Jeff Goodlove email address: Jefferygoodlove@aol.com
Surnames associated with the name Goodlove have been spelled the following different ways; Cutliff, Cutloaf, Cutlofe, Cutloff, Cutlove, Cutlow, Godlib, Godlof, Godlop, Godlove, Goodfriend, Goodlove, Gotleb, Gotlib, Gotlibowicz, Gotlibs, Gotlieb, Gotlob, Gotlobe, Gotloeb, Gotthilf, Gottlieb, Gottliebova, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlow, Gutfrajnd, Gutleben, Gutlove
The Chronology of the Goodlove, Godlove, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlieb (Germany, Russia, Czech etc.), and Allied Families of Battaile, (France), Crawford (Scotland), Harrison (England), Jackson (Ireland), LeClere (France), Lefevre (France), McKinnon (Scotland), Plantagenets (England), Smith (England), Stephenson (England?), Vance (Ireland from Normandy), and Winch (England, traditionally Wales), including correspondence with George Rogers Clarke, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,and ancestors Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison.
The Goodlove Family History Website:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/o/o/Jeffery-Goodlove/index.html
The Goodlove/Godlove/Gottlieb families and their connection to the Cohenim/Surname project:
• New Address! http://www.familytreedna.com/public/goodlove/default.aspx
• • Books written about our unique DNA include:
• “Abraham’s Children, Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” by Jon Entine.
•
• “ DNA & Tradition, The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews” by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, 2004.
“Jacob’s Legacy, A Genetic View of Jewish History” by David B. Goldstein, 2008.
Anniversary: Gretchen Winch and George M. Allen, Marion Mortson and Richard S. Graham,
Birthdays: Margeret L. Sargent, Stacey L. Winch
November 19, 1761: The military records show that John Dodson was inducted into service by Lt. James Brice. This process took place February 5, 1778 in Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland(62) [1]. Lt. James Brice was the son of Captain John Brice. St. John's parish register shows that on November 19, 1761 Sarah Bryce, the second daughter of Captain John Bryce of Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland was 6 married to Richard Henderson(63)[2]. This wedding took place while the McKinnon family was associated with St. John's parish. Thus it is likely that Eleanor knew the Brice Family and they could have acted
to bring John Dodson and Eleanor (Howard) McKinnon together.
The register for the military unit being formed in Annapolis shows the following enlistments:(64)[3]
Name Rank Date Enlisted Date Discharged Remarks
Majors. Jno Pvt 4Febl778 16 Aug 1880 Prisoner
Dodson. John Pvt 5 Feb 1778 11 Jun 1778 Discharged
Pringlc. John Pvt 6 Feb 1778 16 Aug. 1880 Missing
Rady. Laurence Pvt 7 Feb 1778 8 Jul 1779 Deserted
Cheney. John Pvt 10 Feb 1778
Timms. Edward Pvt 11 Feb 1778 1 Nov 1880 Present
Therefore it appears that John Dodson was not part of any group but rather enlisted himself on that
date.
John Dodson voluntarily enlisted on February 5, 1778. The marriage license to John and Eleanor was
issued on February 17, 1778. John passed muster on February 27, 1778. John Dodson, the first child
of Eleanor and John was bom on December 25. 1778(65). Thus, Eleanor was about three months
pregnant and probably the reason for John's discharge on June 11, 1778.
