A Quick & Condensed Version of American History for the Modern Patriot

23 QCAHMP What Does Your Child Know About Thomas Jefferson?

 

Many people have asked me what launched me on my campaign to inspire adults to learn more about the Founding and Founding Documents? Today’s podcast is a bit about the spark that ignited my mission, as well as why you MUST make it a priority to teach your children, your grandchildren, and others around you about the Founding, our Founding Documents, as well as the amazing country in which they live.

“What exactly do you know about Thomas Jefferson?” That simple question started me on a quest. It was the summer of 2011, and Congress was in the midst of yet another debate as to whether the debt ceiling should once again be raised. I asked that question of my son who had recently completed the eighth grade. As we discussed the debate, I became amazed by some of the basic information that he did not seem to know. I began to quiz him about the people and the documents associated with the founding of our country, and my amazement grew further still. I was particularly surprised because he was an avid follower of all things historical. He had even received history-related awards in the fifth and the eighth grades during which time the history of our country was the focus of the Social Studies curriculum. His answer to my question about Thomas Jefferson? He recalled that Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence, he was the third President of the United States, and he owned slaves. Upon further questioning I decided he knew far less about Jefferson than I expected.

 

Later that day I decided to ask my other children what they knew about Thomas Jefferson. My middle child, who had just completed the sixth grade, told me that when she studied U.S. History in the fifth grade, there was no particular focus on any individual. By the way, fifth grade is the year when the colonial and founding periods are the focus of the Social Science curriculum in most schools. My youngest child, who had just finished 2nd grade, responded to my question by asking, “Isn’t he the guy with the kite?”

If I was concerned about what had been taught to my children in 2011, my concerns have only grown over time. My son completed the AP U.S. History (APUSH) course in 2014. His teacher was outstanding, but the curriculum focused on the second half of the history of our country. Although he thought he had read the entire Constitution in piecemeal fashion, he could not answer detailed questions about the document, nor could he have an in-depth discussion as to why certain things had been included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He did, however, receive a score on the AP exam which enabled to forgo taking a U.S. History course at the college level. Consequently, he had never or will never again be required to read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, or the Bill of Rights in their entirety. My middle child completed the eighth grade Social Science curriculum for the State of California in 2013. She is extremely bright and had been reading my blog posts for years. She told me in great detail about individuals, events, and documents that were not discussed at all in class, not mentioned in her textbook, or inaccurately described by her teacher or in her assigned material. My youngest child completed the fifth grade Social Science curriculum for the State of California in 2013. At that time the school was in the process of integrating the Common Core structure and standards into the classroom.  U.S. History was no longer merely a subset of what was taught in the subject of Social Science. It had been incorporated into the reading standards for the English Language Arts of the Common Core. It appeared that she learned far less about the founding period than her siblings and there was less emphasis on American h...

Which conservative principles served as the basis for objections to the collection of statistics regarding education and predicted what the Department of Education has grown into today? What was the surprising twist in the debate over establishing a new department in the Federal Government. We will learn the answers to these questions in this edition.

After taking the summer months off to spend time with my family, I thought I would begin with a podcast or two about what is, and is not, taught about the Founding and our Founding Documents in classrooms across this great nation. While researching that material, I came across a debate which embodies the struggle between those who seek to retain the limited nature of the Federal Government, and those who believe that an expanded centralized government is beneficial for all citizens. That debate has raged on since the Federal Convention, but this story took place after the Civil War. There is even an interesting twist to this story that I’ll tell you about at the end of the podcast.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison: “Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.” In 1820, Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis that “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” I have to add that I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Jefferson’s sentiments. Hence, this podcast, as well as my blog, website, and publications!

In the full length edition of this podcast, I included quotes from other Founding Fathers which all placed great import on educating the populace. While many of the Founding Fathers  placed great import on the need for an educated citizenry, please consider that there is no mention of the subject of education in the United States Constitution. Consequently, it is clear that public education is a matter that the Framers chose to leave up to the States. You may have heard that the Department of Education was created in 1866 for the purpose of collecting statistics. What you probably have not heard is that it was created in the face of vigorous objections by those who sought to retain the limited nature of the Federal Government that was set into place by the Founders. On Tuesday, June 5, 1866, a debate occurred in the House of Representatives that I believe you will find to be most interesting.

