Tag: American Revolution

When Innovative Projects Get Hijacked (Part 2 of 2)

As a follow-up to my previous post about innovation hijacking, the above photo shows President George Washington leading 13,000 troops to put down a tax rebellion that was totally just according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Alexander Hamilton’s plan to pay for the combined war debts of all the colonies with a heavy Whiskey Tax (in today’s terms, $2.50/gallon), in the Distilled Spirits Tax of 1791 act.

How very British of Alexander right? Apparently, the Amerexit (secession of the thirteen colonies from the British empire) was all in vain as the names and flags have changed but power instead of liberty reigns yet again. Hijacked!

So in my last post I had shown how George Washington, as a young British officer, sparked a war between two superpowers in the Ohio country, called the French Indian War (1754-1763), this conflict had a distinct fallout in the American colonies after its conclusion.  My effort today is where:

… I hope to bring both the ramp-up to revolution over the next 25 years (1750-1775) as well as the end result of the quest for independence into focus, and how the dreams of the 20% of the people that were for independence, liberty and freedom were hijacked resulting in a culture in 1790 that involved the very things they were fighting against:

… tyranny, new or higher taxes, monopolies, and restrictions …

By the end of the war the British Empire was the undisputed superpower in both North America and Europe and was all too eager to foist upon their hapless colonial subjects the previously unenforced Navigation Acts along with new taxes. Thanks George!

The liberty experienced for the past 140+ years started losing ground to increased power that the state brings with coercion and violence. To be sure, this shift was gradual, but within a generation it was clear that the British empire failed to understand each of the American colonies to the extent that they should never had intervened from thousands of miles away. As any parent knows, once you have a child on the way to their own independent life, attempting to control that child for the parent’s own well-being is an effort in futility UNLESS you make slaves of everyone.

In England itself, with the liberal Whigs out of power and the warmongering Tories in control, there was fresh support for the new King George III who would station its troops in the colonies during peacetime, enforce the Navigation Acts, restrict western settlement to stunt growth, and institute new Parliamentary taxation. Statist power came like a pendulum to each of the colonies. So with the Proclamation Line of 1763 that restricted western settlement, the 1764 American Revenue Act that enacted taxes on sugar and increased customs enforcement, and the 1765 Stamp Act that raised new taxes on paper products, it was finally The Stamp Act that was especially hated and produced a storm of protest.

Why was there no general revolt in 1763, or 1764? Murray Rothbard has a thought from his fifth volume of Conceived in Liberty:

Ultimately, revolutions are mass phenomena, and cannot succeed without the support—indeed the active and enthusiastic support—of the great majority of the population. . . . Otherwise it will not even make a respectable showing, much less take and keep the reins of government. But the masses will not move, will not erupt, if they lack aggressive leaders to articulate their grievances and to point the path for them to follow. The leaders supply the necessary theoretical justification and analysis of the revolution’s short- and long-term goals. Unaided by leaders, the masses tend to accept each act of tyranny, not out of willing agreement, but from failure to realize that successful opposition can be mounted against the status quo. The articulation by the leaders is the final necessary spark that ignites the tinderbox of revolution.

Leaders are not appointed, they rise to the occasion when this kind of statist tyranny happens. These leaders risk all, as during the American Revolution demonstrated in just the lives of those that signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1765, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, who respectively wrote the Virginia Resolves and Massachusetts Resolves stepped up their game. Sam Adams also established a resistance group known as the Loyal Nine, which soon expanded into the colony-wide Sons of Liberty. The result was that by 1766 The Stamp Act was repealed.

However, in Massachusetts after the passage of the tax-increasing Townshend Acts in 1767, British troops occupied Boston and colonial assemblies were forced to be dissolved. The colonies responded to this increasing coercion with mass non-importation protests that severely hurt British commerce. This BOYCOTT sent a message to the British that eventually, three YEARS later resulted in that the Townshend Acts were partially repealed in 1770.

Yet again, the British Empire pushed buttons yet again as they are now dealing with a teenager, and enacted the Tea Act of 1773 that extended the British East India Company’s tea monopoly to American shores.