But why would Eleanor have used the surname Howard rather than McKinnon when obtaining the
marriage license? [4]
November 19, 1770:. At the same place, & in the same Situation as yesterday.[5]
November 19th, 1770.—The Delawares set off with the canoe, and our horses not arriving, the day appeared exceedingly long and tedious. Upon conversing with Nicholson, I found he had been two or three times to Fort Chartres, on the Illinois, and I got from him an account of the lands between this place and that, and upon the Shawanese river, on which he had been hunting.[6]
NOVEMBER 19, 1773. (244) George Cutlip, witness from Botetourt. (I wouldlike to know more about this. Evidently the George Cutlip and wife Susannathat lived in Dunmore County moved to Botetourt now Greenbrier County since we have two 1773 dates, September (Dunmore) and November (Botetourt). This would also mean that George, Jr., was first married to Susanna since he is always on record in Greenbrier County.[7] By 1773 the East India Company was nearly bankrupt, with millions of pounds of unsold tea in its London warehouses. The Tea Act was essentially a bailout of the East India Company. It levied no new taxes, although the three-penny tax on tea remained from before. Instead, the Tea Act gave the Company a one-shilling per pound subsidy on all tea sold in America. Now the Company could undersell the smugglers, and get rid of its surplus tea at a profit. Bostonians would have none of it. In the first place, the Tea Act gave a monopoly to certain “consignees”, who all turned out to be Bernor Hutchinson’s close friends and relatives. The town’s merchants were outraged. If the royal officials could do this with tea, they could do it with other goods. No merchant of shopowner would be safe. Furthermore, the Tea Act was seen as a ruse to get the colonist to pay the three penny tax which they had so long opposed. The cry “No tax on tea!” echoed through the streets and in town meetings. The Tea Act, then, managed to offend everyone in town, even many who had supported the Crown before. The consignees were “enemies of the country”;America, one writer opined, was “threatened ith worse than Egyptian slavery.” Virtually no one, savwe the Governor and his cosignees, wished the tea to be landed. Or as Abigail Adams put it, “The flame is kindled and like lightning it catches from soul to soul.” Dartmouth, the first of the tea ships, arrived Boston Harbor on November 28, 1773. By law, the cargo had to be unloaded, and the tax paid within twenty days. [8]
November 19, 1776: at Hackensac [New Jersey].
I began this Letter at the White plains as you will see bythe first part of it; but by the time I had got thus far the Enemy advance a Second time (for they had done it once before, & after engaging some Troops which I had posted on a Hill, and driving them from it with the loss of abt. 300 killed & wounded to them, & little more than half the number to us) as if they meant a genel. Attack but finding us ready to receive them, & upon such ground as they could not approach without loss, they filed of & retreated towards New York.
As it was conceived that this Manoeuvre was done with a design to attack Fort Washington (near Harlem heights)[9] or to throw a body of Troops into the Jersey’s, or what might be still worse, aim a stroke at Philadelphia, I hastend over on this side [New Jersey] with abt. 5000 Men by a round about March (wch. we were obliged to take on Acct. of the shipping opposing the passage at all the lower Ferries) of near 65 Miles, but did not get hear time enough to take Measures to save Fort Washington tho I got here myself a day or two before it surrendered, which happened on the 16th. Instt. after making a defence of about 4 or 5 hours only.
This is a most unfortunate affair, and has given me great Mortification as we have lost not only two thousand Men that were there, but a good deal of Artillery, & some of the best Arms we had. And what adds to my Mortification is that this Post, after the last Ships went past it, was held contrary to my Wishes & opinion; as I conceived it to be a dangerous one: but being determind on by a full Council of General Officers, and recieving a resolution of Congress strongly expressive of their desires, that the Channel of the River (which we had been labouring to stop for a long while at this place) might be obstructed, if possible, & knowing that this could not be done unless there were Batteries to protect the Obstruction I did not care to give an absolute Order for withdrawing the Garrison till I could get round & see the Situation of things & then it became too late as the Fort was Invested.[10]
November 19, 1776: At a Court held for the district of West Augusta at Augusta
Town, November 19, 1776 :
Present, Edward Ward, John McColloch, John Cannon,
William Goe, David Shepherd.
Thomas Glenn, who was bound by recog to Appear at the
Grand jury Court, appeared, and was Ord to be prosecuted
for beating his Serv't. No prosecutor or Witnesses appearing,
it is ordered that he be discharged.