It began with statements about the pending legislation by Representative James A Garfield of Ohio who the Chair of the Select Committee on Education: “there shall be established, the city of Washington, a Department of Education, for the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and of management schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.” The remainder of the legislation authorized salaries for the Commissioner of Education, and his staff, which totaled $13,000, as well as the creation of offices to house the new department.

The floor was then given to Ignatius L. Donnelly. Mr. Donnelly seems to have been quite a character. He was known as an amateur scientist, a populist writer, and for his theories about a lost continent of Atlan...

21 QCAHMP The Signing of the Declaration

We so often forget the drama that surrounded the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In this episode, I thought you might like to hear a condensed version of an article published in Scribner’s Monthly in July of 1876, which was entitled “The Story of the Signing.” If you would like to hear the complete rendition of this article, please listen to the full length edition of this podcast. You can find it on my website: BingoforPatriots.com

“The Story of the Signing” began as follows…

“In the days of the Continental Congress the delegates used to travel to the capital, at the beginning of each session, from their several homes, usually on horseback; fording streams, sleeping at miserable country inns, sometimes weather-bound for days, sometimes making circuits to avoid threatened dangers, sometimes accomplishing forced marches to reach Philadelphia in time for some special vote…When they arrived at Philadelphia, the delegates put up their horses, changed their riding gear for those habiliments which Trumbull has immortalized, and gathered to Independence Hall to greet their brother delegates, to interchange the gossip of the day, to repeat Dr. Franklin’s last anecdote or Francis Hopkinson’s last gibe; then proceeding, when the business of the day was opened, to lay the foundation for a new nation.

‘Before the 19th of April, 1775,’ said Jefferson, ‘I had never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from the mothercountry.’ Washington said : ‘When I first took command of the army (July 3, 1775), I abhorred the idea of independence; but I am now fully convinced that nothing else will save us.’ It is only by dwelling on such words as these that we can measure that vast educational process which brought the American people to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776.

The Continental Congress, in the earlier months of that year, had for many days been steadily drifting on toward the distinct assertion of separate sovereignty, and had declared it irreconcilable with reason and a good conscience for the colonists to take the oaths required for the support of the Government under the Crown of Great Britain. But it was not till the 7th of June, that Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, rose and read these resolutions:

‘That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

‘That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign alliances.

‘That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective colonies for their consideration and approbation.’

These resolutions were presented under direct instructions from the Virginia Assembly, the delegates from that colony selecting Mr. Lee as their spokesman.[1] They were at once seconded, probably after previous understanding, by John Adams, of Massachusetts, — Virginia and Massachusetts being then the leading colonies. It was a bold act, for it was still doubtful whether anything better than a degrading death would await these leaders, if unsuccessful. Gage had written, only the year before, of the prisoners left in his hands at Bunker Hill, that ‘their lives were destined to the cord.’…

We know that Congress directed the Secretary to omit from the journals the names of the mover and seconder of these resolutions. The record only says, ’Certain resolutions respecting independence being moved and seconded,..The resolutions were opposed, even with bitterness, by Robert Livingston, of New York, by Dickinson and Wilson, of Pennsylvania, and by Rutledge, of South Carolina…

20 QCAHMP Benedict Arnold and the 25th of September

Was there a consequence for Benedict Arnold’s egregious behavior in Philadelphia? How did the Great Chain that we learned about in a previous episode factor into Arnold’s plot to surrender West Point to the British? What were the dramatic events that took place on that fateful day in September, 1780.

Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of his country is well known. What is more interesting, perhaps, is the time immediately preceding what he anticipated to be the surrender West Point to the British, as well as what happened as the plan began to unravel.

I concluded the previous podcast by referencing Benedict Arnold’s plundering of confiscated goods from those living in Philadelphia, transporting the goods using Continental wagons, and smuggling the goods to New York to be sold on the black market.