This was epic BS as ANY nation that picks and chooses where their people can purchase products THEY want (i.e. free trade) is not a friend of the consumer and is a fried of both economic warfare and eventual physical warfare. Here is looking at you President Trump with all your sanctions and trade deals. But I digress …

Those in Boston promptly responded accordingly with the famous Boston Tea Party of December 1773. Great Britain responded with the Coercive, or “Intolerable” Acts of 1774, which provoked the assembly of the First Continental Congress in late 1774.

It was at this point that the radicals (I am pretty sure in 2019 USA that these people would have been targeted, marginalized and most likely suicided), led by Massachusetts’ Sam and John Adams and Virginia’s Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, battled the conservatives and decided upon a colony-wide boycott of all British products.

In the spring of 1775, the British redcoats responded by trying to arrest Massachusetts radicals John Hancock and Sam Adams, who were currently near military supplies in Concord. Paul Revere traveled to nearby Lexington to warn of the impending British, and colonial minutemen confronted the approaching British troops. The showdown led to the famous “Shot Heard Round the World,” and the American Revolution began.

At this point, with open warfare on the people, which is what the confiscation of firearms is, how does liberty respond to power? Philosophically, it was with managing the war that the forces of liberty faced their most difficult challenge, since war is naturally a coercive event that leads to death and destruction.

The war itself split the liberty lovers that probably included less than 20% of the general population. Many would align with power within this renegade government and use British tactics and statism against the British. How absurd. Bringing war to a larger power in the same way that larger power does war is a study in insanity. This was accomplished both during the American Revolution as well in the Second American Revolution, the War Against Southern Independence that most people refer to as the American Civil War.

Murray Rothbard, in Conceived in Liberty Volume I-IV, yet again points to what method actually saved the American Revolution, which was the use of guerilla warfare where he is paraphrased as saying:

… the Patriots’ greatest military strength lay in their guerrilla warfare tactics (ambushing armies, sneaking behind enemy lines, disrupting supply chains, etc.) and he argued that the only libertarian method of fighting a war is through such guerrilla warfare. This is because it is relatively inexpensive since there is no standing army, soldiers are better motivated because they are close to home, and there is far less need for a stifling and oppressive military bureaucracy.

.. and beyond this, the strategy that was chosen:

.. the decision to fight the war conventionally led to enormous government intervention in the economy through paper-money inflation, debt financing, price controls, and confiscation of goods

War debt leads once again to a desire for a strong central government that will eventually bring tyranny to the forefront yet again, like in 1794 with Washington leading 13,000 troops into Western Pennsylvania and the very real situation we have today with a militarized Redcoat fully entrenched here in the USA in 2019:

So we have come full circle in showing how this struggle between liberty and innovation has with power and political status-quo bureaucracy.

So quickly, in general, I will offer two of my own experiences with this as I referred to in my previous post:

Also in “Part 2”, I hope to offer my own general experiences of where an innovative project’s dreams were hijacked by political and organizational forces bent on expediency and short term gains.

I have a two in mind, one in business and one in ministry, that I have personally participated in. The parallels are very interesting!

It does seem that innovative projects and initiatives do threaten the political status-quo in any organization. I have no doubt that this is the main reason that Jesus himself resisted the human-natural act of forming an organization to accomplish some vision or mission.

In corporate America, as opposed to smaller businesses, there seems to be a bent toward managing verses leading, that risks are to be totally managed so as to really make no progress at all for years or decades. In the end, the business can no longer sustain itself as management surrounds itself with “yes men” (I know that sounds wrong in this PC-world, just assume someone else e-mailed me about this aggression) and stifles innovation that would actually IMPROVE the ability of the business to provide value to its customers going forward.

In my specific case, a very innovative project was hijacked in the development stage by management that failed to understand the project’s attributes and decided to bring in a partner that was ill-equipped to compete development and bring the project into production. Along the way, typical traits were demonstrated like the marginalization of those who really knew the core philosophy of the project as well as how the design was intended to positively impact this business. In the end, money was squandered and the project, like so many in government circles (F-35, Ford Carrier Class, etc), ends up imploding and being a general dumpster fire where good money is thrown after bad.

In organized ministry circles, similar innovative approaches can also bring the status-quo political fake news people out of the woodwork to halt anything that they can understand as being beneficial for people who could use a relationship with Jesus to bring peace and love to their lives and give them an insight into the way that Papa (God, Father) is especially fond of them. Close-minded church-goers and rule-followers have little patience for alternative ways that people can be reached whether is be from one’s home, from a coffee-house or even in the marketplace.

