Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No standing Army, of course he FEDERALIZED 13,000 troops!
This isn't a revelation.
Of course there wasn't one that large, but there was a small one. Compare Washington's use of locals with Jefferson's Army and Navy enforcing the embargo.
Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume IIn April 1789 Washington became the first President under the new Constitution; on August 7 Congress created the Department of War. There was no change, however, in either the policy or the personnel of the department. General Henry Knox, who had succeeded Washington as commander of the Army and had been handling military affairs under the old form of government, remained in charge. Since there was no navy, a separate department was unnecessary; at first the War Department included naval affairs under its jurisdiction. Harmar, who had been given the rank of brigadier general during the Confederation period, was confirmed in his appointment, as were his officers; and the existing miniscule Army was taken over intact by the new government. In August 1789 this force amounted to about 800 officers and men. All the troops, except the two artillery companies retained after Shays’ Rebellion, were stationed along the Ohio River in a series of forts built after 1785.
So you wont admit it was the overwhelming strength of 13,000 FEDERALIZED troops that put down the traitorous tax scofflaws who first tested the national government's ability to enforce its laws within the states?
I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
.he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another
Africans in America/Part 2/Rough draft of the Declaration
Was Jefferson just talking out of his ass as a way to stick a needle in King George's eye? Because Jefferson himself owned slaves, refused to free slaves, and did in fact use them as collateral for loans.
Is old Tommy the world's biggest hypocrite?
This isn't a revelation.
Of course there wasn't one that large, but there was a small one. Compare Washington's use of locals with Jefferson's Army and Navy enforcing the embargo.
Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I
So you wont admit it was the overwhelming strength of 13,000 FEDERALIZED troops that put down the traitorous tax scofflaws who first tested the national government's ability to enforce its laws within the states?
I have no idea what you think I should 'admit'. Apparently you want to discuss something I didn't say, or you don't want to admit that what Washington did was different than what Jefferson did for some reason. One required local state approval, the other used a Federal Army and a Navy, not local militias.
Good gawd man, go back to school recently? You are mentioning things that are a given in a discussion like this. What is your point again?you mean:
"and he also had to deal with the Federalists packing the Courts and Federal government offices before he became President"
I mean he had to deal with them as President. He was the vice president under Adams, and they knew he proposed not removing people merely based on Party and was trying for a 'meritocracy' in Federal jobs appointments. The Federalists were hoping to take advantage of that by packing Federal courts with judges friendly to them as well as other offices. They did a lot of the packing before he was sworn in and unable to stop them. It was Adams who appointed Marshall, for instance, as well as numerous lower court justices.
John Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also ...
List of federal judges appointed by John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think he appointed around 30 or 40 judges overall. Not sure about other Federal jobs; there is probably a list out there, I just don't feel like looking for it at the moment.
I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
.
Africans in America/Part 2/Rough draft of the Declaration
Was Jefferson just talking out of his ass as a way to stick a needle in King George's eye? Because Jefferson himself owned slaves, refused to free slaves, and did in fact use them as collateral for loans.
Is old Tommy the world's biggest hypocrite?
That is curious because England did not allow slavery and in 1706 ruled that once a slave stepped foot on English soil or aboard a English ship, they became a free man.
Somerset v Stewart (1772) (aka Somersett's case, or in State Trials v.XX Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, though the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous.
Somerset was freed
Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Britain, the 'nefarious trade' and slavery
Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.
Britain, slavery and the trade in enslaved Africans, by Marika Sherwood
Slavery in the British Isles existed from before the Roman occupation. Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest to be replaced by feudalism and serfdom. Slavery was finally abolished throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, with exceptions provided for the East India Company, Ceylon, and Saint Helena. These exceptions were eliminated in 1843.
Forced labour existed between the 17th and 19th centuries in the form of transportation of convicts, and in the workhouse for the poor
Slavery in the British Isles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
thank you [MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION] for the public spanking
This isn't a revelation.
Of course there wasn't one that large, but there was a small one. Compare Washington's use of locals with Jefferson's Army and Navy enforcing the embargo.
Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I
So you wont admit it was the overwhelming strength of 13,000 FEDERALIZED troops that put down the traitorous tax scofflaws who first tested the national government's ability to enforce its laws within the states?
