Friends of 1776

1775: The Start of the American Revolutionary War

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:52:00 +0000

As probably a lot of other people, I always considered 1776 to be the important, definitive year of the American Revolution. It’s the year of the Declaration of Independence. I gave short shrift to 1775, although that year defined the independence that so many Americans wanted and were willing to wage war to achieve.

1775 absolutely changed the relationship between Great Britain and America forever. Not that there weren’t many people who desperately remained loyal to Great Britain and King George III. But those who did became the enemy of the Patriots who were ready to fight. As yet there was no army to speak of, but when George Washington, after much controversy, was appointed General, that gradually changed. Farmers were “Minutemen”, ready to fight at any minute; militias were mobilized to take on the well-trained professional British troops.

In 1775, colonies, particularly Massachusetts, were no longer content to be obedient subject of their British masters. The time of revolution had come. Incidents such as the Boston Tea Party were behind them. Pitched battles were the order of the day.

What the revolutionaries achieved in 1775 is, in retrospect, absolutely amazing. The American forces had practically nothing. They were a skeleton force, with hardly ever sufficient ammunition or much else, for that matter. Discipline had yet to be established. But our fighters had firm resolve, courage, and cunning. The British realized that they were not going to have a quick victory over their audacious American enemy.

The Second Continental Congress’s agenda for formally declaring Independence in 1776 could never have been realized without the tumultuous year preceding it.

April 19, 2010, was a big day in Boston. The running of the Marathon set a new time record. The day also commemorated what is officially designated as the beginning of the American Revolutionary War, the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Boston area. There was nothing unexpected about the fighting location. Already there were British occupying troops, the Boston Massacre, the Tea Party; the British considered by now the Boston area to be at the root of all her colonial problems. Boston residents were anti-British and quarrelsome; they could degenerate into mob action at a moment’s notice, encouraged by powerful agitators such as Sam Adams.

The British at Lexington and Concord had the primary objective of capturing American weapons and ammunition. If they could do this secretly, it might put the American forces out of commission, given our chronic shortage of arms. If the British could also lay their hands on Adams and Hancock, so much the better.

None of these plans worked. The arms had been moved elsewhere and Revere had done a good job warning Adams and Hancock. Secrecy was not very effective against the canny and treacherous Bostonians. Other pitched battles such as Bunker Hill followed quickly. A real war was on. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

This period of the American Revolutionary War is well documented. I found some sources to be particularly interesting and easy to follow. Military history can get quite complicated. Here are a couple of useful citations:

American Battlefields. Hubbard Cobb. McMillan USA. 1995. 382 pp. Emphasis on maps and illustrations. Covers all wars. Amazon | AbeBooks | bn.com

Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence. John Ferling. Oxford University Press. 2007. 679 pp. Covers the whole war in as much detail that one could possibly find in a single volume. I think this is a must-have for the subject. Amazon | AbeBooks | bn.com

Notable American Battles in 1775

Lexington and Concord, Boston area | April 19
Capture of Fort Ticonderoga | May 10
Control of Lake Champlain
Bunker Hill | June 16 -17
Invasion of Canada
Montgomery Captures Montreal | November 13
Assault on Quebec | December 31

Although the American forces committed significant troops in Canada and there were many maneuvers, our invasion of Canada ultimately failed. The War in the South was predominantly a conflict between Patriots and Loyalists.

The California Primary Election

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:10:00 +0000

Last Tuesday was primary election day. Republicans and Democrats chose their candidates for the big contest in November. Some won, some lost, some are in limbo facing a run-off, and a few are in election hell as they still don’t know the result. Many candidates were quite unknown to the voters so generally incumbents did well. That makes a lot of voters angry enough to vote for term limits. Not that it always makes much of a difference. Politicians don’t fade quietly from view. They go on to compete in a different political office be up for grabs. These may not have term limits at all.

Not many people vote in primaries. I think that’s due to a massive dose of inertia, lack of any real enthusiasm for the candidates, and maybe a feeling the election that counts for anything is the one in November.

On a rather long bus ride a while ago I had struck up an easy conversation with a fellow passenger. Our subject had drifted to a coming election. I was curious why he said he very seldom voted.

“There’s nobody to vote for” was his prompt reply.

Maybe then I thought this was a lame excuse, but not anymore. Last Tuesday had some really big prizes to view for: governor, senator, top state offices, and a multitude of local contests. These are often very hard-fought campaigns. What helps one win a primary? Well, we know incumbency is a big plus. So is plenty of money and the ability to raise more. Can you portray your adversary as demonic without coming across as just waging a dirty campaign without regard for the truth?

Currently, a great deal is focused on how mean and dirty politics are. Okay, our first President George Washington was hardly elected; he was selected with no opposition, but it took only to 1800 to have everything change. This election, between Adams and Jefferson, was as full of dirty tricks and intrigue to set the tune for subsequent Presidential contests. In 2007, Edward J. Larson profiled this race in his spirited book A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign.

Of course, whoever wins the Presidency wins everything. We don’t have a parliamentary type of government.

Are primaries of any value?

I think they only serve the agendas of our political parties. Candidates are pitched to conservatives, liberal, minorities, rich, poor, and any other voter group considered worth cultivating. With such strategies, a low voter turnout may be perversely beneficial. The finalists for the governor’s race, Whitman v Brown, are already slugging it out for November on how many debates will be scheduled and where and how.

But since important debates are so carefully scripted they will probably lack any spontaneity or much information for the voter. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Today is Flag Day. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress selected the Stars and Strips as our national flag.

Memorial Day 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:20:00 +0000

Memorial Day has come and gone, with flags, tears, huge crowds spending the day at the beach, and barbecues sending out delicious aromas of hamburgers and hot dogs sizzling for a festive holiday meal.

The weather might be a challenge, traffic jams are expected, but a lot of people are happy they have the day off.

Many people feel that the real significance of Memorial Day has been lost -- now it’s nothing more than a chance for a three-day weekend. I don’t agree. Americans are hard workers; we actually don’t get that many
holidays or vacation. So why not spend the holiday as a pleasant relaxing day?

There are many opportunities to remember why we have the day off: somber ceremonies, often organized by veterans’ groups; patriotic music, special programming on TV, decorated national cemeteries; and as a bright,
fresh background, an abundance of red, white, and blue flower bouquets.

Even with all the recreation, people are well aware that Memorial Day is when we officially and personally honor our war casualties throughout our history. May they all rest in peace.

This blog, Friends of 1776, has been inactive for some weeks due to my sudden illness. Please excuse the interruption. Meanwhile, pertinent topics have been accumulating to bring to you. In a month, we will again celebrate America’s greatest national holiday, July 4th. I will read the Declaration of Independence and hope you will too. 2010 being an election year, 1776 is more pertinent than ever.

Tea Party adherents show no sign of going away, a fact not lost on politicians trying to win their primaries and get elected in November. A lot of money is being spent! – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Friends of 1776 Anniversary

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:26:00 +0000

Friends of 1776 celebrated its first anniversary last month.

I thank you sincerely for all your interest and support. Birthdays for people and events come around quickly.

Some things I would have done differently: generally, I found writing posts more difficult than I expected. I would have enjoyed more comments; these keep one sharp.

I am amazed though at the huge variety of opinion expressed in this country, and with so much conviction.

After one year, the story of how America became independent from Great Britain is still incredible. And after
it did, that the former adversary in 1776 is now our oldest and strongest ally is even more amazing.

American history has certain periods which absolutely stand out from all the others. For me it’s the Revolutionary War, the Civil War era, all of World War II. The American Revolution defines what America is all about. It gave us our Constitution, which a lot of countries want to copy. It ended well. The national revolution which followed it in France was a disaster that ended with the dictator Napoleon.

We got a Bill of Rights, which was unprecedented, and at the time of 1776, the novel idea that power rests with the people.

Some realities increased for me in 2009. The concept of “patriot” was not always as noble as it sounded. The colonies were hardly uniform in their attitude toward becoming independent from Great Britain. Many patriots persecuted their neighbors, loyalists, who still supported allegiance to Great Britain. They robbed them flagrantly of their property, drove them into exile, making them literally flee for their lives.

A great deal of the Revolutionary War was plain and simply a civil war, particularly in the Southern colonies. There were two revolutionary wars, one in the Northern colonies, predominantly New England and New York, in the early years of the war, and then when the action moved to the South. Here were the loyalists who fought constantly with the patriots. Britain had many more local allies and could win battles of considerable importance.