In my specific case, a ministry that had already transitioned from an inward facing clique/country club to a spiritual family that actually had a heart for those without Jesus, just could not give up their view that the church building was the center of what Jesus-following is all about. Threatened that their years of tithing (investing) might find them not able to realize their ROI, they effectively marginalized any staff (professional/volunteer) personnel that would not maintain the new status-quo.

In both instances, the lost dreams of the innovators has to be grieved, which is a process that every visionary has to deal with in their own terms. While they will many times see the positives and learnings that came out of the process as being very beneficial for the next “project/dream”, there is usually always a scar on ones heart to those that gave their all to attempt something that others barely or rarely understand, something much bigger than themselves.

I can only reflect on how Francis Marion, guerilla leader of the militia in South Carolina (1780-1783) that successfully dogged Cornwallis so that he could eventually be trapped by the French fleet at Yorktown. After much of the conflict was over, he was already being marginalized for the next chapter of life in the American Colonies as I indicated in a previous post:

So by the fall of 1781 as the British catastrophe at Yorktown reverberated throughout the British Empire, there were nationalist forces that were already parting ways with the radicals, and even the militias that brought them to this day. By 1783, Francis Marion saw the writing on the wall. The NOV1782 election meant that Marion had to leave Pond Bluff yet again for the 06JAN1783 legislative session. Writing from there on January 18th he shared the inequalities that tainted his excitement about the future of the colony as well of the federation of states. It seems that the Rhode Islander Continental Nathaniel Greene was awarded 10,000 guineas from SC toward the purchase of a SC plantation and quoted an old saying “that kissed goes by favor”. Georgia had also given Greene 24,000 acres as well. Marion eventually was awarded 300 acres in 1785.

It should be noted that the correspondence Marion had with Greene stopped abruptly as the hostilities stopped in DEC1782. Marion had hoped that Congress would follow through on the promise of a lifetime of half-pay for officers but it would be 50 years before that practice would finally start. Marion lamented that “idle spectators of war” were in charge now.

It is little wonder then why there is much more effort needed to be put towards the maintenance of liberty in this broken world than it does to maintain power. It seems that power, and kings, is the default mode of man:

Just some things to reflect on.

I do hope this allows y’all to reflect on history as well as current events.

-SF1

Roots of the Empire Obsession Go Back How Far in US History?

Andrew Jackson @ New Orleans

Many will say that at the conclusion of WWII that the US emerged unscathed and became the sole superpower. Sure the USSR tried to stay in the contest until it dissolved in 1989 after 40 years of Cold War, but the US was definitely the replacement for the British Empire by then.

Others will point to the Spanish-American war in 1898 as the turning point when the fake news that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine in Havana harbor in Cuba resulted in the US expanding all the way to the Philippines in the Pacific and in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, expanded its Navy to match its ambitions.

Still others will point to the fateful day when states rights, the last thing keeping the republic from becoming a centralized democratic (not a good thing) nation, was not only beaten back with bayonets, gunfire and cannon, but continued to steamroll the section of the country (the South) through over a decade of military rule and economic plundering that had rallied around the founder’s idea of a federated republic. The post war correspondence quoted below from this post shows what was gained, and what was lost:

Lord Acton, the British historian and philosopher, and General Robert E. Lee, corresponding in 1866, both saw States’ Rights as an essential component of free government.

Lord Acton:

“saw in States’ Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will.” He mourned over the defeat of the Confederate States and what it meant for liberty.

General Lee,responding, feared:

“Whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

So yes, after steamrolling a defiant South from 1865-1877 the “Union” focused on the American Indian and proceeded on the breaking of all Indian treaties, genociding the defiant and bringing the rest of the population under a dependency on government to pacify it for generations.

So the seeds for empire actually go back even further. In this post, a former history teacher at West Point points out that the War of 1812 actually was out of a desire for added territory. What complicated things politically, was that the party (Republican) that was principled against standing armies actually turned into war-hawks!

The Republicans clamored for war even though their party supposedly hated standing armies and militarism. To wage this war, Madison and the Republicans would have to restrict trade, build a military establishment and coerce obedience—the very actions most abhorred in Republican ideology.