Ord that the Court be adjorned until to Morrow Morning 8
o'clock Edw'd Ward. [11]
November 19, 1779: This Baltimore agreement was ratified and finally confirmed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly on November 19, 1779. Virginia, however, held back, and whether from a dissatisfaction with the boun- dary as recommended by the commissioners or with an intention of benefiting her whilom adherents in the Monongahela valley, her Assembly had no action on the subject until the following summer. And what occurred in the meantime ? [12]
November 19, 1794: Jay Treaty
Jay Treaty
First Page of the Jay Treaty
Ratified
February 29, 1796
Author(s): Main authors were John Jay and Alexander Hamilton
Signatories: Great Britain and the United States.
Purpose:
To relieve post-war tension between Britain and the U. S.
Jay Treaty, also known as Jay's Treaty, The British Treaty, the Treaty of London of 1794, and officially the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America,[1][2] was a treaty between the United States and Great Britain that is credited with averting war,[3] resolving issues remaining since the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the American Revolution,[4], and facilitating ten years of peaceful trade between the United States and Britain in the midst of the French Revolutionary Wars, which began in 1792.
The terms of the treaty were designed primarily by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, strongly supported by the chief negotiator John Jay; and support from President George Washington. The treaty gained the primary American goals, which included the withdrawal of units of the British Army from pre-Revolutionary forts that it had failed to relinquish in the Northwest Territory of the United States (the area west of Pennsylvania and north of the Ohio River). (The British had recognized this area as American territory in the Treaty of Paris of 1783.) The parties agree that disputes over wartime debts and the American-Canadian boundary were to be sent to arbitration—one of the first major uses of arbitration in diplomatic history. The Americans were granted limited rights to trade with British possessions in India and colonies in the Caribbean in exchange for some limits on the American export of cotton.
The treaty was hotly contested by the Jeffersonians in each state. They feared that closer economic ties with Britain would strengthen Hamilton's Federalist Party, promote aristocracy and undercut republicanism. Washington's announced support proved decisive and the treaty was ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate in November 1794. The treaty became a central issue of contention—leading to the formation of the "First Party System" in the United States, with the Federalists favoring Britain and the Jeffersonian republicans favoring France. The treaty was for ten years' duration. Efforts to agree on a replacement treaty failed (in 1806) when Jefferson rejected the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty as tensions escalated toward the War of 1812.[5] The treaty was signed on November 19, 1794, the Senate advised and consented on June 24, 1795; it was ratified by the President and the British government; it took effect on the day ratifications were officially exchanged, February 29, 1796.
The historian George Herring notes the "remarkable and fortuitous economic and diplomatic gains" produced by the Jay Treaty.[6]
Issues: From the British perspective, its war with France necessitated improving relations with the United States to prevent the U.S. from falling into the French orbit. From the American viewpoint, the most pressing foreign policy issues were normalizing the trade relations with Britain, the United States' leading trading partner, and resolving issues left over from the Treaty of Versailles of 1783. As one observer explained, the British government was "well disposed to America… They have made their arrangements upon a plan that comprehends the neutrality of the United States, and are anxious that it should be preserved."[7]
In 1793–94, the British Navy had captured hundreds of neutral American merchant ships, and British officials in Canada were supporting Indian tribes fighting American settlers in the Ohio River Valley, territory which Britain had explicitly ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Paris. Congress voted for a trade embargo against Britain for two months. Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain over France, and they sought to normalize relations with Britain. Hamilton designed the plan for a treaty and President George Washington sent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay to London to negotiate a comprehensive treaty.
The American government had a number of outstanding issues:
•The British were still occupying forts on U.S. territory in the Great Lakes region (the Northwest Territory).
•The British were continually impressing American sailors into British service
•American merchants wanted compensation for 250 merchant ships which the British had confiscated from 1793 through 1794.
•Southerners in the United States wanted monetary compensation for the slaves whom the British Army had evacuated with them during the Revolutionary War.