More and more I realize how critical our allies were as the war dragged on. France, being England’s traditional enemy, was the most valuable; that’s how the southern war ended.

Certain questions still need an answer. Did America win this war or did Great Britain lose it because eventually she could no longer supply her long-distance war? Who played a major role, the brilliant American generals or the British ones, with their demonstrated constant snafus?

What extraordinary person would you name as a major force in establishing America’s independence? I don’t think I can name just one. Instead, as a minimum, I have to include Adams, Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson, and later Hamilton and Madison for creating our Constitution.

I recognize the role of Virginia in defining our liberties. For me, it’s very significant that for the first nine Presidential terms, eight were occupied by Virginians. Even as all the colonies adopted the same Constitution, we were never the same country, economically or politically. The great difference of course was slavery, predominantly in the Southern states. Slavery determined their economies and societies. The South became a very powerful political bloc, which has persisted to this day.

Thank you again for being a Friend. There are many interesting posts scheduled ahead. Please comment; these bring variety and vitality to this blog. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

The Tea Party Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:44:00 +0000

There were many reasons for the American Revolution. If you asked the general public you would probably get one answer. The colonists didn’t want to pay taxes. Benjamin Franklin set out the permanent reality of death and taxes. So what else was new? Governments have always wanted to levy taxes, and nobody wanted to pay them. The tax code always seems eminently unfair; tax allocations don’t benefit us personally.

Who should we pay taxes to? King George III of England? His Parliament? Don’t tax us, was the clear message; we’re not represented at all in your government. It is illegal for you to levy taxes on us.

The British wanted to bail out its monopolistic East India Tea Company by
taxing the tea exports to the colonies. Tea was an important commodity. The opposition was furious.

Citizens of Boston were a very rebellious lot anyway. Soon well-known rebels such as Sam Adams were heavily involved. The Bostonians didn’t drink the tea; they destroyed it, dumping the whole cargo in Boston Bay.

The British went berserk. Commerce in Boston was suspended. The East India Company had to be compensated for all its lost money. The “Boston Tea Party” quickly became 100% political; it took on a life of its own. It stood for government taxation out of control, loss of colonial liberty, freedom was chipped away. And of course, the issue of representing the colonies in the tax process was not fairly resolved at all.

The Revolutionary War broke out two years later in 1775.

In the last few years, the words “tea party” have become buzzwords all over this country for strong opposition to perceived government spendthrift habits, too many taxes, bailouts of banks and industry. History repeats itself. Isn’t a bailout what Britain planned for the East India Company?

By now, the “tea party’ groups have so many issues, it’s pretty hard to change them all. Take government overspending – it’s always done that. Single big issues, such as health, education, immigration, may be far more successful to change. Changes in our own notorious tax code have had success. Consider that the famous Proposition 13 here in California on property taxes, a one-man movement by Howard Jarvis, is still on the books.

Will the “tea party” revolt last? It’s hard to know. New political movements have a difficult time. Right now, conservative Republicans claim ownership. They are the party of small politics. Isn’t that what the tea party is all about?

The recent tea party convention and its steep cost were well-covered in the press. Here are some newspaper article headlines as examples (titles / dates are from the print editions):

Unity is not their cup of tea: “Tea party” activists are far from a disciplined army. But Scott Brown may be a turning point. (LA Times, 1/25/2010)

“Tea party” convention a forum for woes, worries (LA Times, 2/6/2010)

The Tea Parties Are No “Great Awakening” (Wall Street Journal, 2/17/2010)

Tea party rhetoric steals the stage of GOP conference: Speakers tout liberty, the Founding Fathers, and the sovereignty of the Constitution. (LA Times, 2/20/2010)

Schwarzenegger critiques GOP: he calls members of his party hypocrites for opposing Obama’s economic stimulus and also derides the “tea party” movement. (LA Times, 2/22/2010)

Tea-Party Drive Steeped in Political Novices: Movement Attracts First-Time Activists Mad About Debt, Expanding Government; Incumbents in Both Parties Face Risks (Wall Street Journal, 2/20/2010 - 2/21/2010)

The “tea party” dance: Will the movement sink or save the conservatives? (LA Times, 2/21/2010)

Conservatives draw up a new “Contract”: Manifestoes hark back to the Republicans’ victorious 1994 midterm campaign. (LA Times, 2/22/2010)

No rainout for tea partyers: Northgate rally marks movement’s first year; some reluctant to stand up in left-leaning Seattle (Seattle Times, 2/28/2010)

Tea Party Holds Risks for GOP (Wall Street Journal, 3/2/2010)

Of all the concepts of our American Revolution, I feel that the Boston Tea Party has the most appeal. It is a marvelous story on our road to Revolution.

Frustration is a necessary part of how we view our government. Will Rogers understood it perfectly when he quipped to be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for. –Renata Breisacher Mulry

Mini-post on HBO’s The Pacific

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:19:00 +0000

March 14 will air the first episode of HBO’s ten hour epic TV miniseries, The Pacific, a very expensive, graphic retelling of the US battles against the Japanese in the Pacific during World War II. Much of the ferocious fighting took place on countless islands such as Peleliu. Many of these campaigns are long forgotten.

Co-producers are Tom Hanks
, Steven Spielberg, and Gary Goetzman. HBO won an Emmy for a previous miniseries, Band of Brothers, in 2001. The Pacific is a TV production on a much larger scale, even more realistic. It is featured today in the LA Times Calendar section (2/28/2010).

My just completed post for Friends of 1776 featured the biography of Marine Sergeant John Basilone as a selection for a military history award.

He is one of the three main characters focused on in The Pacific.

He won the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism on Guadalcanal and was killed on Iwo Jima. HBO previously also produced the outstanding John Adams. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Two Military History Episodes to Celebrate George Washington’s Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:58:00 +0000

Washington’s Birthday should be commemorated as more than a retail bonanza.

The previous post for Friends of 1776 has tried to revise his birthday celebration as more serious, more patriotic, something more fitting for the occasion.

One suggestion was to award each year a military history literary prize. Washington was a general for much of his active life; he was our Supreme Commander during the Revolutionary War.

Here are two military stories that have produced good reading.
They deserve wide distribution. Each is very different from the other, but showing particular courage in its own way.

Recently published, Hero of the Pacific, revives the exploits of John Basilone, who today is still a revered hero at Camp Pendleton, the huge Marine base in Northern San Diego County. New recruits undergo basic training hearing about the Basilone Marine unit whipping the hell out of the Japanese on Guadalcanal.

I live close to Pendleton, and have known about the main road on base called Basilone Road for a long time. Basilone’s background was working-class, part of the huge working class fighting force in World War II in the Pacific and later in Korea and Vietnam. He never attended high school. His life was colorful. Basilone was a member of the peacetime army. He was picked to promote war bonds back in the States, had a notorious Hollywood liaison, and actively worked to get back into combat “with the boys”.

As a champion boxer and marine machine gunner, he wanted to be back in the action. There his celebrated military skills could be really utilized. Basilone died shortly after landing on the beach at Iwo Jima. He had the right gung-ho fighter spirit for the Marine Corps. What better memory for him than to be identified with Iwo Jima. His story has faded, although his hometown of Raritan, N.J. still holds a parade very year in his honor.

This well-reviewed book strives to renew the legacy of the kind of working-class hero who won the endless battles against the Japanese in the Pacific. Today, our volunteer force is changing warfare; new heroes are still created, but there is a greater separation between the military and civilians than over fifty years ago. The local newspapers publish the names of the active military dead every week. This week, the local casualty is Army SPC Jonathan D. Welch, 19, Yorba Linda, California. I want to dedicate this post to him. He was killed in an explosion in Afghanistan. The casualties’ ages are still mostly very young, their rank is usually very low, and they do not originate from Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

The second selection for an award is very different. “Good Time Charlie” Wilson was a long-term Congressman from small-town Texas, a powerful member of the House Appropriations Committee, living with style and flair. He died in Texas last week at 76. His biography, Charlie Wilson’s War (2003), makes for some sizzling reading and a later Tom Hanks movie was a commercial success.

Wilson used the secret fiscal dealings of Congress and heavy participation of the CIA to wage his own private war against the Russian invaders of Afghanistan. In the 80s, he led a massive money and weapons drive to supply the Mujahedin, the Afghan guerillas against the Russians. He, in a sense, fought the last hot battle of the Cold War. The last Russian left Afghanistan in 1989, and the Soviet Union promptly collapsed.