Seems that there was a lingering effort from the American Revolution that desired Canada to be part of the American Republic:

There were other motives for this war [of 1812] besides the affirmation of neutral rights and the reclamation of national honor. Many Westerners (who tended to be avid Republicans) had long coveted Canada, then a British colony. In fact, the Continental Army had previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to conquer Canada during the Revolutionary War. And, strikingly, the first American constitution, the Articles of Confederation, claimed the province of Canada as a future state within the expanding American union. In 1812, “Free Canada!” became a rallying cry, and the U.S. would spend most the war in this fruitless endeavor. We were the invaders!

So yes, the desire for empire had been there from the start.

What was the most interesting part of this post is a statement here:

Canada was primarily (though sparsely) populated by two types of people: French Canadians and former American loyalists—refugees from the late Revolutionary War. Some, the “true” loyalists, fled north just after the end of the war for independence. The majority, however, the “late” loyalists, had more recently settled in Upper Canada between 1790 and 1812. Most came because land was cheaper and taxes lower north of the border.

Yes, post American Revolution, cheaper taxes existed in the British Empire in Canada than in the United States. I thought we fought the War for Independence over high taxes?

Another myth that was busted was the “David and Goliath” slant most history books take on the War of 1812:

In point of fact, the British were busy and spread thin. They had been at war with the powerful French on a global scale for some 19 years. The only British force within striking distance of the U.S. was in Canada, and this—in a stunning reversal of the popular myth—represented a stunning mismatch. There were barely 500,000 citizens in Canada, compared with about 8 million in the United States. The British had only a few thousand regular troops to spare for the defense of this massive Canadian landmass. The Americans might be unprepared, and might prove “bad” at war, but by no means was the initial deck stacked against the large and expansive American republic.

The myth of American defensiveness is also belied by a number of other inconvenient facts. The United States declared this war, a war that Britain had no interest in fighting. Furthermore, despite the exaggerated claims of war hawks and patriots of all stripes, this was not a Second War of Independence. There is no evidence that the British sought to reconquer and colonize the mammoth American republic. Any land seizures were planned to be used only as bargaining chips at an eventual peace settlement. Tied down in an existential war of its own, Britain had neither the capacity nor intent to resubjugate their former colonists.

The bottom line is to question everything .. and to be willing to learn, unlearn and relearn.

-SF1

Terrorism: 1780, 1865, 1991 and Beyond

In the past weeks and months I have indicated how the British Empire’s use (and sometimes American patriots as well) of tactics that are less than honorable, yet attain short term military goals, would have unintended consequences .. when is it proper to apply this same understanding to other periods of American History?

The last few days has been a time in “American society life” that reflects on a 90-something man’s passing away and a reflection on what he meant to this country as well as the world. This man was the last president to have participated in WWII, which alone puts him on a pedestal in this land. Although the actual events surrounding him being the lone survivor of the plane he was piloting are cloudy at best (pardon the aviator’s pun), it seems that American loves heroes, and it willingly excuse many many character faults along the way as long as one has this elite (no pun intended) status. (think George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc)

While this post is not about the life of HW Bush, and while I have no animosity towards him personally (“revenge is mine says the Lord”), or his family who is in mourning, it does us well as a people (or as various groups of people/cultures across this land) to reflect of certain aspects of their legacy and learn from them.

“Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.” George Santayana

So the point here is to reflect on an aspect of Gulf War I that has always disturbed me even as I “thought” I understood the justification of the war at this time. From The Intercept article we read the following:

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure — from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: “Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. … Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as ‘collateral’ and unintended, was sometimes neither.”

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for “leverage” over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism?

Here we are 27 years later knowing that Iraq has since been invaded yet a second time and has never returned to its previous state where the average Iraqi could earn enough to support their family in relative peace. We all know it will take decades or centuries to recover from this US/UN effort to “spread democracy” to the Middle East.

If we back up in our mind’s eye and consider the tactics the British opted to use more frequently, especially as they grew increasingly frustrated in not meeting their objectives against “farmers with pitchforks”. Is it ever right to choose tactics that are less than honorable to achieve the ends usually determined by leaders and politicians far away? How can those “sworn” into the service of these military entities individually object to be a part of those types of actions?