•Merchants in both America and in the Caribbean wanted the British West Indies to be reopened to American trade.
•The boundary with Canada was vague in many places, and needed to be delineated clearly.
•The British were believed to be aggravating Native American attacks on settlers in the Northwest.
Treaty terms: Both sides achieved many objectives. The British agreed to vacate the six western forts by June 1796 (which was done), and to compensate American ship owners (the British paid $10,345,200 by 1802).[8] In return, the United States gave most favored nation trading status to Britain, and acquiesced in British anti-French maritime policies. The United States guaranteed the payment of private prewar debts owed by Americans to British merchants that could not be collected in U.S. courts (the U.S. paid £600,000 in 1802).
Two joint boundary commissions were set up to establish the boundary line in the Northeast (it agreed on the Saint Croix River) and in the Northwest (this one never met and the boundary was settled after the War of 1812).[9]
Jay, a strong opponent of slavery, dropped the issue of compensation for slaves, which angered Southern slaveholders. Jay was unsuccessful in negotiating an end to the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, which later became a key issue leading to the War of 1812.
Native American rights
Article III states "It is agreed, that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass, by land or inland navigation into the respective territories and countries of the two parties on the continent of America, (the country within the limits of the Hudson Bay company only excepted) ... and freely carry on trade and commerce with each other." Article III of the Jay Treaty declared the right of "Indians" ("Native Americans") as well as of American citizens and Canadian subjects to trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then a territory of Great Britain.[10] Over the years since, the United States has codified this obligation in the provisions of Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and as amended in 1965. As a result of the Jay Treaty, "Native Indians born in Canada are therefore entitled to enter the United States for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration".[11] Article III of the Jay Treaty is the cause of most Indian claims.[12]
Approval and dissent
Washington submitted the treaty to the United States Senate for its consent in June 1795; a two-thirds vote was needed. The treaty was unpopular at first, and gave the Jeffersonians a platform to rally new supporters. As the historian Paul Varg explains,
"The Jay Treaty was a reasonable give-and-take compromise of the issues between the two countries. What rendered it so assailable was not the compromise spelled out between the two nations but the fact that it was not a compromise between the two political parties at home. Embodying the views of the Federalists, the treaty repudiated the foreign policy of the opposing party."[13]
The Jeffersonians were opposed to Britain, preferring support for France in the wars raging in Europe, and they argued that the treaty with France from 1778 was still in effect. They considered Britain as the center of aristocracy and the chief threat to the United States' republican values. They denounced Hamilton and Jay (and even Washington) as monarchists who betrayed American values. They organized public protests against Jay and his treaty; one of their rallying cries said: Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay![14]
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison strongly opposed the Treaty as they favored France; foreign policy became a major dispute between the new Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties; it became a core issue of the First Party System. Jefferson and his supporters had a counterproposal to establish "a direct system of commercial hostility with Great Britain," even at the risk of war. The Jeffersonians raised public opinion to fever pitch by accusing the British of promoting Indian atrocities on the frontier.[15] The fierce debates over the Treaty in 1794–95, according to one historian, "transformed the Republican movement into a Republican party." To fight the treaty, the Jeffersonians "established coordination in activity between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties and towns."[16] Jay's failure to obtain compensation for "lost" slaves galvanized the South into opposition.[17]
The Federalists fought back and Congress rejected the Jefferson-Madison counter-proposals. Washington threw his great prestige behind the treaty, and Federalists rallied public opinion more effectively than did their opponents.[18] Hamilton convinced President Washington it was the best treaty that could be expected. Washington, who insisted the U.S. must remain neutral in the European wars, signed it, and his prestige carried the day in Congress. The Federalists made a strong, systematic appeal to public opinion, which rallied their own supporters and shifted the debate. Washington and Hamilton outmaneuvered Madison, who was opposition leader.[19] By then out of the government, Hamilton was the dominant figure who helped secure the treaty's approval by the needed 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Senate passed a resolution in June, advising the president to amend the treaty by suspending the 12th article, which concerned trade between the U.S. and the West Indies. In mid-August, the Senate ratified the treaty 20-10, with the condition that the treaty contain specific language regarding the June 24 resolution. President Washington signed it in late August. The Treaty was proclaimed in effect on February 29, 1796 and in a series of close votes, after another bitter fight the House funded the Treaty in April 1796.[20]
James Madison, then a member of the House of Representatives, argued that the treaty could not, under Constitutional law, take effect without approval of the House, since it regulated commerce and exercised legislative powers granted to Congress. The debate which followed was an early example of originalism, in which Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," lost.[21] After defeat on the treaty in Congress, the Jeffersonian Republicans lost the 1796 presidential election on the issue.