Arnold’s lavish lifestyle and questionable practices eventually brought him under the scrutiny of the Supreme Executive Council of Philadelphia. His poor treatment of those who transported the confiscated goods to the harbor and others who altered records to protect him, led to their cooperation in the Counsel’s investigation.

After the investigation by the Council in Philadelphia , the Congress took up the matter under court martial proceedings. The matter dragged on for almost a year. In the end, Arnold was convicted of several counts originally identified by the Council in Philadelphia.  Congress also demanded he repay funds given to him for which he had no records, and that only increased Arnold’s ever mounting mountain of debt.

What were the consequences for Arnold’s bad behavior? Jail? Return of the profits from the sale of the goods which rightly belonged in the Continental coffers? No, he was sentenced (to use the term lightly) to receive a reprimanded from George Washington!

While the resulting reprimand was but a slap on the wrist, it was no doubt a tremendous blow to a narcissist such as Arnold. Whether that was the tipping point in his decision to betray his country, I can only speculate. However, it would seem to be a heavily contributing factor. Add to that the financial pressure resulting from his marriage to Peggy Shippen, in April of 1779, and Arnold may have been more than ready to “jump ship” as they say, and Peggy, who most likely was a loyalist at heart, was only too willing to help him do so. Arnold had resigned his commission in Philadelphia shortly before his marriage to Peggy ostensibly to focus solely on forcing the matter to trial in order to clear his name. However, shortly after his marriage, Arnold contacted Joseph Stansbury.

Stansbury, who was born in England, was a merchant who lived in Philadelphia. During the British occupation, he served as  the commander of the watch. Despite his clearly loyalist leanings, he remained in Philadelphia after the British left the city.

Although there is no written record as to why Arnold chose to contact Stansbury, it is possible that Peggy Shippen would have been well aware because of her social connections that he transported letters from young ladies in Philadelphia to British soldiers who had left the city. She also knew that her former suitor, John Andre had become the British Chief of Intelligence.  Stansbury used the help of Reverend Jonathan Odell to make contact with John Andre. It was Odell was who deciphered many of the letters that were exchanged between Andre and Arnold.

In the spring of 1780, with the court martial proceedings behind him, Arnold again sought a commission from Washington. Washington offered to place Arnold in the field, but Arnold declined citing continued problems with the leg that had been injured many times in battle. Yet, that was not the true reason for Arnold’s resistance. Arnold was aware that British General Clinton had desig...

19 QCAHMP Benedict Arnold A Thief in Command

Please support my podcasts by purchasing one of the games or teaching tools, with prices beginning at 76 cents on my website, BingoforPatriots.com, or one of more than 100 bingo games with educational, religious, holiday, and party themes for as little as $1.99 on my other website: UnCommonCourtesy.com. Thank you so much for supporting my work!

How did Benedict Arnold abuse his role as the “Commander in Chief of the United States of America, in the city of Philadelphia” for his personal gain? What do we know about his relationships with Peggy Shippen and a woman known as “the Belle of Boston”? We will learn the answer to these questions in this episode.

In the past two editions, we have learned about how Benedict Arnold’s narcissism prompted him to clash with Ethan Allen and the Continental Congress. We have also learned how his risk taking behavior led to a reputation for valor, but also how the troops who served under him were placed in harm’s way because of the goals he set.

But how did he change after he was placed in a position of power that was not associated with a battlefield? Although he remained a part of the military, his new role would involve interacting with the residents of Philadelphia rather than the enemy.

Amongst his other accusations of Benedict Arnold, John Brown once prophetically said: “Money is this man’s God, and to get enough of it he would sacrifice his country.”  Although the Congressional record described Brown’s other allegations of Arnold as “cruel” and “groundless”, he seems to have been spot on with that particular point.

After Arnold was again wounded in the Battle of Saratoga, his sacrifice was barely acknowledged by General Gates in a letter to the Continental Congress. Of course, Gates’ failure to acknowledge Arnold was in no small part because Arnold clashed with Gates over power and strategic decision-making just as he had with Ethan Allen. The difference at Saratoga was that Gates was clearly the superior officer, and, like Arnold, sought recognition for his leadership and valor. Therefore, he was only too willing to minimize any credit which rightly belonged to Arnold. I might add that there is some controversy as to whether Arnold was even present on the field during certain key points of the battle. But that is a podcast unto itself!