In 1780 it was the dreaded Tarleton that we read about and how he is the bad guy. But what happens when these types are on “our” side? Do we treat them different? How does this country’s text books treat Sheridan, Grant and Sherman from the directives each of these generals issued in the early 1860s against innocent families that happened to be in states that peacefully seceded?

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” – William T. Sherman after the war

“Government of the United States” had the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . . ” – William T. Sherman after the war

“the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed . . .” – letter to William T. Sherman’s wife on 31JUL1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women and children” ..”The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” William T. Sherman wrote to Sheridan. By 1890 the U.S. Army murdered as many as 60,000 Indians, placing the survivors in concentration camps known as “reservations.”

So it seems we have the British Empire using these tactics in 1780s, and the USA adopting these tactics in 1860s as well as with the American Indians the balance of that century .. and then fast-forward to 1991 and we find ourselves as “bad” as the British yet again!

So what kind of “democracy” are we spreading? It stinks!

All of this to say once again, to know history is to be best prepared to scrutinize government propaganda when their mouthpieces try to convince the public of the “good” in what they are doing. They know that the first impression is a lasting impression for so many that are not critical thinkers in this land.

So be prepared! Be a student of history, a critical thinker, considering things that you are still in process forming an opinion on.

Stay the course!

-SF1

28AUG1776: Divine Intervention?

In my last post toward the end I made the following suggestion:

.. while at the same time to be grounded in the reality that without some divine intervention, this whole thing could end real bad ..

I understand very well why many will be skeptical. This broken world with broken people have made it difficult to think that there might be a divine presence that is an active force against evil. Religion has also not helped make the case for a divine force that is good, or is at its core love. I am not here to convince you of anything, but only to ask to consider the thought, without accepting it.

There are two American historical occurrences  that come to my mind when I think of when evil almost wins and good (or better) prevails. One is the efforts I have been writing about where Francis Marion leads a militia (volunteer) that ends up frustrating an empire’s army enough so that they decide to quit. You and I both know that another fleet of ships and 10,000 more men could have been sent by the British to make 1782 a tough year and have no need for a Treaty of Paris in 1783 with each of the thirteen colonies signing. The other occurrence is that of Gen. George Washington’s retreat from Brooklyn (there was no bridge there until the late 1800s) to Manhattan in the colony of New York on the night of 27AUG1776 and into the next morning.

Getting 9000 troops across the East River before the British could discover their retreat was a daunting task considering the lack of boats to make the effort. The fact that there was no wind that night or the next morning meant that the British fleet could not come up the East River to trap the Continental Army either.

To flesh out in more detail about this predicament I will pull some quotes from this article on HistoryNet:

Washington now called on Colonel John Glover of Massachusetts, who commanded one of the army’s crack regiments. Glover’s ‘Marvelous Men from Marblehead’ were well trained and wore smart blue-and-white uniforms. They were seamen and fishermen, so they were accustomed to shipboard discipline and were quick to carry out orders…

… Washington knew that Glover was just the man to get his army out of its desperate situation. He also knew that there were spies in the ranks — one soldier had already been tried and hanged for his treachery and several others had been found guilty and put in prison — so he sent a misleading message to General William Heath on Manhattan: ‘We have many battalions from New Jersey which are coming over this evening to relieve those here. Order every flat-bottomed boat and other craft fit for transportation of troops down to New York as soon as possible.’ Then he ordered his quartermaster ‘to impress every kind of craft on either side of New York’ that had oars or sails, and to have them in the East River by dark. Anyone intercepting the messages would think that Washington was planning to bring reinforcements to Long Island; in reality he hoped to evacuate his entire army before the British realized what he was doing.

The weather was still on Washington’s side. A drenching storm kept ‘Black Dick’s’ fleet out of the river and provided cover for the boat gathering. Late in the afternoon Washington met with his staff to tell them his real plans. As Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge wrote in a letter, ‘to move so large a body of troops with all their necessary appendages across a river a full mile wide, with a rapid current, in the face of a victorious, well-disciplined army nearly three times as numerous seemed . . . to present most formidable obstacles.’ The colonel was guilty of understatement.

