simply that there was no unanimity of opinion with the three general groups each representing a significant portion of the population.

I have a wonderful little book by a Rev Joseph Doddridge, “The Settlement and Indian Wars Of the Western Part of Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1763 – 1783.” Doddridge became a popular 19 century minister. He was born about 1767 in Washington County PA on the Ohio River near the border of what is now West Virginia. His Mother died about 1775 and his father arranged to send him with an uncle, Alexander Wells (my ancestor), back to Baltimore County for schooling. When they reached the first Maryland Town they stopped at a Tavern where the evening dinner conversation was the story of the hanging of the local Tories. It made quit an impression on the 7-year old kid who included the story in his book written years later in his old age..

I certainly agree that no history book by any author that I have read was better or more thoroughly researched than the “Ambiguous Iroquois Empire” by Francis Jennings. It was the most professionally written book Seniorsnet Books has ever done. Its only shortcoming was it was written for the professional academic historian, not the popular reader. Possibly one participant other than you and myself actually finished the book. I frankly liked the book and got a lot out of it regarding colonial history relating to their relation among themselves, the Mother Country and the Indians, but it was a very difficult book to read and understand particularly for a general reader whose past experience had been limited to the popular writings of the likes of Ambrose, McCullough and Ellis.

Regarding the maps let’s see if you get a response from your query to the publisher. If not you might refer to them by the page number in the “Washington’s Crossing” book Some of us may have a copy or will see them in a library. Also You might do a Google search for “Maps-Description of area or event.” A suitable map might be available that you can link on the Internet to link.

Click Here for some 50 plus American Revolution Battle Maps

Harold: I just clicked on one map and already it was easier to see places than in the maps of our book.

It would be interesting to compare the same sites side by side with a current map. For instance, I'm looking at the map of the Siege of Boston. There has been so much landfill since that it's hard to compare some of the places to the Boston area today. Interesting to see how Boston was a peninsula connected to the mainland by such a dinky strip or neck of land.

Harold, what a good site. Thank you!!

DM keeps us on edge about the British and rebel forces in NYC and he does it so well; we finish up Chapter Four today with news that the Declaration of Independence has been sent to GW and Henry Knox, such an elegant writer, (wonderful that his letters have been preserved) writes "The eyes of all America are upon us; as we play our part posterity will bless or curse us."

I want to tell him - to shout at him - you did it! We won, we have our independence, we are grateful to you all. I'm feeling very patriotic in reading the end of this chapter, they are all so hopeful and so encouraged by the news and know so little about what is ahead of them.

They pulled down the gilded lead statue of George III on his colossal horse.

Was it Lenin's statue that was pulled down in the Soviet Union when the Communists were ousted and Boris Yeltsin was there with the crowd; we watched it on TV? It was Lenin's statue or was it Stalin's? Oh, golly, how quickly one can forget. But I can't forget the incident or the wall coming down - this was as close an incident in our century that compares to that of the Americans in their jubilation.

"A more impudent, false, and atrocious proclamaation ws never fabricated by the hands of man," said one British officer and they worried that the Americans may not fight????

AND THEN GEORGE WASHINGTON VIOLATED ONE OF THE OLDEST, MOST FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF BATTLE, NEVER TO DIVIDE YOUR STRENGTH WHEN FACED BY A SUPERIOR FORCE. HE SPLIT HIS ARMY.

Could we compare this error to what Hitler did when he split his army and marched into the Soviet Union in WWII?

Thanks for the map sites. Not having great maps in books of history is a continuing frustration to me. I simply cannot understand why authors don't include them. I'm reading "The Bridge on the Drina" about the Balkans over hundreds of years of history, and there is not one single map in the whole book!

Ella: Stalin's statue definitely was pulled down. I don't know about Lenin.

Harold, thanks for the maps site. My copy of "1776" is large print from the library and there are no maps in it, so I was really at a loss. This map site makes everything more understandable.

Evelyn

It amazes me at this part of the book how many of the Americans are dying of disease such as "camp fever."

I also thought it was interesting how Nathaniel Greene has periodic bouts of illness. Here in NY, when Greene is needed the most, he falls ill again "stricken at the crucial hour." It sounds as though Greene nearly died at this point from his illness. What would we have done without him???

Things don't look well for the Americans by page 154 in our book!

---------------------------

I thought it interesting how Washington had a number of old ships sunk at the mouth of the East River to create a blockade against British ships. This was an old-time war tactic. I've read of this being done in other wars. (For instance, in 1565 the Knights of Malta sank many ships in their harbor on Malta to stop the Ottoman fleet from accessing the harbor.)

Marni

King George's statue was pulled down from its location on Bowling Green. Bowling Green is right next to Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, right in front of the old U.S. Customs House.

"In August 21, 1770, the British government erected a 4,000 pound gold-plated leaden statue in the plaza depicting King George III mounted on horseback and dressed in Roman garb in the style of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The statue had been commissioned in 1766, along with a statue of William Pitt, to the prominent London sculptor Joseph Wilton.