When Jefferson became president in 1801, he did not repudiate the treaty. He kept the Federalist minister, Rufus King, in London to negotiate a successful resolution to outstanding issues regarding cash payments and boundaries. The amity broke down in 1805, as relations turned increasingly hostile as a prelude to the War of 1812. In 1815, the Treaty of Ghent superseded the Jay treaty.
Evaluations
The historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick note that in conventional diplomatic terms, as a "piece of adversary bargaining", Jay "got much the worst of the 'bargain'. Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since."[22] They conclude that although Jay did not succeed in asserting neutral rights, he did obtain "his other sine qua nons [sic]"; he got none of things that were "desirable, but not indispensable."[23] They add "Jay's record on the 'soft'[24] was open to many objections; on the 'hard' side, it was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain."[25]
The historian Marshall Smelser argues that the treaty effectively postponed war with Britain, or at least postponed it until the United States was strong enough to handle it.[26]
Bradford Perkins argued in 1955 that the treaty was the first to establish a special relationship between Britain and the United States, with a second installment under Lord Salisbury. In his view, the treaty worked for ten years to secure peace between Britain and America: "The decade may be characterized as the period of "The First Rapprochement." As Perkins concludes,
"For about ten years there was peace on the frontier, joint recognition of the value of commercial intercourse, and even, by comparison with both preceding and succeeding epochs, a muting of strife over ship seizures and impressment. Two controversies with France… pushed the English-speaking powers even more closely together."[27]
Starting at swords' point in 1794, the Jay treaty reversed the tensions, Perkins concludes: "Through a decade of world war and peace, successive governments on both sides of the Atlantic were able to bring about and preserve a cordiality which often approached genuine friendship."[28]
Perkins suggests that (saving perhaps the opening of trade with British India), "Jay did fail to win anything the Americans were not obviously entitled to, liberation of territory recognized as theirs since 1782, and compensation for seizures that even Britain admitted were illegal." He also speculates that a "more astute negotiator than the Chief Justice" would have gotten better terms than he did.[29] He quoted the opinion of the "great historian" Henry Adams that the treaty was a "bad one":
"No one would venture on its merits to defend it now. There has been no time since 1810 when the United States would not prefer war to peace on such terms."