Arnold once again sought rescue from George Washington. Washington had been angered by Gates’ decision to write of his victory directly to the Continental Congress, and he suspected that Gates sought to replace him as the Commander of the Continental Army. As you will recall from the previous episode, Arnold attempted to resign because of his nonpromotion and wrote to Washington of the “ingratitude of my country.” No doubt that his experience at the Battle of Saratoga only served to deepen his resentments. Due to Arnold’s physical limitations caused by multiple injuries in battle, Washington decided to place him at Philadelphia in the role of military commander after the British withdrew from the city in June, 1778.

On June 19, 1778, Washington ordered Arnold to take command of the troops in Philadelphia and bring order to the city. He instructed Arnold: “You will take every prudent step in your power, to preserve tranquillity and order in the city,”He also instructed Arnold to enforce the Congressional resolve to “prevent the removal transfer, or sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise, in possession of the inhabitants of the city, ’till the property of them can be ascertained in the mode directed.”

What you should know about Philadelphia was that it was a city on the edge. The British had occupied the city since September 26, 1777. When they left the city on June 18, 1778, the people who lived there were left in turmoil.

In edition 17 of this podcast, we learned about a bevy of personality traits, and dare I say flaws, of Benedict Arnold. Today we will explore how those characteristics or propensities led him down the path to engage in a drama royal which involved George Washington and the Continental Congress, as well as engage in what can be viewed as either extreme acts of valor or unnecessary risk taking due to unrealistic views of the self.

We will rejoin Benedict Arnold’s journey in the year 1777.  By that time, he had become well known for his willingness to engage the enemy, his own physical sacrifice for the cause, and unfortunately for his temper. His confrontational and combative behavior with other officers and members of Congress had already caused him to not be selected for leadership positions such as that in the primary leader of the Quebec campaign, and it would soon cause him to be “overlooked” to receive a promotion.

In February, 1777, he was not included in a list of men promoted to major general by the Continental Congress. Five men with less seniority, and certainly less notoriety, were instead honored with that title. From that moment on, the seeds of a negative spiral would be sewn which ultimately led to his defection.

To make matters worse, at least in the eyes of Benedict Arnold, the Congress acted again just two days later promoted several other men. The number of men who had been promoted, which did not include Benedict Arnold had jumped from five to fifteen. Arnold was, needless to say, furious. Although the second group had only been promoted to Arnold’s then current level, certainly the Congress could have taken a moment to amend the promotions of the 19th, if Arnold’s name had been accidentally left of the list.

George Washington believed the matter was nothing more than an oversight by the Congress, and cautioned Arnold to be patient in a letter he sent to Arnold on March 3, 1777. Lest you think that Washington was going above and beyond what he might do for others, please remember that George Washington was not only a gentleman but had a great sense of political tactics as well. He actually wrote a bevy of letters on March 3, 1777. Washington wrote a remarkably similar letter to Andrew Lewis which began “I was much disappointed at not perceiving your name in the in the list of Major Generals lately made by Congress, and most sincerely wish that the neglect may not induce you to abandon the Service.”  Washington wrote a note to William Woodford, with a somewhat parental “I told you so” sounding tone because he had cautioned Woodford against resigning his commission. Woodford had not listened, and although the Congress chose to appoint him as a brigadier general, he had lost seniority to others who had continued on in service. On March 3rd, Washington also wrote congratulatory letters to newly appointed generals Poot, Varnum and Cadwalder.

On March 6th Washington wrote a different sort of a letter. This correspondence was intended to remain private and sent to Richard Henry Lee who was the President of the Continental Congress: “SIR I am anxious to know whether General Arnold’s nonpromotion was owing to accident or design and the cause of it. Surely a more active a more spirited and sensible officer fills no department in your army Not seeing him then in the list of major generals and no mention made of him has given me uneasiness as it is not to be presumed being the Oldest brigadier that he will continue in service under such a slight I imagine you will lose two or three other very good Officers by promoting yours or any one’s over them My public letters will give you the state Of matters in this quarter and my anxiety to be informed of the reason of Arnold’s non promotion gives you the trouble of this letter.”