The statue was very unpopular with the public. In 1773, the city passed an anti-graffiti and anti-desecration law to counter vandalism against the monument. On July 9, 1776, after the Declaration of Independence was read to Washington's troops at the current site of City Hall, a mob of local citizens rushed to Bowling Green where they toppled the statue. The event is considered one of the most enduring images in the city's history. According to folklore, the statue was chopped up and shipped to a Connecticut foundry to be made into some 40,000 Patriot bullets. Parts of the statue are preserved in the New-York Historical Society. The event has depicted over the years in several works of art, including an 1859 painting by artist Johannes Adam Simon Oertel."

Here's info about Bowling Green:

"BOWLING GREEN is New York’s oldest park and may have been the site where Dutch settler Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan Island from the Native Americans with a variety of goods valued at $24. Beginning in 1733 Bowling Green was leased by the people of New York from the English crown for the token amount of one peppercorn each year. A large statue of King George III (located where the fountain is now) and the decorative crowns mounted on each fencepost, were torn down by the angry mob that marched here on July 9, 1776, after George Washington read the Declaration of Independence. The iron fence around the green was erected in 1771 and is the original.

On the south side of the park is a magnificent Beaux-Arts building, the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House. It was designed by Cass Gilbert (also architect of Woolworth Building) in 1907, and the four statues are by sculptor Daniel Chester French (of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC fame). It is now home to the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, with the largest public collection of Native American artifacts in the world.

On the north side of the park stands a 7,000 pound bronze “Charging Bull.” This sculpture by Arturo Di Modica, mysteriously appeared one day in 1989 (and following the market crash of 1987) in front of the New York Stock Exchange. Clearly, a reference to the stock market’s bulls (optimists) and bears (pessimists) – its nose now shines from all the good-luck pats it receives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green_(New_York_City)

Marni

Here's Johannes Adam Simon Oertel's painting "Pulling Down the Statue of King George III," N.Y.C., ca. 1859

http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=77

If you are becoming more and more fascinated by the Revolutionary War, as I am, we will continue to explore it in March When I assist Marni in leading a discussion of "Founding Mothers" bu Cokie Roberts, the story of the women behind the Founding Fathers. Come and join us:

FOUNDING MOTHERS

Ella another example of iconoclast ing (how’s that for creating a new verb) is the recent tearing down of the statute of Saddam in Baghdad. Ceremonies of this sort, it would seem, are a mandatory part of all revolutions.

The division of his New York forces by George Washington in the summer of 1776 mentioned by McCullough concerned the division necessary to defend both Manhattan and Long Island. I think this was a Necessary division since if one place was undefended Howe would occupy it unopposed and use it as a spring board to attack the other. I think the more serious division mandated by the Continental Congress was the concurrent offensive operation in the north against Canada. This operation was getting nowhere and the Congress kept requiring Washington to send reinforcements he really could not spare.

In any case any division of American forces was not so serious in the end as the late German dictator’s sudden opening of a second front in Russia. In the end the Americans got away with it, Hitler did not.

I note several interesting WW II parallels in the New York campaign. One that I will mention now is that When Howe finally made his initial Long Island landing Washington persisted in considering it a diversionary probe and that the main landing would hit New York just as Hitler had done when allies chose Normandy to make their landing instead of the expected closer channel cost.

This will be Chapters 5 and 6. Since this involves some 90 pages we have allocated 10 days for this material. Let us begin tomorrow with Chapter 5 as the shooting war begins in earnest with a surprise British pincer attack on the American Long Island defense.

Iconoclasting? Love it, Harold, hahahaa

Thanks, JUDY, for answering my question about Las Vegas being sin city; I've been all over the USA but never had any desire to go there, I'm too frugal I think, but I do believe I read that the city is trying to shed its image and become more family oriented by building a Disney-like casino or some such thing..

And thanks to all of you for your interest in the book and your posts; what fun it is to come here every day and read your thoughts and your sites on the Internet have added so much to our discussion; DM would love this if he were around.

Were you as surprised as I to read the following:

"To many of the English, such affluence as they saw on Long Island was proof that America had indeed grown rich at the expense of Great Britain. In fact, the Americans of 1776 enjoyed a higher standard of living than any people in the world. Their material wealth was considerably less than it would become in time, still it was a great deal more than others had elsewhere. How people with so much, lilving on their own land, would ever choose to rebel against the rule God had put over them and thereby bring down such devastation upon themselves was for the invaders incomprehensible."

First of all, I just never thought of the colonies as being so wealthy - the standard of living better than anywhere else in the world? We think of the British Empire as being so powerful, so mighty, so wealthy, and yet we read this.

And then what is meant by the statement - "at the expense of Great Britain?"

If the colonists were so wealthy why did they object so strongly to the British taxing them? And if the trade with Great Britain had brought so much wealth, why did they want to change things, and go to war?

That was surprising to read that. Maybe it's that we did not really have a noble class in America. In Europe there were great extremes of wealth - very wealthy and very poor segregated by a class system. Perhaps in America, the wealth was spread out more evenly and we did not yet have a large group of the destitute.

I too was surprised by the McCullough report judging the average e Americans wealthier than the average English. True there was no hereditary noble class in America but all reports indicate a wide disparity of income,

I was more surprised at McCullough’s comments judging the health of the British Troops superior to that of the Americans. I suspect this was the result of the better discipline in the British units. They were forced to keep their privy areas relatively clean and wash their underwear more than the Americans..