Perkins gave more weight than other historians to valuable concessions regarding trade in India and the concession on the West Indies trade. In addition, Perkins noted that the Royal Navy treated American commerce with "relative leniency" during the wars, and many impressed seamen were returned to America. As Spain assessed the informal British-American alliance, it softened its previous opposition to the United States' use of the Mississippi River and signed Pinckney's Treaty, which the Americans wanted. When Jefferson took office, he gained renewal of the commercial articles that had greatly benefited American shipping.[30]
Elkins and McKitrick find this more positive view open to "one big difficulty": it requires that the British negotiated in the same spirit. Unlike Perkins, they find "little indication of this"; preferring to view the British not as future-oriented, but, having had no indication that the United States required attention, wishing to take it off the long list of issues that did.[31]
George Herring's 2008 history of US foreign policy says that in 1794 "the United States and Britain edged toward war" and concludes, "The Jay Treaty brought the United States important concessions and served its interests well."[32] Joseph Ellis finds the terms of the treaty "one-sided in Britain's favor", but asserts a consensus of historians that it was
"a shrewd bargain for the United States. It bet, in effect, on England rather than France as the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic. It recognized the massive dependence of the American economy on trade with England. In a sense it was a precocious preview of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), for it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one."[33][13][14]
November 19, 1861: Boteler, Alexander Robinson, a Representative from Virginia; born in Shepherdstown, Jefferson County, Va. (now West Virginia), May 16, 1815; was graduated from Princeton College in 1835; engaged in agriculture and literary pursuits; elected as the candidate of the Opposition Party to the Thirty-sixth Congress (March 4, 1859-March 3, 1861); during the Civil War entered the Confederate Army and was a member of Stonewall Jackson’s staff; chosen by the State convention a Representative from Virginia to the Confederate Provisional Congress November 19, 1861; elected from Virginia to the Confederate Congress, serving from February 1862 to February 1864; appointed a member of the Centennial Commission in 1876; appointed a member of the Centennial Commission in 1876; appointed a member of the Tariff Commission by President Arthur and a member and subsequently made pardon clerk in the Department of Justice by Attorney General Brewster; died in Shepherdstown, Jefferson County, W. Va., May 8, 1892; interment in Elmwood Cemetery.[15]
November 19, 1863
Edward Everett, the most renowned orator of his day gave one of his best performances of his life and spoke for two hours in a speech that no one will remember.[16]
President Lincoln delivers his Gettysburg Address at the military cemetery on the Gettysburg battlefield.[17] 20,000 come to pay tribute on that day.[18] His 271 word remark would become one of the finest speeches in world history.
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great Civil War testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated,[19]
can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate…we can not consecrate…we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, that consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vane--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[20]
“I failed, I failed, and that is about all that can be said about it.” Abraham Lincoln used these self critical words to dismiss his Gettyburg Address moments after delivering it.[21]
President Lincoln falls ill with a variation of small pox, and will be be bedridden for three weeks.[22]
Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863
The victory of the Union troops in the battle of Gettysburg, in July of 1863, was a turning point in the war, halting General Lee’s momentous drive into the heart of the northern states. The losses suffered by both sides were astounding. Three days of brutal fighting left over fifty thyousand soldiers dead or wounded. In the bloody after math, a cemetery was hastily planned and contructed on the site
Months later, on November 19, an official ceremony was held to honor the dead and dedicate the cemetery to their memory. Popular speaker Edward Everett (1794-1865) gave a two hous long exercise in oratorical excess, after which President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) was asked to give “a few appropriate remarks” for the occasion. His brief address was not received well at the moment, but over the years it has come to be considered one of the finest speeches in the English language/. In a succinct, powerful manner, Lincoln conveyed a sense of awe and respect for the sacrifice made by the soldiers. At the same time he placed the tragedy in a larger context, presenting the vision of a great leader with the words of a poet.[23]
“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion th that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and properthat we should do this.
But in the larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here hav consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dediczated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us: That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [24]
Sat. November 19, 1864
A nice day all quiet[25]
November 19, 1894: On Convoy 27 was Nicolas Gotlibs, born November 19, 1894, from Latvia, and Joseph Gottlieb, birth and place of residence unknown. (probably illegible.)
The list is on onionskin and is in deploable condition. Even with a magnifying glass the names cannot all be deciphered correctly. They are not in alphabetical order. The transport of September 2 is divided into six sublists, labeled as follows:
1. Unoccupied Zone 1--468 people. These are Jews who were undoubtedly arrested in the mass roundup in the unoccupied zone which took place on the night of August 26 (and into the morning of August 27). The roundup led to the arrest of 6,584 Jews (XXVI-58) who were surrendered to the occupying authorities. This list is composed of 17 sublists totaling 468 persons. Some of the lists comprise males only, but the majority had families. There were nmo children under 15. These lists were hastily prepared, and none contain the place of birth.