17 QCAHMP The Fatal Flaws of Benedict Arnold

What fatal flaws of Benedict Arnold’s personality contributed to his decision to transform from an ardent patriot into our country’s most well-known traitor? We will explore this question as we travel with him from his youth through the capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

Born in Norwich, Connecticut in 1741, Benedict Arnold had all the pedigrees to be one of the greatest heroes of the American Revolution. His great-great-grandfather, William Arnold, was one of the 13 original settlers of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. His grandfather, also named Benedict, was the first Governor of Rhode Island. His mother has been described as a woman with almost saintly qualities, while his father spent much of his money in local taverns. Mounting family debt, and a lack of dedication to his studies, caused his mother to remove him from a private school education which would have paved the way to a degree from Yale. Arnold sought permission to enter the provincial militia during the French and Indian War, but his mother refused. When he reached the age of 16, he was allowed to join the local militia’s plan to enter into the battle near at Fort McHenry, but his enlistment lasted only 13 days after the group learned of the French slaughter of British and colonial forces at the fort. Upon his return, Arnold found himself placed by his mother as an apprentice for her cousins Joshua and Daniel Lathrop who were apothecaries in  Norwich. Arnold was so intoxicated by the thrill of battle that he slipped away from his apprenticeship multiple times to fight in the war.  Both his lack of focus on his studies, as well as his willingness to run away from his apprenticeship could both be thought of as examples of poor impulse control. Something which would plague Arnold throughout his life. After completing his apprenticeship, Arnold opened his own apothecary at the age of 21. But soon leave that profession behind for more exciting, and risky, ventures. This is another pattern he replicated repeatedly over his lifetime. He left his sister, Hannah, to manage his business. He found a partner, and used his inheritance to became a successful trader in spices. Again, willing to engage in risk taking behavior, Arnold often captained the ships as they traded in ports from Canada to the West Indies.  Such trading, of course, was severely damaged by the Sugar and Stamp Acts.

In the 1760’s,  a contemporary described Arnold as being a favorite among the socially prominent young ladies. We will learn in future episodes that such ladies matched the description of his second wife. In 1767, Benedict Arnold married the woman described as his first love Margaret Mansfield. Margaret was daughter of the High Sheriff of the county. Like his mother, Margaret was described as in glowing and pious terms. Although I might be a bit of a cynic, but I cannot help wondering if Arnold first focused his attention on Margaret Mansfield because she was the High Sheriff’s daughter. Perhaps the sheriff might be inclined to turn a blind eye to smuggling, if the smuggler was his son-in-law.

The now married Arnold did not take kindly to the infringements upon his personal liberty, much less his pocket book, which were caused by the Sugar Act.

As his outrage continued, Arnold became a member, and soon led a chapter of, the Sons of Liberty. Note I used the word “outraged.” You can add poor anger management skills or volatility to the list of Arnold’s many issues. This is not the last time that you will hear of Arnold’s anger impacting or changing the direction of his life.

Although smuggling might have been a routine practice amongst traders, unlike others Arnold was willing to assure his control, personal gain, or wealth to the disadvantage or injury of those him even if it mean resorting to ...

16 QCAHMP The Great Chain.

Please support my podcasts by purchasing one of the games or teaching tools, with prices beginning at 76 cents on my website, BingoforPatriots.com, or one of more than 100 bingo games with educational, religious, holiday, and party themes for as little as $1.99 on my other website: UnCommonCourtesy.com. Thank you so much for supporting my work!

What was the greatest barrier built by the Continental forces on the Hudson River? What do we know about the patriot who designed and oversaw the construction of that barrier?  Let’s learn the answer to those questions in this episode.

