An Inconvenient History Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remove the biased perspective, I endorse everything this thread establishes.

I would add that you should mention that wealthy New Englanders were either merchants or worked for merchants and thus benefitted financially from slavery, not to dissimilar to the way that Northern Whig Industrialists relied upon cotton for their textile mills thirty years later.

I espescially like the way it connects the modern Republican party to the Federalists, something that is not done enough largely because of over emphasis to the approach to the constitution and size of gov't divorced from the cirumstances as opposed to the "contextual, object of benefit" approach I prefer.

I would point out that even in England there was Conservatism that would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the 16th and 17th century that was coming to the fore in the late 18th century in reaction to the French Revolution, contrasting that of the Glorious Revolution and American Revolution, which had the objective (at least at the start) of restoring the rights of Free Englishman being trampled upon, to the excesses of the French Revolution seeking a complete overthrow of the social structure. 18th Century "Conservative-Liberalism" was hardly a US only phenomenon but perhaps an anglo phenomenon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot wait to see what comes next.

The DRs in becoming the US shortlived single party was characterized by an increasingly "Federalist Looking" leadership and an ever more disappointed and disgruntled core of "true beleivers". This reached its climax with yet another Adam's "being installed" in their view in the White House and hence the reformation of a two party system in the 1820's and 30's. This disappointing leadership dates back to Jefferson first taking office when he upheld large parts of the Federalist Financial system and then used it to buy half a continent, a power his strictly interpretted Constitution did not give him.

Of course the successors to Jefferson's agrarian and anti-elitist ideals were hardly any more consistent or principled in their adherence to or pursuit of such than Jefferson himself was.

I see a man on a horse from a western state when I close my eyes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Excellent thread.

^^^^

I'm glad I'm not one of those liberals who swoon over Hamilton. He was certainly a brilliant man and the aptest statesman of his generation, but his views seem thoroughly awful to me. Despite their obvious issues, I'd be a solid Democratic-Republican supporter back in these days.

The fact that there are still people who don't confuse the means to achieve the desired ends, for the desired ends themselves, proves there is some hope left out there.

They like Hamilton's because he provides "the tools" if you will and ignore the question of why.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So can we expect more here soon?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ah, Mecha?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Washington was not the best military leader, but you fail to account for the fact that the troops he commander were often unrealiable and his subordinates often failed him at every turn, like Sullivan, Gates, Lee and others. Most all of whom had strong bases of political support and favorable connections with members of Congress to the point that they were often foisted on Washington and had to blunder there way out to make way for people he could rely upon like Green, Morgan and Lafayette at the cost of adding to the length of the conflict and causing numerous defeats.

As for the troops themselves, Washington was restrained from raising an all professional force of 20,000 to 40,000 like he had wanted by Congress and yes would have been very well positioned once tried to end the war quickly. Though I would point out that the American supply network was not existent and Washington barely kept the 10,000 and under force of regulars that he had as an organized and effective fighting force, sometimes he has as few as 3,000 men. Washington was required to supplement with large numbers of militia and in a few instances that worked. Prior to Washington's assuming comand in the Boston campaign of 1775 (hardly a campaign, more on impulse then direction) but thousands of militia had harrassed the march back from Lexington and Concord, and then commenced a pathetic siege to the place. One of the few cases were the militia allowed the American's a weight of numerical advantage. The other was the Saratoga campaign, where they managed to outnumber Burgoyne by the end of the campaign. Success attracts support and numbers, who thought. Of course Gates had little to do with the success and was more in the right place at the right time to take credit for the unusual usefullness of the milita, luck, the poor decision making by the British high command (Howe taking Philly instead of coming North) and Arnold's strategic attack at the second battle of Saratoga (which would not have happened had Gate's had is way as he had ordered Arnold to remain in his tent). In every other circumstances, the militia had failed Washington and eventually it got so bad that they essentially had ot place them in such a way on the field so that they either fought or were killed (either by British or American Regulars).

The reason Washington is praised is for his ability to stay in the game with impossible odds. Washington did make mistakes at Brooklyn Heights to be true and listened to the wrong people (Sullivan among them) leaving his flank exposed and then his troops broke and ran, but Washington was able to escape that night and avoid destruction. He made mistakes again and contibuted to the dwindling of his force to be true. Just because he contributed to his dire condition doesn't detract from the fact that with just 2,000 to 3,000 men, Washington manuevered a force ten times his size out of New Jersey in December 1776 and January 1777 with the battles of Trenton, escaping encirclement to attack the force at Princeton and then skedattle to Morristown, a place where the British could not attack him in the Winter, but Washington could threaten the flank of any move into central NJ from New York.

He might not have been perfect, but he was certainly not lacking in strategic talent either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also in criticizing the New York focus, you forget two things. One, the political leadership of the colonies was largely based in the Middle Colonies, and thus well within striking distance of New York. Also, just like in the Civil War, the political leadership demanded that New York be the primary target as Richmond was later insisted upon during that conflict. Secondly, from a military standpoint, the primary focus of the British from 1775 until 1779 was in splitting the colonies in half and subduing New England first, which was seen as the center of the trouble. Even after that though, the British still maintained a sizeable force in New York and attempted one more time in 1780 to take the Hudson River and achive the northern split that had failed twice before (the last of which ending with Burgoyne's Surrender), using the treason of Arnold as a means to capture West Point. New York was also also the base of operations for British both for the Navy and for General Clinton. There was more then enough reason for Washington to remain in the North and focused on New York. Sending him South would be like in the Civil War sending Lee west to face Grant in 1862.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I pre-endorse this coming post.

This is a point that always gets lost.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A magnificent post, should be required reading.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The delay really energized you I see.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One of the sources of this confusion on that regard I think is partially the presumption that the Unitarians was 1) much larger than they really were and 2) more liberal earlier than they actually were. Aside from doctrinal differences and slighly less conservative tone then the dominant Calvinistic Congregationalism they had broken off from, they were rather much in line on most issues. It was not until the mid 19th century that Unitarians began to dive to left in an appreciable sense. Even then the bulk of the Congregationalist churches were decidedly on the right well into the 20th Century. Rural New England didn't move to the left until the mid to late part of the 20th Century.

Would you agree that this religious based conservatism as well as the nativist sentiments whipped up by these WASP elites, served to reduce that "fiery populist" sentiment you mentioned earlier that was directed previous at those elites?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I should also note that John Adams was also a Unitarian, as if another blow was needed to the presumtion of Unitarians as hippies even in the 18th Century.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They also do emphasize the more socially conservative aspects of the anti-slavery movement, to the chagrin of social marxists like myself.

You didn't title it "A Convenient History Thread" after all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh for god sakes man, I been waiting three months and leave me without a single update when I get my internet back.

Yo slippin man, slippin.