Many called Wilson without scruples and ethics. His tactics were questionable, and the reputations of those he dealt with were quite shady. Wilson always lived the good life, while in contrast Basilone and his fellow Marines slugged it out in appalling conditions over forty years before.

Were Wilson’s actions entirely wrong? I don’t think so. But it’s hard to judge them entirely objectively. The Mujahedin evolved into the Taliban, and we’re fighting them today.

Military history is a mixed bag, from the massive battles to countless episodes behind the scenes. How much do we know about them? Hopefully, as much as possible. If the writing is complete and accurate, we all gain. -- Renata Breisacher Mulry

Celebrating George Washington’s Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:27:00 +0000

On February 6, 2011, we will celebrate what would have been President Reagan’s 100th birthday (Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2010).

It’s going to be a big day.

For one thing, Reagan’s birthday will share the day with Super Bowl Sunday. Combining these two events will be a terrific challenge.

Many events are planned, from locations in Illinois where Reagan spent his adolescent years, to the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. I imagine his widow, Nancy, is heavily involved in the planning of events honoring her late husband.

Next week, we will again mark the birthday of our country’s most major political figure, George Washington, born February 22, 1732 (died 1799).

The history judging Reagan has yet to be written, but the verdict for Washington is in
, and generally it’s good.

As our first President, general of our troops during the American Revolutionary War, he is always designated as the “Founder of Our Country”. Our capitol is named after him; countless other places and events. His birthday is a major federal holiday. But how it is observed is very casual, for reasons that have evolved over 250 years.

The birthday is not observed on February 22, but on the 3rd Monday of February. It is a Monday holiday, good for business and recreation. Currently, the holiday is a big retail sales day. Years ago, when I lived in Washington D.C., dollar TVs were a huge loss-leader gimmick. A lot of other activities compete with the holiday: Valentine’s Day, with flowers and candy; Mardi Gras sometimes; Lent when it was observed more rigorously; and the height of the winter sports season. The weather does not accommodate a lot of outdoor fun – I never recall fireworks or picnics. There is no traditional meal, except maybe a slice of cherry pie.

What puzzles me is why, if the occasion is so important, it’s always a toss up if business is closed at all. What really amazes me is that the holiday is shared with another President, Lincoln; I don’t think others have been added. What has happened is that the holiday has become known as Presidents’ Day. It makes little sense to me.

On the Fourth of July and Memorial Day, usually people are off from work. For Washington’s Birthday that’s not the case at all. Also there are no parades, fireworks, other patriotic speeches either.

I’d like to see the Washington’s birthday commemoration become more solemn, bigger, louder, far more pertinent; a real federal holiday. I’m not sure it’s going to happen.

When we observe a major federal holiday, let’s have the day off. I am perfectly serious. It lends significance to the occasion. American business will survive if we add another paid holiday to our economy. I’d enjoy something special on TV – it doesn’t have to be too serious.

Washington’s Birthday shouldn’t share the day with other presidents. It’s too important for that.

This occasion lends itself to awarding an annual military history literary prize, the ceremony in Washington D.C. (where else) or even Valley Forge … any place where Washington spent an important time in his life. It may not be the Nobel Prize ceremony, but people would know about it. Let the President deliver the prize and a few patriotic remarks. After all, he greets winning sports teams in the White House. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Washington's Birthday Events at Mt. Vernon

Two Hundred Years of the State of the Union

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:39:00 +0000

Last Wednesday, January 27, 2010, President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address.

Traditionally, it is the message of the current President to the US Congress.

In the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, under a rather scant paragraph “Duties of the President”, the President is directed to give Congress information on the state of the nation and what he considers measures that are just, expedient, even necessary. In other words, what he considers future policy. The frequency of this duty is vague.

But about 200 years later (George Washington delivered a State of the Union address),
many technicalities having evolved along the way, we have a State of the Union once a year. Since about forty years ago, we now even have a rebuttal to the message by the party in opposition.

There is a question that has to be considered. Whose State of the Union address is it anyway? Does it belong to the outgoing President (by about a week), or the newly inaugurated President? Some content describes the condition of the country; future policy is only part of the new President’s message. Obama was sworn in January 2009, so it’s his message.

A President might address the US Congress on different occasions, on various topics, but not in a capacity as delivering a “State of the Union”.

Last Wednesday was a fancy occasion. Everybody came, in their Sunday best. There was a lot of meeting and greeting, including the Supreme Court, Joint Chiefs of Staff, foreign dignitaries, and honored guests.

There usually is a lot of applause, much of it from the President’s own political party. The speech usually is an appealing mix of optimism and patriotism. I don’t recall a lot of very pessimistic details. In fact, details from previous speeches are not remembered that much. Rebuttals are not necessary.

Although a President may be campaigning, this is not a campaign speech. I see it more as a tradition, going back to the origin of our country’s political structure.

For a long time, the State of the Union was not delivered in person at all. It doesn’t have to be. But I don’t hear complaints that it is.

Presidents have given memorable messages to Congress on important occasions: for instance, John Kennedy’s announcement on May 25, 1961 that the US will reach the moon by the end of the sixties.

Maybe last week’s State of the Union was not memorable, but future messages by Obama could be extraordinarily important. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

New Year Message for 2010 to all Friends of 1776

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:51:00 +0000

It’s a New Year, a new decade, a good time to discuss topics of interest to you about our American Revolution. Your participation and appreciation in this amazing story continues at a time when its significance seems more important than ever. The American Revolution, as with other wars, had its causes many years before any shots were fired. This ongoing series will continue this year. Some causes were obvious; some were more obscure, involving basically individuals. The social history, emigration, and even religion of the earlier colonies provided causes.

One cannot consider the American Revolution without the complicated actions of the British Parliament and its last American monarch, George III.

Once the Revolutionary War started, it developed on a large scale, hardly advantageous for the American patriot soldiers even with Washington as their leader. Previous posts have considered the battles only sketchily. The war could be divided broadly into three parts: the early years, in the northern and north-eastern colonies; the later years in the predominantly southern colonies, with very hard fighting, often very successful for the British; and a continuous, vicious civil war between the patriots and loyalists. These campaigns were fought in the western territories of the southern colonies.

Many British and American generals were very talented, became famous, and led decisive battles. A question can always be raised, did the American colonies win or did the British lose, trying to continue supplying an army thousands of miles away? Both did not occur simultaneously.

By the end of the war, 1783, the Americans were technically the winner, but in reality complete losers, because we had no money, nothing but debts, no agreement on the future; only a collection of states concerned with their own prosperity.

Early in the war Canada was a foreign power playing a significant position; years later France had a very pivotal role; the Dutch became critical lenders.

Brilliant individuals such as Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and of course Washington became the new leaders of the United States and our Constitution.

You can see that the topics which can be considered are endless. There will also be book reviews of excellent texts.

2010 will be exciting. Please join me and comment on our blog. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage – Book Review

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 05:01:00 +0000

Christmas brought a nice addition to the library here for Friends of 1776. A lot has been written about this famous Presidential marriage, their letters, and the well-known salutation, “My dearest friend”.

This book is not about the many letters and wide variety of topics they cover, although Gelles quotes extensively from them. Rather, this book is biographical n scope, bringing great detail to the personality traits of both people. This marriage had its share of triumph, great personal tragedy, and strong disagreements. If I can describe the marriage in a few words, it was a marriage of separation. Nothing turned out as one might expect. The author focuses on Abigail in greater detail than for John. She was a typical late 18th century woman, from a solid “good family”. She was also brilliant, very intelligent, and surprisingly modern in outlook.

Considering what Abigail had to face, alone, over decades, I have no idea how she coped. Fortunately, in spite of many periods of illness, for children and family, she had basically a healthy constitution.

When illness struck around her, she did what she had to do. She was not a whiner. She knew how to pick extraordinary friends. Many of the letters’ substance are dominated by domestic problems. Why did this happen? Gelles effectively explains that from the beginning of their marriage, John more and more abdicated home life for a life of public service, calling for prolonged absences from Massachusetts and his growing family. Once, later, it was for five years!

Also, the extraordinary time it took for correspondence to reach its destination, weeks, often months, left Abigail to often have little contact with John. The time factor for correspondence is well handled in this book.

In a way, the marriage was very modern. Leaving Abigail at home on the farm in the Boston suburb (Braintree), John goes to the city to pursue his career and financial future. People recognized his talents quickly. He was invited to join he right political and legal organizations, where he rapidly met many influential people. In many modern marriages, he would catch a late commuter train, meanwhile leaving his wife to deal with the plumber and the children’s schools.

When Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence, it was John Adams who put it into place. John earlier had recognized the special talents of George Washington and pushed for his selection of general of our revolutionary army. But the more John rose in importance and prestige, the less chance he had to build his wealth. His earlier highly esteemed legal practice couldn’t grow. Thank goodness for Abigail’s abundant energy; much later Abigail was essentially the family financial manager. Her aim was not to amass riches, but to stay out of debt, the danger was all farming operations. She was successful at that. It showed again that in this marriage, both partners were good at what they did. Throughout these long years, they maintained their mutual affection and respect. They never took each other for granted.

So many years of their marriage played out in the Revolutionary War, with campaigns and battles over a large area. I do criticize this book for rather neglecting the military history. Important, decisive battles are often given scant attention. But maybe this can be justified by the fact that John was never a military leader.

Everything in Abigail’s background would predict that she was a sober, righteous New England housewife. But when she began to accompany John on diplomatic missions, she acquired an elegance and culture perfectly suited to her new social position (particularly in Paris and later London). She maintained a friendship with Jefferson. She attended the theater, ballet, concerts and recitals, and saw important landmarks as a tourist. She began to enjoy and appreciate some of the outstanding furniture and décor of the late 18th century. She was no country bumpkin from the farm.

Did John miss a great deal because his family life was essentially subject to the demands of his public life? I think you will judge this for yourself.

If anything, the devotion and compatibility in this marriage was particularly strong in their later years. Deaths of adult children were a terrible grief for them, but not described as morbid. The presence of many grandchildren was a great satisfaction and happiness for them now being together, retired, back on the farm, John’s most lasting preference for his whole life.

This portrait of a marriage shows why it earned an absolute right to be considered an outstanding Presidential marriage. Maybe Jack and Jackie Kennedy’s much briefer days together as celebrities also earned an outstanding designation, or perhaps that of Franklin and Eleanor.

But Gelles has drawn up a portrait of two extraordinary people, living in extraordinary times. I don’t think a reader will ever tire of them. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Abigail: 1744 – 1818; John: 1735 – 1826
Lived in Braintree, Family Farm
Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage Edith B. Gelles, author. William Morrow, 2009. 285 pp.

Notes: Over a century later another celebrated marriage, that of the last Czar and Czarina of Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra, was also known for their voluminous correspondence through tumultuous times. See A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra Their Own Story. Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko. Doubleday, 1997. 667 pp.

Supplying the Troops at Valley Forge

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:20:00 +0000

In the movie version of Steinbeck’s East of Eden, Cal, played by the incomparable James Dean, wants to know if growing beans will make money when America is in World War I.

Question: Is war good for business?
Answer from a family business acquaintance: The best there is!

Generally, business prospers in war. Included are contractors, suppliers, manufacturers. It isn’t just for obtaining food, but all kinds of commodities that people want and are in short supply.

The winter of 1777 that our troops spent at Valley Forge certainly made money for some people, but not the soldiers. They were literally starving. But many people in the supply chain made lots of money, particularly contractors. These worked in a state of confusion and avarice. It was very difficult to find competent administrators for the quartermaster corps. Both the army and Congress despaired of ever finding an honest contractor.

In the Revolutionary War, nobody wanted to fight in the winter. Harsh weather, impassible roads, and a lack of supplies had Washington convinced that he didn’t want to “winter” his troops at Valley Forge, 25 mile northwest of Philadelphia. He just wanted to leave the whole area. But in 1777 the Pennsylvania Assembly wanted Washington’s troops to remain as a defensive maneuver. So the soldiers marched into a frozen wilderness. What they found was no shelter, no winter clothing, shortage of food and water, no sanitation, and constant threat of disease. A more unsuitable location could not have been found.

Washington’s first priority was bringing some rough shelter into the camp, and a basic food supply. Washington now had to rely on contractors, who knew every trick in the book.

As for delivery of food, critical from the beginning, much of it was of poor or downright dangerous quality. Some food was blatantly traded to the British, who paid in hard currency rather than accepting paper money. Attempts to install price controls only drove prices to below market value. Some farmers would not trade with the army at all; they found better markets at other locations to be far more lucrative.

With administration in confusion, constant inefficiency, and contractor dishonesty, it was no wonder that soldiers were starving. The whole situation was a disaster. It was a miracle that troops tolerated the conditions throughout this winter. It wasn’t even that severe, just normal for the time of year.

Contractor problems have always persisted. In all fairness, it’s got to be remembered that a lot of the quartermastering had to be done very quickly with little supervision. The supervisor has to ideally be a combination manager, accountant, and often engineer; above all, a wheeler dealer. Who is trained for all that?

In the current Iraq war, we have heard many times about Cheney-Halliburton contract problems. Private business suddenly working in a military setting creates special problems.

How many four-star generals come from a background of the quartermaster corps?

Fifty years ago, Blake Edwards cast Cary Grant and Tony Curtis in a light, very amusing movie, Operation Petticoat, set in the Philippines in 1941. Everything is confused; everyone is trying to deal with supplies the best way they can, which is generally no way at all. But junior officer Curtis has a flair for quartermastering. He is clever and at times quite dishonest. He delivers one line which suits his role perfectly: “In confusion lies profit”.

Washington needed the skills of a Tony Curtis character desperately at Valley Forge. Curtis would have outsmarted every contractor hands down. Probably he would have stolen enough money, and not the paper kind either, to obtain enough food and labor to make the soldiers’ lives more tolerable. For him, enemies were those who wouldn’t trade what he needed. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Friends of 1776 Holiday Wish List

Shays' Rebellion

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:02:00 +0000

I apologize for the interval between this post and the previous one, Pulaski, due to a personal emergency. So now I have to make up for this gap with more posts of interest to you. But I won’t tell you the subjects; they should be a surprise.

Just a year before our Constitution (1787), the new United States had a rebellion. The insurgents were farmers in Western Massachusetts. Where else? Massachusetts was always in a state of unrest and rebellion during the period of our revolution. The leader of this rebellion was Daniel Shays, a farmer of modest means, and it took everyone by surprise and alarm. The fact that it occurred at all was believed to be a major reason that our Constitution was put in place.

Shays' Rebellion was about money and debt.

The war had created a lot of profit for some in Massachusetts, particularly in Boston. There were also a lot of debts. Some of the successful investors bought a lot of the mortgage notes of the hard-working farmers. The investors had also lent a lot of money to the state. When the occasion arose, they expected to be paid, and not with worthless paper currency. They also had powerful interests in the Legislature.

However, the farmers weren’t doing so well. Harsh taxes, a depressed business climate because the war was over. That awful word, foreclosure, was facing a lot of them. They had vigorously petitioned the Legislature for relief, and got nowhere. It was time for strong action.

Shays and his followers (500 – 1000, the number is not quoted consistently, with wildly inflated rumors), many putting on their old Continental uniforms, went on the march. Destination, Hampshire County Court. This plan was quite practical. Since foreclosure was a legal process, if a courthouse was essentially shut down, that would delay any proceedings.

The farmers got little if no support. Instead, reaction was swift, punitive, and entirely hostile. Washington declared that the campaign of the farmers was disgusting. Even Sam Adams, that perennial supporter of revolt, did a complete about face and called the rebels traitors.

Hancock sat out all the trouble. Militia hounded the farmers, imprisoned them, labeled them traitors. Shays had fled Massachusetts for safety, but was declared a traitor in absentia anyway and sentenced to death.

The rebels’ cause, which seemed so hopeless, did take a brighter turn. The next Massachusetts legislature was far more sympathetic to the farmers. Some remedies at least were started. Hancock was governor again and pardoned Shays.

But the impact of their rebellion persisted. The rich were frightened; the new country was very fragile. It’s good we had the bold ideas and practical applications of an Alexander Hamilton. Financial problems continued to persist.

I think farmers have always been treated harshly, all over the world. It’s a very hard occupation, 24 / 7, with disaster just around the corner: weather, precipitation, pests, and some very hard government policies, such as estate taxes, land taxes, and regulations. Today, we have a lot of large farming conglomerates, which has given the industry much more bargaining power and political influence. These huge operations have been blasted for all kinds of reasons, but they keep our food supply steady and available. I think we have the best of both worlds today. We have the huge inventory at the local supermarket, and a growing local supply, often organic.