In the 15th episode of American History for the Modern Patriot, we learned about several barriers constructed by the Continental forces to restrict the movement of the British Navy on the Hudson River. Those included a chevaux-de-frise which stretched between Fort Lee and  Fort Washington, as well as a chain that floated between Forts Montgomery and Clinton.  We also learned about an extremely successful attack on several British ships by colonial fire rafts. Today we will learn about the greatest of all barriers on the Hudson. It happens to be called “The Great Chain.” The fact that such a chain could be constructed in 1778 is remarkable in and of itself. However, it is what was done with the chain that is truly astonishing.

From the earliest recommendations of New Yorkers Major Christopher Tappen and Colonel James Clinton, as to how to best defend the Hudson and obstruct the movement of British, a chain stretching between the placement of Fort Constitution and West Point had been envisioned.

For whatever reason, the British chose not to move up the Hudson after easily overtaking Forts Montgomery and Clinton, and instead returned to New York City.

Undaunted by the sweeping defeats at those forts, George Washington and his top generals in the area quickly began thinking about new obstructions which could be built along the Hudson.

You might recall from the previous episode that fire ships or rafts had been a popular method of damage or obstruction during the revolution. It had been suggested by Governor George Clinton in July, 1776, that a “chain” so to speak of fire vessels be used in the same place favored by Van Zandt to prevent the British from moving up the Hudson. He wrote to Washington “as I believe by drawing a chain of them across the narrowest part of the river and fixing them properly, should the enemy shipping attempt passing by, they would answer a most valuable purpose.”

As 1777 drew to a close, George Washington was writing letters of his own. He tried to light a fire under General Putnam to proceed forward with the obstruction project.  He wrote to Putnam that “I shall expect that you will exert every nerve, and employ your whole force in the future, while and whenever it is practicable, in constructing and forwarding the proper works and means of defense. The troops must not be kept out on command, and acting in detachments to cover the country below, which is a consideration infinitely less important and interesting.”

Washington did not leave the matter solely up to Putnam who some thought to be slowing with age. On the same day, he wrote similar letters to both Governor Clinton and others who might drive the project.

In January, 1778, the New York State Legislature took up the matter of placement of the chain at the request of General Putnam. The project would require financial assistance from New York. The New York Convention formed a committee of Fortifications Commissioners, and upon recommendations from the committee, the entire New York Congress recommended that “if a Chain or Boom is to make a Part of the Water Obstruction, all the Iron Works in the Country which have proper Metal and Conveniences for the Purpose should be immediately employ...

15 QCAHMP Revolutionary Barriers and Blazes

What extraordinary steps were taken by the Continental Army to limit British navigation of the Hudson River? We will learn about a bevy of amazing attempts and achievements in this episode.

Strategists for the Continental Army, with drastically limited resources in comparison to their opponent, looked for clever ways to achieve success. It was far easier for both men and supplies to travel along the rivers than on foot. They knew that British would be crippled if their war and supply ships could not freely travel along the Hudson River.  George Washington said of the river: “The importance of the Hudson River in the present Contest, and the necessity of defending it, are Subjects which have been so frequently and fully discussed, and are so well understood, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them.” To understand how important the river was to the British, consider that in August, 1776, General William Howe and his brother Admiral Richard Howe had established a base of command at Staten Island that included approximately 34,000 troops and 427 ships.

Although it took some time to construct the first obstruction on the Hudson, on May 25, 1775, which were only weeks after the Battle of Lexington, the following resolve was passed by the Continental Congress:

“Resolved, that a post be also taken in the highlands on each side of Hudson’s River and batteries erected in such manner as will most effectually prevent any vessels passing that may be sent to harrass the inhabitants on the borders of said river.”

Before learning more about their attempts to block the river, let’s spend a moment learning about the installations that were built along the Hudson. They will be an important part of this story.

 

Fort Lee: located near the Hackensack Township in New Jersey, it is located across the river from Fort Washington.

 

Fort Washington: located across the river from Fort Lee, and on the highest and northern point of the island of Manhattan.

 

Fort Montgomery: located near Peekskill, New York, it empties into the Hudson near Bear Mountain. It is near a site known as Anthony’s nose which is named for a formation known as St. Anthony’s Face on Breakneck Ridge. Talk about painting a picture with words!