The entire Northern Theater of the Continental army was at risk. George Washington’s strategy was not working in his favor as they had their backs against a river like this.

The August nights were short, and Washington knew that if Glover had miscalculated the time required for the Herculean job, he would lose any troops unlucky enough to remain on the island at dawn. He had faith in the ‘tough little terrier of a man,’ and to help him he assigned a regiment of men from the Massachusetts towns of Salem, Lynn, and Danvers, sailors all.

The seamen began their work as soon as it was dark, about ten o’clock. The drenched Continentals left their entrenchments unit by unit and moved to the boats in darkness and in absolute silence. Each unit was told only that they were being relieved and were going back to Manhattan. They did not know that the entire army was doing the same thing. By the time any disloyal soldier discovered the truth, it would be too late for treachery. The quartermaster’s men had found only a few sailing craft, so there was much rowing to be done that night. At first the winds were favorable and the boats swiftly made the round trip to Manhattan, despite darkness and unfamiliar waters. Seamen in the rowboats plied them back and forth without a stop, oars muffled, across the fast East River current.

Washington stayed in the saddle, weary though he must have been. For several hours the situation looked favorable, but then the wind changed, blowing in combination with the unusually strong ebb tide. The sails could not overcome the two combined forces. Washington’s despair was partially alleviated when the men rigged the sailboats with temporary tholes, found oars, and rowed. But the tired general realized that many rearguard troops would still be on the island when dawn broke. Their loss would be a serious blow. Yet the seamen continued their race against time. ‘It was one of the most anxious, busy nights that I ever recollect,’ Benjamin Tallmadge recalled, ‘and being the third in which hardly any of us had closed our eyes in sleep, we were all greatly fatigued.’ At one point a rearguard unit under Colonel Edward Hand mistakenly received orders to move down to the water. Its movement left a gap in the lines that the British, had they been aware of it, could have used to smash through the American defenses. But the British didn’t know, and Washington, when he saw what had happened, hurriedly ordered the unit back into place.

In a few more hours luck rejoined the patriots. The wind changed direction and Glover’s men could again use their sails to speedily make the crossings and return. The tempo of the evacuation picked up, but the fickle wind had done its damage. As the dim first-light appeared in the cloudy, gray eastern sky, part of the rear guard was still on the wrong side of the river. As the sky lightened, however, a dense fog rolled in, obscuring the operation’s final movements. Colonel Tallmadge was in one of the last units to leave, and with regret he left his horse tied on the Long Island shore. Safe in New York, the fog as thick as ever, Tallmadge said, ‘I began to think of my favorite horse, and requested leave to return and bring him off. Having obtained permission, I called for a crew of volunteers to go with me, and guiding the boat myself, I obtained my horse and got some distance before the enemy appeared in Brooklyn.’ When the morning fog began to lift and the British patrols warily came to check on the American breastworks, they found them empty. Washington and the last of the rear guard were aboard the boats and sailing to safety. George Washington’s faith in John Glover and the seagoing soldiers had been vindicated. In about nine hours they had whisked 9,000 men and their supplies and cannon out from under the noses of the British. The Revolutionary cause lived on. Later that day, August 30, 10 British frigates and 20 gunboats and sloops finally sailed up the river. They were too late.

Not unlike the thunderstorm and tornado that made the British burning and sacking of Washington DC on 24AUG1814 stop prematurely, this “act of nature” changed the course of history.

“Incredibly, yet again, circumstances – fate, luck, Providence, the hand of God, as would be said so often – intervened.” – Historian David McCullough from his book 1776

I will leave it to y’all to decide in your own minds.

Just my two cents .. your mileage may vary.

-SF1

29SEP1780 Marion’s Militia Does it Again!

The last post I crafted from Francis Marion’s adventures as a leader of the militia and he re-entered South Carolina had him south of the Great Pee Dee River, poised to once again attack British/Tory forces. These attacks were not just against an invader of their communities, but in response to the British tactic (desperation?) of violence against the innocent civilian population as well as depriving them of life and or property in their efforts in this part of South Carolina. Some of Marion’s men were directly impacted by these barbarous tactics.

Have received Intel about a Loyalist militia being positioned at a cross roads near Shepherd’s Ferry on Black Mingo Creek, Marion had aroused his men after a few hours of sleep and moved south in the night. As his militia crossed the Willtown Bridge only a mile or so from Col. John Coming Ball’s camp the noise from the bridge’s planks alerted the Loyalist militia.