Growing food yourself is not easy. Your crop of tomatoes, lemons, and vegetables is not exactly cheap. There are problems from nibbling rabbits to every pest known to man. The only remedy is a green thumb. I envy people who have one.

So, zucchini ladies, your home-grown bounty is well-received by me. I like to eat. We all know that a home-grown tomato beats a conglomerate version hands down.

I don’t think the rich Bostonians appreciated their Shays farmers at all. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Casimir Pulaski, Polish Cavalry Officer in Our Revolutionary War

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:43:00 +0000

On November 6, President Obama signed an interesting bill, HJ Res. 26. It proclaimed Casimir Pulaski, a high-ranking Polish nobleman (1745 – 1779), an honorary citizen of the United States. He is only the 7th honoree holding this title. The others are William Penn and his wife Hannah, Lafayette, Winston Churchill, Swede Raoul Wallenberg, who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, and Mother Theresa.

In Poland, Pulaski fought in many campaigns, plots, and insurrections to try and liberate his country from domination, predominantly the Russians.

He was a fugitive from Europe, arriving here to commence a very distinguished reputation as a noted cavalry officer. Saving George Washington’s life at the Battle of Brandywine is attributed to him.

He followed our war into the South, where he fought in tough battles, including Charleston and Savannah, where he was mortally wounded in 1779.

I’m not sure that Pulaski is generally that well-known all across the country, so I was amazed how many places and events are named after him. The list is quite extensive, including counties, some cities, schools, highways, and festivals.

Pulaski is an excellent example of the committed role foreigners played in our Revolution. Lafayette and the French of course come to mind immediately.

Locally, I often notice names assigned to highways, bridges, and other public venues. Generally, I don’t recognize the names at all. They deserve more publicity. The have all contributed in some major way to be commemorated. It’s very fitting that Pulaski has been.

The President and this bill are a good fit. He calls Chicago home. The city has a very large number of Polish Americans; they exert considerable influence politically and culturally. They regard Pulaski as one of their own. –Renata Breisacher Mulry

Friends of 1776 Holiday Wish List

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:18:00 +0000

With Christmas and all the other celebrations just a few weeks away, a lot of people think about gifts, friends, family, travel … I hope a lot of pleasant things.

Friends of 1776 isn’t going to be left out.

So I’ve prepared a short list, what else, for your consideration and approval. Please add your personal wishes to our Web site. We are interested.

Let’s start with a few gift suggestions, books and movies / DVDs. (All citations appear at end of post.)

Obviously, a lot of books are available of interest to Friends of 1776. Many have been mentioned here before. Some are quite long, well-researched, quite scholarly. They may not be so easy to read. They often have excellent notes and bibliographies.

Here are the selections: Berkin’s A Brilliant Solution, on the formation of the American Constitution, and Kitman, The Making of the Prefident 1789, a very humorous, irreverent retelling of Washington’s first Presidential campaign. You can obtain these books with confidence that they will make good gifts.

Selecting movies / DVDs was more difficult. There is not all that much out there. I had to stretch our interest quotient quite a bit. Keeping in mind that perennial favorite, HBO’s John Adams, in conjunction with the original book, McCullough’s John Adams, three movies are suggested. All have broad appeal, lasting interest, and excellent production.

One is Amazing Grace, the biography of the British abolitionist William Wilberforce and his decades-long struggle to finally end British slave trade. In the United States, it affected how we conducted our slave trade for decades longer.

Another is that stunning remake of The Last of the Mohicans, with Daniel Day Lewis, set at the time of the French and Indian War (1757), which defined the colonies as geographical areas. This war was the foundation of our independence only twenty years later.

That bright, patriotic musical 1776 brings out effectively the many differing attitudes about independence at the 2nd Continental Congress. There was no uniformity of opinion. This movie also hints at the danger facing those who considered independence at all. This movie would make a nice gift for all ages and backgrounds.

For holiday travel, a popular pastime, consider the following: a trip to scenic Virginia, touring the homes and lands of important men in our Revolution, in addition to those of the Founding Fathers. It’s significant that of the first nine presidential terms, eight were filled by Virginians!

Now for some wishes of longer duration. Many military campaigns of our Revolution had unique locations, strategies, and outcomes. Not all were victories by any means. I would really wish that Friends of 1776 was the sponsor and organizer of a military history lecture series for the American Revolution. Of course, lecturers from the Pentagon, West Point, the Department of Defense, etc. are very welcome. But we don’t need t be greedy. Here in the proximity we have the huge Marine base Camp Pendleton and there’s plenty of talent there!

When was the last time you were in a bookstore and you really could talk books with the seller? In a book chain, are you kidding? If you have such a store, treasure it, because economic forecasts for these are always dismal.

How about a wish-bookstore, “U.S. History in Print”, well-located, smallish, its owners not dependent on it for their living expenses, or else this store will fail. But millions of well-pensioned retirees are entering the market now, so the time may actually never be better.

I don’t recommend locating and competing with an academic bookstore; students do not have money for buying books, not even for those they have to buy. I’d rather locate it in a smaller city a little off the beaten track. That’s where you’ll find browsing interest, time, and money!

Hopefully, U.S. Constitution Day (September 17, 1787) will be considered as a national holiday (as already suggested in a previous post).

A very personal wish: that Friends of 1776 holds an annual meeting, maybe around George Washington’s birthday, with lots of input, good company, and probably a speaker. All of our Founding Fathers, with very few exceptions, were very active in social activities, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t copy them.

And as a final wish, in this world today, a lot more freedom and democracy, and a lot less poverty and illness.

It’s going to be 2010.

It’s time. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Citations

A Brilliant Solution: inventing the American Constitution. Carol Berkin. A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc. 2002. 310 pp.

The Making of the Prefident 1789. Marvin Kitman. Grove Press. 1989. 358 pp.

Amazing Grace. 2007. Michael Apted, Director. Movie.

The Last of the Mohicans. 1992. Michael Mann, Director. Movie.

1776. Released in 1972. Peter H. Hunt, Director. Movie.

Your Most Outstanding Revolutionary War Personality? Mine is John Hancock

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:57:00 +0000

Some months ago, I was interested in which Founding Father you considered the greatest. My choice was John Adams. This may have come as a surprise, but his intellect and perseverance to the cause of American independence was unparalleled. Your responses didn’t agree with mine at all.

It’s time for another questionnaire. Just which Revolutionary War personality is your favorite? Let’s omit the Founding Fathers because the results would be badly slanted. Otherwise, your choice could be from any colony or background. Giving a reason for your choice would add a great deal.

My selection is John Hancock, without hesitation.

What, you protest, that incorrigible smuggler, making himself the richest man in Boston in the process?

Let’s not forget that smuggling was a well-established component of the colonial economic system. It was anti-British, anti-tax. Hancock always drove the British nuts.

In fact, one of Hancock’s smuggling adventures can be considered a smoldering cause of the American Revolution. In response to his ownership and operation of the wine smuggler “Liberty”, aptly named, the British sent troops to Boston (1768).

Hancock was all-business, all the time. It helped define him. He was, in my opinion, a completely contemporary man. He would have fitted right in with the CEOs of today. I don’t think of him as a man of memorable speeches or resounding patriotic words. For me, he was always a man of action.

His personality left things to be desired. He had a colossal ego, great ambition. Is this bad? Most powerful men have these qualities. I like his raw courage. He was always on the run from the British. He was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. That made him a traitor.

Maybe it’s stretching a point, but you could consider him America’s first President. At the 2nd Continental Congress in 1776, he was the President of that Congress. He had a great deal of authority. But he never became President of the United States.

His antipathy towards Washington as commander-in-chief was not just completely unfounded. Washington had no real track record. The little he had was less than distinguished. Besides, Hancock, in typical fashion, considered himself a far better choice. This man was no shrinking violet. I like his confidence.

He went on to become governor of Massachusetts for nine terms. The great unrest of farmers in that state around 1786, the Shay’s Rebellion, was a wake-up call against uncontrolled taxation and rural hardship. When Hancock was reelected with a new, sympathetic legislature in 1788, I think he did a smart thing. He pardoned Shays and instituted a series of fiscal reforms, not a complete solution but a start.

The proposed Constitution was a real dilemma for Hancock, and I think he handled it as you would expect, considering the personal business aspect. Hancock was no Federalist; far from it. He was persuaded though to support the Constitution when he was promised a Bill of Rights (to curtail its power) and a federal office. The latter obviously would improve his financial profile.