I have no idea what you think I should 'admit'. Apparently you want to discuss something I didn't say, or you don't want to admit that what Washington did was different than what Jefferson did for some reason. One required local state approval, the other used a Federal Army and a Navy, not local militias.
Blah, blah, blah... The United States INHERITED slavery from Great Britain as an essential ingredient of agricultural production. The Founders were in agreement that slavery should be ended, but could not come up with a feasible plan for compensating slave owners and repatriating the freed slaves. This problem continued until the Civil War, when 600,000 American lives were lost to finally resolve it.
Good gawd man, go back to school recently? You are mentioning things that are a given in a discussion like this. What is your point again?you mean:
"and he also had to deal with the Federalists packing the Courts and Federal government offices before he became President"
I mean he had to deal with them as President. He was the vice president under Adams, and they knew he proposed not removing people merely based on Party and was trying for a 'meritocracy' in Federal jobs appointments. The Federalists were hoping to take advantage of that by packing Federal courts with judges friendly to them as well as other offices. They did a lot of the packing before he was sworn in and unable to stop them. It was Adams who appointed Marshall, for instance, as well as numerous lower court justices.
John Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also ...
List of federal judges appointed by John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think he appointed around 30 or 40 judges overall. Not sure about other Federal jobs; there is probably a list out there, I just don't feel like looking for it at the moment.
George III had little say in many of Britain's policies but for Jefferson he was the easiest to attack. As in our own politics it is easier to attack one individual than to attack a group and so Jefferson attacked George as Americans attack the president.
A first law of propaganda is to attack one well-known individual for things that go wrong and not a group. If a group, make the group singular, and all alike in actions, beliefs and so forth.
Seldom do we attack Congress and for good reason, many Americans don't know who their congressman is, much less what they have done. It is difficult to hate 535 individuals who spend the day golfing.
So you wont admit it was the overwhelming strength of 13,000 FEDERALIZED troops that put down the traitorous tax scofflaws who first tested the national government's ability to enforce its laws within the states?
I have no idea what you think I should 'admit'. Apparently you want to discuss something I didn't say, or you don't want to admit that what Washington did was different than what Jefferson did for some reason. One required local state approval, the other used a Federal Army and a Navy, not local militias.
Your premise was he used 'state' militias I pointed out it was BECAUSE we had no standing armies, you pointed out we had 800 TOTAL, where the traitors had a few thousand at one point so GW needed OVERWHELMING troop strength to bring in the POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOV'T to stop the first test of the NATIONAL Gov't!
In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion, it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the posse comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia. This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
Guide to the Constitution
I have no idea what you think I should 'admit'. Apparently you want to discuss something I didn't say, or you don't want to admit that what Washington did was different than what Jefferson did for some reason. One required local state approval, the other used a Federal Army and a Navy, not local militias.
Your premise was he used 'state' militias I pointed out it was BECAUSE we had no standing armies, you pointed out we had 800 TOTAL, where the traitors had a few thousand at one point so GW needed OVERWHELMING troop strength to bring in the POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOV'T to stop the first test of the NATIONAL Gov't!
Actually I said it was a technicality, but it's still a state militia, and not a Federal army as was the case under Jefferson. I don't see what is so hard to understand about it.
I pointed out there was a small army because you said we didn't have one at all, which wasn't entirely true, hence the 'pointing out'.
Your premise was he used 'state' militias I pointed out it was BECAUSE we had no standing armies, you pointed out we had 800 TOTAL, where the traitors had a few thousand at one point so GW needed OVERWHELMING troop strength to bring in the POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOV'T to stop the first test of the NATIONAL Gov't!
Actually I said it was a technicality, but it's still a state militia, and not a Federal army as was the case under Jefferson. I don't see what is so hard to understand about it.
I pointed out there was a small army because you said we didn't have one at all, which wasn't entirely true, hence the 'pointing out'.
Got it, You enjoy wordsmithing over honesty. The US had no SUBSTANTIAL standing armies, AND GW FEDERALIZED (as in BIG federal Gov't INTRUSION) militias to suppress the TRAITORS 'small Gov't ' guys!