 

Fort Clinton: is located just across from Fort Montgomery.

 

Fort Constitution:  This is near the site that we think of as West Point. It was the first site advocated for fortification by New Yorkers James Clinton and Christopher Tappan, However, much disagreement arose over the intricate and extensive plans developed by Dutch born surveyor, Bernard Romans. The disagreement caused plans for the site to be placed on hold and colonial strongholds were built elsewhere.

Let’s learn about the first barrier. It was a chevaux-de-frise stretching between Fort Lee and Fort Washington

 Strategically located on the island of Manhattan. George Washington put troops from Pennsylvania to work building what would become Fort Washington during the summer of 1776. Before construction on the fort, itself, began, one of the first projects for the troops was to construct a chevaux-de-fries.

 

What is a chevaux-de-fries? Think of it, or rather them as a series of submerged boxes. In that box would be placed logs with iron points on top of them. They were invisible from the surface and intended to make navigation through the waters a treacherous business.

 

I have to report that I have found conflicting evidence of exactly what was sunk in the Hudson for this effort. Several authors said that the colonists used 60 foot logs which would have been no small feat considering there were no cranes or other construction equipment to hoist those logs around....

14 QC AHMP: The Separation of Powers According to Montesquieu, Locke & the Founding Fathers

Who was the philosopher known as Montesquieu? What governmental structure did he believe would best assure political liberty, and why did he believe so strongly that each branch must be firmly separated from one another? How can we hear his ideas in the writings of the Founding Fathers? We will explore these questions in this episode.

First, let’s learn a bit about his life history

Who was Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu? Well, we will begin by simply referring to him as Montesquieu.

In the 13th edition of American History for the Modern Patriot, we learned about the life and philosophy of John Locke. While Locke talked about sweeping concepts such as natural law and the state of nature, Montesquieu focused on much concrete systems such as the structure of government.

But let’s start from the beginning of his life.  As with Locke, Montesquieu’s parents died while he was a child. However, unlike Locke, both of Montesquieu’s parents were French nobles. Additionally, Montesquieu’s guardian and uncle was a Baron and left him that title, wealth, and with a Parliamentary office upon his death. In 1708, He received a law degree from the University of Bordeaux.

He served in the office of President a Mortier for eleven years. During that time, he supervised prisons and sat as the trier of fact in proceedings. Montesquieu was financially able to devote himself to writing. He began publishing in his early thirties, and published the book that is of most interest to us, The Spirit of the Laws, as he neared his 60th birthday.

Montesquieu first published this work anonymously.  It is an immense work with four volumes, hundreds chapters, and discussed everything from anthropology to governmental structure. He expounded on slavery, liberty, religion, and most important for our purposes the structure of a republic

Although the book was well received in Britain, and most certainly in the American Colonies, it was banned by the Catholic Church and not well received by those in power in his own country. Why? It might have something to do with Montesquieu’s description governments ruled by despots, monarchies, and republics. While republics were said to have virtuous characteristics such as fraternity, equality, and patriotism (yes, patriotism was actually a virtue in Montesquieu’s eyes), he was not so complementary of monarchies and governments or institutions ruled by singular authorities (such as the Church). In an earlier work (“Persian Letters), Montesquieu had ridiculed social classes, the reign of Louis XIV, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Let’s discuss some of Montesquieu’s ideas and how he defines various concepts.

It is in Book XI of The Spirit of the Laws Which is Entitled “Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution”  there are discussions about  liberty, political liberty, and the structure of government. It is a critical chapter because much of the structure established in our own constitution mirrors what Montesquieu advocated in this section. In the full length edition of this podcast, I quoted extensively from the writings of Montesquieu and the Founders. For our purposes here, I will limit the quotes to the bare bones.

First, let’s begin with Montesquieu’s definition of liberty. Of the definition of liberty, he said: “It is true that in democracies the people seem to act as they please; but political liberty does not consist in an unlimited freedom. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will. We must have continually present to our minds the differen...