Hancock did not live long enough (1793) to influence the pivotal financial years of the early republic after 1789. But I think his contribution would have been based on sound business practices, a solid tax code, no huge deficits and a social program which requires that everyone contributes.

Is that all wishful thinking? – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Friends of 1776 on Facebook

The Lottery Wars -- Book Review

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:13:00 +0000

Gambling can generate big news. Several days ago, Michael Hiltzik (Los Angeles Times, Business, October 19, 2009) wrote about “calling America’s bluff on online gambling”. The Internet may undergo a dramatic change. Barney Frank (D – Massachusetts, which is a very successful lottery state) is pushing legislation to repeal a federal ban on Internet gambling.

If you can’t eradicate, regulate and take a big chunk out of the wages of sin while you’re at it.

Currently, the Internet has many legal issues. There are some elements which many do not consider suitable for the Internet at all. Financially, collection of sales taxes from state to state has never been settled. For moralists and many politicians, it is considered out of sufficient public scrutiny and particularly dangerous for the young. The usual treatment? Prohibition.

Lotteries have always been part of our colonial history. In 1754, Virginia authorized a lottery to fight the French and Indian War. In 1769, George Washington managed a lottery in Williamsburg. During our Revolutionary War, they raised money for fighting. After the war, they helped sustain the new and struggling country.

Lotteries have always been at war with causes, people, and politicians. Alexander Hamilton liked them, so I guess that his support generated strong opposition. In the decades since 1776, lotteries have gone boom or bust. They have been praised or banned. Only recently, since most states now have official lotteries, they have achieved a certain respectability. After all, they support good works, such as education.

Therefore, adding a new book, The Lottery Wars, to the Friends of 1776 library, seems timely and well-worth reading. The title describes the contents as “Long Odds, Fast Money, and the Battle Over an American Institution”. In spite of the millions who consider gambling a sin, it has never stopped.

This book makes for some very interesting reading. It is crammed full of facts including names and dates. It does not really write about gambling wars as a straight historical text. Rather, it focuses on winners and losers, who gambles and how, and the public fascination with those who win. What is that really like?

A great deal of The Lottery Wars focuses on the public side of lotteries, the business, including many pages exclusively on Joan Borucki, appointed California State Lottery chief in 2007. Her chief goal was to improve the whole financial position of the lottery, and therefore generate more revenue for the state, including education. The California lottery had been badly lagging. Better distribution of sales became very necessary. Tickets went into Big Retail. The $20 lottery ticket began to be accepted.

There is talk of privatizing the whole operation. States would get their money, up front, lots of it, but that would be it. Then the owner keeps the profits. There are a lot of financial and ethical issues with this proposal.

The book differentiates well between how official government regards the lottery and the players’ view. With government, you don’t consider sin, but marketing, growth, sales; it’s a business seminar. The player wants to know how much are the tickets, where are they, what are the prizes. A winner comes well-prepared with an attorney, tax accountant, financial advisor, who else knows what.

Groups, often employees, buy tickets together. I like this; there’s better organization and planning this way. More people have a chance to win something. The office football pool is a popular private lottery. You put your money in, if you win, you get everyone’s. I hope there are no expenses.

Do I gamble the state lottery? No, but I do participate in sweepstakes, a private lottery, run by Publishers’ Clearing House. This has gone on for years. There are good prices for popular magazines I sometimes order. Then I’m entered into the sweepstakes. Actually, I don’t have to order anything, just send in the entry. The payouts are quite high. Will I win? Are you kidding? But when I do, I’ve already made big plans on how to spend the money. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

The Lottery Wars: Long Odds, Fast Money, and the Battle Over an American Institution. Matthew Sweeney. Bloomsbury, 2009. 295 pp.

Gambling in America

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:32:00 +0000

Gambling, gaming, cards, lotteries, racing – they were an integral part of daily life during America’s Revolution. Frequenting gaming parlors and taverns was considered pleasant entertainment for aristocratic gentlemen. They were sophisticated and good company. Whatever criticism was out there, the general population cast away its doubts and gambled also.

Washington gambled all his life. He did what well-bred gentlemen did. After all, that’s what he wanted to be.

In the years since, public perception has varied widely. Lotteries, for instance, have achieved a certain respectability because they can help fund civic projects. In 1777 our Founding Fathers realized the value of lotteries to try to fund a war for which they essentially had no steady revenue. Lotteries weren’t a tax, which boosted their approval.

Today, most states run a lottery. The pay-off is good, it’s all legal, and it’s very easy to play. How much revenue for the state is generated is never completely clear to me. Schools are supposed to be large beneficiaries.

America is addicted to gambling, on anything, anytime, everywhere. Ominous facts about its effects on society have never made any difference. During our prohibition years, gambling (and alcohol) just went underground.

Washington’s troops carried their playing cards into battle. In lean times, they gambled who would get something to eat, even acorns. Washington, in a fine show of hypocrisy, was so concerned about rampant gambling in the ranks that he sent out orders to try and curtail the excessive wagering.

Gambling became an established part of US history. The Mississippi river boats plied their trade successfully. In the “Old West” every community had its representative gambling parlor, with entertainment, liquor, and probably ladies of easier virtue. Men, when not chasing outlaws, were playing and quarreling over poker. Today, casinos have become a glittering destination for serious card playing, slots, good food and accommodations, and of course, entertainment.

Alexander Hamilton, our new country’s money man, had practical ideas on how to sell lottery tickets. Make the tickets cheap. Concentrate on big pay-offs. And for state lotteries, sell ticket by their borders to entice neighbors.

Gambling was always part of our earlier culture. It helped found the colony of Virginia. There was always great dissent, as noted previously.

Americans were so fond of playing cards that when the Stamp Act (1765) included a tax on playing cards, it aroused fury. Our Declaration of Independence was declared only eleven years later!

Is it a sin, to use that potent term, ruining the very fabric of our society? Well, consider a front page article in the LA Times 10/16/2009, describing how a 97 year old woman and two sons in their sixties live in a ’73 Suburban on the streets. Among the items on the dash: lottery tickets.

Private lotteries – the raffle – are very prevalent today. Generally, they are smaller, entry is much cheaper, prizes are smaller, well, mostly. You buy a fifty cent raffle ticket, win a dozen prize cupcakes, and everyone is happy You betcha! –Renata Breisacher Mulry

Smuggling and the American Revolution

Revolution -- Movie Review

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:45:00 +0000

I am very afraid of revolutions.

They are violent, unpredictable, original rebels often end up as strongmen or dictators. Just consider Castro. Or more recently, the strong man of Chechnya, Kadyrov. Usually the evils of a previous regime are substituted with a situation just as bad or worse.

There are great hordes of refugees; many lives are ruined for ever.

Our Revolution produced a huge contemporary upheaval in France, 1789. That started out to bring freedom to the citizens, but what did they get instead? The Reign of Terror.

I don’t think France ever really recovered. In the next century, it lost part of its mainland, Alsace-Lorraine, to the Germans. Sure it got it back, at the end of World War I, but at a terrible price.

Revolutions in the 20th century involved millions; we still live with the effects of those in Russia and China and many others. Often there is a raging civil war which accompanies them. There are smaller revolutions usually focused on a specific group of people. They are designated as rebellions, insurrections, civil unrests, military coups.

Much closer to home, Mexico was riddled with revolution till practically World War II. A civil unrest in Sri Lanka has just concluded after decades. In Spain, Basque separatists still surface periodically to inflict terrorist damages.

Do Revolutions produce anything of value? Probably, very very little. But usually the average revolutionary follower is pretty desperate. There likely is no way to redress glaring problems and injustice. Consider the case of Russia. The last Tsar likely would have gradually adopted a more constitutional monarchy. Nobody was willing to wait for this. Instead, the rebel leaders promised people the moon, prosperity, a new order, freedom. None of this happened.

Then what is the amazing difference between our revolution and others? Most significantly, ours did not produce a dictator. We finished a war, signed a peace treaty, wrote a permanent constitution and concentrated on domestic affairs. Our issues with George III and Great Britain were over. Today, our former adversary is considered our oldest and strongest ally. Where else do you find that?

Revolutions have produced some memorable books and movies. The classic A Tale of Two Cities captures the danger of the French Revolution. The romantic Dr. Zhivago plays at the height of the horrendous Russian Revolution. The Spanish Civil War is the the background for Hemingway’s tragic For Whom the Bell Tolls. Marlon Brando portrays the Mexican Revolutionary Zapata in Viva Zapata.