The sentry fires an alarm gun and Marion and his men ride hard TOWARD the tavern at this crossroads. The patriot militia assume that the Loyalists are inside Dollard’s Tavern and some dismount several hundred yards away to make their assault now, like they did at Nelson’s Ferry, having the element of surprise gone BUT having their momentum remaining. Marion commands his cavalry to the left of Dollard’s Tavern and Horry with some of the infantry to the right flank. The Tory leader (and well known relative to Francis Marion himself) Col. John Ball awakes his men at the sound of the alarm and commands them to the open field west of the tavern.

As Horry’s infantry charges through the field, the Loyalist militia is only 30 yards away as they are surprised with the first volley. Three of Horry’s patriot officers fall with Capt. George Logan killed and Capt. Henry Mouzon (author of the 1775 map above) and Lt. John Scott severely wounded.

Patriot Capt. John James, Jr., the man who brought Marion the Intel that made this raid possible, rallies the rest of the men and stops the eminent slaughter. The rest of Marion’s militia creep forward until Capt. John Waties moves up on the right with his men and skirts Dollard’s house called the Red House, causing the Loyalists break and run into the Black Mingo Swamp.

The battle only lasts 15 minutes or so and to offset his loses, Marion and his men captures well needed supplies like guns, ammunition, baggage, and especially horses since they operate best in guerrilla style warfare on fresh horses. Francis Marion gets Col. John Coming Ball’s own horse, which Col. Marion chooses for himself and renames “Ball”. Marion will ride Ball for the balance of this war!

Again, one of the best sources I have found to paint Marion’s world so that one can enter his time and his experiences better is John Oller’s “The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution“. Here are some clips from his book that gives you a flavor as to the situation Marion found himself on the last day or two of September 1780.

Black Mingo, like so many engagements in the South during the Revolution, involved relatively few men on either side: Ball’s Tories totaled only forty-seven, while Marion had perhaps seventy. (It was one of the few times he actually outnumbered his opponent, although it is not clear he knew this going into the encounter.) But because of the sharp exchange of fire at close range, the casualties were comparatively heavy. The Tories lost three killed and thirteen captured or wounded—a third of their unit—plus some unknown number later found dead or wounded in the swamp and adjoining woods.

It can’t be emphasized enough how valuable the Intel that Marion’s Capt. John James Jr. brought to the attention of his leader. So many times, the ability of the militia to respond the same day or night to this information made a huge difference in the psychological aspect of not only the American Revolution, but also the internal civil war being fought in South Carolina.

Marion suffered two killed and eight wounded, but the psychological loss was greater—one of the dead was George Logan, who had left his sickbed and ridden miles to rejoin the brigade. The wounded included Marion’s friend Henry Mouzon, who was shot up so badly that he never took the field again. Such was the nature of the many small actions and skirmishes in South Carolina, where the death or dismemberment of a few friends or relatives could have a greater impact on the participants’ psyches than the loss of hundreds or thousands of strangers in full-scale army battles.

As in all wars, there are gains, but their are significant losses as well. How better would have been if the British could have promised independence for the American colonies over time, I believe that this country could have morphed into several republics that would not have needed a sense for a strong centralized government to protect itself in this world. With several republics in this land, the so-called “Civil War” would have not been necessary either!

I can dream can’t I?

Back to John Oller’s insights:

.. Several Tories captured by Marion at Black Mingo took an oath of allegiance and joined his brigade. After escaping, Peter Gaillard, the Tory second in command, made it known that he too would like to enlist with Marion’s band if they would have him without unduly humiliating him. Intermediaries (including Gaillard’s brother-in-law, Job Marion) arranged an interview between him and Marion. The partisan commander cordially received his former foe, praised his bravery at Black Mingo, and personally escorted him into the patriot camp in front of the rest of the men so as to quash the bitterness many of them felt toward their Tory neighbor.

Is this not rich or what? Not only the character to pronounce that these temporary enemies could someday be friends, but to welcome an actual enemy to join their militia WITH leadership’s display of vetting and backing is something to remember from the Battle of Black Mingo!

-SF1