The American Revolution has produced countless history books and documentaries, but I don’t find that much entertainment. So I wanted to mention that I just finished watching a rather interesting movie, with an unusual history. It was made originally in 1985, but was not well received at the time. Revolution: Revisited has just been remastered, with narration and a new introduction.

Al Pacino plays the lead, a very reluctant common revolutionary foot soldier. It’s not his fight, he states often; he doesn’t understand the burning issues which have mobilized people into revolt. He is press ganged into service, separated from his young son, who was tricked into joining up for a few shillings.

The American forces are ragged, ill-treated. They have nothing. But their cause is noble and patriotic; at least that’s what the recruiters tell them. I thought the plight of the common soldier was well portrayed.

What Pacino wants is to just find his son. His wife and other children perished with “fever”. He is doubly desperate. His sole support, a boat, has been commandeered from him with a worthless US chit. He doesn’t read, which would help him understand official-looking documents. The movie script is not strong or that logical. Pacino does find his son, and now they can plan to escape the bedlam around them. A fiercely patriotic girl, but from a loyalist family, turns up in a few confusing scenes. Confusion in some movie scripts seems to be a hazard for me. Strong regional accents don’t help.

Pacino is never converted to the revolution’s patriotic cause. Oh sure, the end of the movie expresses some inspiring sentiments, but I found them superfluous.

This is one man’s story. However, the end of this movie has a scene which I thought was good and very accurate. Pacino is shortchanged on his military pay. Worse, the 150 acres of land he has been promised are non-existent. The have been speculated away to help pay for the war. So Pacino, at the end, still has nothing. This scene shows well the classic case of a hapless citizen trying to deal with government bureaucracy. You may root for these citizens with all your might, but you know they don’t stand a ghost of a chance.

The musical score by John Corigliano throughout is good.

There are quite a few crowd scenes which seem amateurish. The extras are not well directed. One encouraging thing, though: I liked this movie a lot better the second time around.

My rating: a B-. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Follow me on Twitter!

What is Our Bill of Rights?

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:20:00 +0000

We had another constitutional milestone to commemorate this September.

On September 25, 1789, the 1st U.S. Congress sent twelve constitutional amendments to the states for ratification. This was completed on December 15, 1791. The first ten became our Bill of Rights. The United States had become a nation.

Many outspoken proponents of U.S. independence from Great Britain were fervent anti-Federalists. Patrick Henry was a strong opponent. Good Lord, we had just fought a long and bitter war to secure our independence, and now we should turn around and become again subjects of a powerful central Federal government? We had our Articles of Confederation between the states; people were doing fine. A Federal government would only diminish the power of the states; maybe eventually make them disappear altogether.

However, the formation of a Bill of Rights was supported by many anti-Federalists, including John Hancock. They saw that a recitation of citizens’ rights would serve as a powerful antidote against any central government’s attempt to usurp states’ authority. A Bill of Rights would be our protection against large, corrupt government.

I feel that maybe a lot of deals were struck in state legislatures during the ratification process. The Federalists felt that a Bill of Rights would vastly improve citizens’ confidence in a new government: it didn’t have carte blanche to do whatever it wanted.

Yesterday, I heard the expression “Bill of Rights” on a radio news show. It really caught my ear! If you think about it, we don’t hear the expression all that often. The fact that the first ten amendments are our Bill of Rights may not be recognized all that often either. Also, these amendments are referred to by number, such as the 1st, freedom of speech, the 2nd, right to own weapons, etc.

What concepts do these amendments predominantly contain?
1. No restriction by Congress on free speech, religion, the press, the right to assemble.
2. The right to own weapons.
3. Military can’t be billeted in peoples’ homes, without permission. This was very pertinent at the time of our revolution.
4. No unreasonable search and seizure. This amendment has received a lot of attention because of car searches.
5. No accusation for a crime without a formal indictment. Due process. No double jeopardy. No taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The latter has received a lot of attention. The emphasis is on just.
6. A speedy and public trial. To see witnesses. Counsel for defense. Right to counsel was treated quite casually until the Gideon decision in 1963.
7. Trial by jury.
8. No excessive bail. No cruel or unusual punishment.
9. Certain rights not denied to the people. All the rights not set out by the government.
10. States’ rights.

I have not found the Bill of Rights printed independently from the Constitution in sources I’ve used, except in the classic Miracle at Philadelphia*.

Looking over this list, I’m going to say that the Supreme Court spends a lot of time debating the meaning and limitations of amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10.

All of the amendments have over the years been legally examined, debated, tweaked, and even restricted. It depends on the philosophical make-up of the current court. Many amendments have been added since 1791. Certainly, our 13th amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude would find a place in the Bill of Rights today.

Most of the Bill of Rights is taken more or less for granted by us. This is good, because it shows that the bill is firmly a part of our national structure. A lot of the world doesn’t have a semblance of a Bill of Rights, including no freedom of speech, no free press, no freedom of assembly, no speedy public trial. What a permanent credit to so many individuals at the time of our revolution who saw the Bill of Rights as protection against repressive and corrupt government.

People propose adding new amendments all the time, often for the most partisan of issues. Let’s resist this urge! Amendments should be few and far between. Otherwise, we’ll be forced to double the size of the Supreme Court to figure out what all this new legislation really says. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Reading:

*Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787.Catherine Drinker Bowen. An Atlantic Monthly Press Book, 1966. 346 pp.

Gideon's Trumpet

Retained by the People: The "Silent" Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have

The Madness of King George -- Movie Review

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:08:00 +0000

The Madness of King George has an outstanding cast, excellent production, beautiful music adapted from Handel. It received the Art Direction Oscar in 1994. I wouldn’t buy it as a gift or even watch it for any type of relaxing entertainment. The theme of this movie is far too intense. I didn’t enjoy watching it, but I’m glad I did. Nigel Hawthorne is outstanding as King George.

George III was the last King of America. Our Declaration of Independence paints a scathing portrait of him, evil, tyrannical, all the reasons for the American Revolution. Much of this is unwarranted.

We weren’t so much anti-monarchy; we just didn’t want George III. In fact, at the constitutional debates, the proposal to have a king was actively discussed.

The subject of this movie is why did George, at the mid-point of his long life (1738 – 1820) begin to exhibit such strange behavior and how did people handle it? It is at times quite a terrifying story.

The movie begins in 1788. The king still refers to America as the “colonies, and his powerful Prime Minister Pitt reminds him that America is now a new country.

George is showing increasing signs of his life-shattering illness. We now believe that the illness was porphyria, which causes irrational speech and bizarre behavior. There are remissions, which George experienced. The disease has never been completely diagnosed in him, although the suspicions are very strong. Symptoms may have been present years before.

It exposed him to the appalling medial treatment of the time. His high rank did not protect him. As his symptoms at times intensified, there was a lot of political talk about establishing a regency with his eldest son, George, indolent, immoral, championed by Fox, a leading political leader strongly disliked by the King. The Prime Minister, Pitt, was against it. King George knew that Fox had a very bad influence on his son.

The medical treatment at times became very harsh, and the movie spares nothing to describe it. George showed great courage against hopeless odds. I feel great sadness for him.

The movie is described as a comic biopic. I couldn’t disagree more. Oh sure, there are amusing comments, but generally the mood is very dark. The genuine affection between George and his wife is very touching. It does not diminish, although the doctors separate them in his illness.

The movie ends of a brighter note. The Kin is in remission, so there is no need for a regency. He waves and basks in the roar of the cheering crowds. His family is with him, even the regent, whom the father heartily despises.

Today, the British monarchy is fully constitutional, which means it doesn’t have a lot to do. It receives visitors, goes on vacations, and sometimes makes goodwill tours. There is also parliamentary protocol which sometimes needs attention.

Above all, the tabloid-featured Royal Family is very good for tourism. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Media Mania from FriendsOf1776: Sweet Liberty; 1776; The Patriot; Liberty! PBS Series

Commemorating our Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:31:00 +0000

I wish today was a holiday.

On September 17, 1787, the mostly upper-class, propertied men at the Constitutional Convention had finally come out of their political hiding and were told that the Constitution was complete. It could now go to the states for ratification. It needed nine states to approve this.

The outcome was no sure thing. Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in strong disagreement for the need of a central government at all. Many strong Anti-Federalists believed that the final outcome of the Constitution would be to get rid of the states altogether. Many esteemed patriots, including John Hancock and Patrick Henry, were very much against ratification. There was strong interest in how three larger states would vote.

In Massachusetts, John Hancock, was very outspoken about his lack of support. But ever business-minded, he was a late convert. The possibility of a Federal appointment and a Bill of Rights were two issues important to him. Madison worked constantly to accomplish the latter.

The results in Virginia and New York were very close. Patrick Henry, powerful orator as always, felt that Virginians were doing very well under the Articles of Confederation, and didn’t need a Constitution at all.

The The Federalist Papers were a strong advocate for ratification. But it’s important to realize that ratification was not a public election, although the secrecy of the deliberations was completely changed to a very open process, including an active press.

Our Constitution, in a sense, marks the end of our revolutionary war period. The aim for a separate country free from Great Britain had been realized. Now America had to face new and daunting challenges alone.

Among these was the explosive issue of slavery, which lasted another 78 years! – Renata Breisacher Mulry

The American Revolution Produces Our First Constitution, the Articles of Confederation

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:51:00 +0000

On September 17, we can commemorate our national Constitution, 1787, the one in solid place today, the one that is always being scrutinized, what does it say? That’s what the Supreme Court does.

But less than ten years before, some influential Americans, central government proponents, were looking for a more solid direction for the states, which were going their own way. People weren’t too unhappy about it. After all, they were Virginians or New Yorkers first, or whatever their location, before joining any states’ federation for the common good! And they certainly didn’t want to fund any central government! That was an open invitation to corruption. Look at why they were fighting Great Britain; to be free of that uncontrolled power.

The 2nd Continental Congress began to consider the Articles of Confederation, the “United States of America”, in 1776 – 1777.

It was an attempt to designate what, if any, role could be better handled by the states together. From the beginning, dissension between the central versus anti-central government supporters was intense. Funding for a Confederation was actually non-existent, because the states generally never paid their assessments. The states retained enormous power. Over the long run, the articles would be untenable.

They were not ratified until 1781, over the contentious issue of how new states should be admitted. The 13 articles withered on the vine. Their most ferocious critic was, you guessed it, Alexander Hamilton. His message was, “I told you so!”

He saw, that with their financial structure, they were doomed. After a few years, many of the delegates to the Confederation government showed little interest in the proceedings.

There was nothing democratic about how delegates were selected. Many you could identify as machine politicians. The franchise was restricted to those with power and property. No others need apply. Changing this has been unbelievably slow. Consider that women didn’t get the vote until 1920 and poll taxes weren’t eliminated until 1964!

I believe that war (World War I and Vietnam here) seems to produce great domestic changes.

There is some technical quibbling on whether the Articles are a constitution at all. Well, they sound awfully like a constitution to me! The states are all included; the same articles apply to all of them. They are intended to be perpetual, not change every three months. There are rules on how and when delegates may serve. We have that in our present constitution.

A difference is that the powers retained by the states are far greater, although this issue is not completely resolved today.

The Articles did consider some very important issues though. Their main purpose was to prevent states from individually waging wars, making alliances, running as individual countries. There were questions if states could retain armies and navies. Militias were okay. Did citizens had the right to move unhindered from state to state? Issues such as extradition for criminals were considered. The Confederation was to be the final arbiter of disputes between states and it alone could regulate currency. Today, we take these issues either for granted, or look to our Supreme Court to resolve them.

Since the states still held the “power of the purse” and Alexander Hamilton’s objections were correct, it was time for something new. So in 1787, we wrote our second constitution. It’s the one that’s around today.

Please note: I found very clear and engaging testimony in the following source: Carol Berkin, A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Inc., 2002. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Causes of the American Revolution: Part 6 – more on Boston, the Boston Massacre

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:58:00 +0000

Massacre is a very ominous word.

Some of history’s most notorious events have this term attached to them. It certainly doesn’t fit what happened in icy Boston on March 1770.

We know relations in Boston and the “British Garrison” had deteriorated rapidly since 1768, when British troops were posted in the city after a serious smuggling incident.

Much of Boston’s volatile street rabble had practically declared open warfare on the British soldiers. This rabble was manipulated by radicals (including Sam Adams) to further their agenda. This was basically “get the British out of Boston, Massachusetts and the rest of colonies”.

In March 1770, the situation in Boston came to a head, with predictable results.

A street mob, many after heavy drinking, was itching for a fight. So they harassed a lone sentry, pelting him with snowballs and chunks of ice. Ten British reinforcements were no match for the menacing crowd.

This was a typical schoolyard bully situation. Pick on someone weaker, taunt them, the victim is outnumbered anyway. Then start the attack.

This was a very, very unfair fight. The results came soon enough. Captain Preston, the British commander, no rookie, was very nervous. The situation was out of control.

A British shot was fired, whether by accident or panic, who knows? Then there were a few more shots. Five Bostonians lay dead.

“Massacre” was the roar of the mob. The British had fired without provocation, wantonly. They will pay for their dastardly deed. Of course, radicals had now just the situation they could exploit, which they began immediately.

For me, the real story starts now. Even today, when a dreadful crime has been committed, and the criminal awaits trial, even with our Constitution and legal safeguards, who would want to defend the obviously guilty person? Forget the process, let the trial begin, pass judgment now.

Fortunately, this doesn’t happen. Of course, the quality of the defense can vary widely. A good lawyer can literally make the difference between life and death. The British soldiers got a very lucky break.

They got the best defense, John Adams, with Josiah Quincy. Adams had no love for the street crowd. He was always very suspicious of the opinion and motivation of any mob. That wasn’t law, that was anarchy.

He did feel that anyone should be defended for a criminal charge, certainly the British. After all, it was a long-held principle of justice.

I don’t feel that the verdict of acquittal for all but two of the soldiers is so amazing. The stories of the witnesses fluctuated widely. Even the jurors must have realized evidence must have some validity, not vary from person to person. Can you imagine the grilling the witnesses got from the defense team?

However, the “Massacre” incident’s notoriety did not subside. Other colonies took up the alleged outrage. The familiar story persists to this day.

However, it does show that even if all you face is an expensive speeding ticket, it will probably pay you to hire a good lawyer! – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Causes of the American Revolution: Part 5 – Boston

George Washington & The Making of the Prefident 1789 by Marvin Kitman

noreply@blogger.com (Friends of 1776 Team) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:21:00 +0000

“Summer reading” is a pleasant tradition, along with holiday movies, Easter brunch, and many others I know you enjoy. I’d like to hear about some of them.

The Los Angeles Times carried a list of books President Obama took on his vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. Included are a couple not considered exactly light reading – John Adams by David McCollough and Tom Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Bookstores often feature crowded tables full of books, many of them classics, considered good candidates for “summer reading”.

Confess now, did you really read all the titles you brought with you? War and Peace doesn’t count!

I am really enjoying Kitman’s The Making of the Prefident 1789: The Unauthorized Campaign Biography. It’s a very funny, very clever, very readable spoof on George Washington. As the Father of our country shall we agree he’s fair game.

What makes a book readable for me? I can open it at any page and find continuity, the book maintains a lively pace, and generally the chapters are short. Kitman’s book is all of the above.

The back cover carries the following description of the book:

In The Making of the President 1789, humorist and self-appointed historian Marvin Kitman satirizes the contemporary “campaign insider” book while making the case that George Washington was not only “First in War, First in Peace” – he was also first among the Founding Fathers in gambling, drinking, and social climbing. And that’s not to mention his weakness for the Founding Girlfriends.

In an irreverent exposé of how the Mount Vernon Machine engineered the first presidential election victory, Kitman sets out to answer the questions: “How is it possible that a man with virtually no military experience becomes a general? He loses more battle than he wins and becomes a war hero? He has absolutely no political opinion in the most sophisticated intellectual period of our history? He has no ambitions, and he wins?”

Washington looked good, married well, that usually means rich. He engaged in wealth-inducing activities such as land speculation. His constant debt was respectable because after all, it was tied to being a large landowner and planter. Above all, he developed the right social graces, cultivating influential people around him.

He was never insignificant.

Even wearing his splendid uniforms was a powerful campaign tactic. His constant professed modesty got him elected unanimously as our first president. Washington had the luck to be in the right place at the right time.

Will I have the chance to read more in these waning days of summer? I have selected Cooperstown Confidential: Heroes, Rogues, and the Inside Story of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I could finish it by the time of the World Series.

We can’t bet on it. But betting always carries with it the element of surprise. – Renata Breisacher Mulry