2. Unoccupied Zone 2, 28 people, including some intire families. The date and place of birth, abd ub nabt cases the nationality are missing.
3. Drancy 1—19 people, including families.
4. Drancy 2—
Stairway 8. 21 people, many of them teenagers and young children.
Stairway 9. 64 people, all adolescents and young children.
Stairway 10. 17 people.
5. Departments—75 people. Only family and indicated here. There are sublists from Dordogne (27), Correze (2), Creuse (3), Indre (2), and Haute-Vienne (41).
6. Last minute departures not yet listed—71 people. There were entire families. These people came from camps in both zones.
SS Ernst Heinrichsohn composed the usual telex to Berlin, Oranienburg and Auschwitz (XXVb-149) announcinbg the departure of convoy D 901/22. The telex, signed by Horst Ahnert, indicates that the departure took place at 8:55 AM on September 2 from the station at Le Bourget-Drancy, that the transport carried 1,000 Jews, and that it was escorted by Sergeant Weise.
The convoy arrived in Auschwitz on September 4. An undetermined number of males were selected before arrival (see Convoy 24.) Upon arrival, only 10 men were selected for work and received numbers 63055 through 63064. There were 113 women selected; they were given numbers 19003 through 19115. The rest were immediately gassed.
Some thirty men are known to have survived in 1945. This survival rate, high relative to the other convoys, is explained by the selections before arrival in Auschwitz.[26]
November 1920: In 1828 Rev. William Keil came from Virginia to this settlement and organized the Lutheran church at MT. Zion. Michael and his wife (Margaret Gottlieb/Godlove) were charter members.[27]
November 1920: George Micheal Spaid, father of Michael Spaid, husband of Margaret Godlove, who was the daughter of George Gottlieb, also a hessian[28] soldier.
This is the story of a German schoolboy, who with a bundle of books under his arm, one fine morning in April, 1776, was on his way to the High School of Cassell, the small capital city of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, when he was kidnapped by two soldiers of the Grand Duke Friedrick II, to be sold to King George III of England for service in the rebellious colonies of America. He was quickly taken by the soldiers to their barracks and so closely was he held prisoner that he never again saw his parents nor brother and sister. Nor would they let him go to bid his family farewell before he was shipped out by way of England to America.
This seventeen year old schoolboy was George Nicholas Spaht, the elder son of Michael and Cunegunda Spaht. He had one brother, Mathias and one sister, Charity. Why did not his parents protest against such tyranny? Autocracy is not a new development in Germany. History tells us that if a mother protested in a case like this she was thrown into prison; if the father protested, he was flogged. And they were not alone in their suffering. This same Grand Duke furnished 22,000 soldiers to the English King and many of them were obtained in the same way. The finances of the Grand Duchy were considerably augmented at the expense of the welfare and morality of the people, and the dissolute ruler kept up a splendid "Court" on the proceeds of the pay.
The Hessians were the victims of the tyranny of their rulers, who sold the lives and services of their subjects to the highest bidder. The English government was at that time the best customer. Large profits were realized by the petty princes who were willing to sell mercenaries for the war in the American colonies, as can be seen by examination of the contracts between the parties on either side, contracts which were not kept secret.--All told, the expense to England for the German mercenary troops was at least seven Million pounds sterling, the equivalent at present of one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty million dollars.--The greatest of the German princes did not allow his subjects to be sold. Frederick the Great used his influence against the sale of recruits in other German states and refused to allow mercenaries who were intended for the American service to pass through his domains," says Prof. Faust in his great work," The German Element in America." [29]
George Spaid Tombstone
Spaid Family in America", author Abrahan
Thompsom Secrest. Published privately November 1920, Columbus, Ohio.
November 1941: Jean Gottleib born November 28, 1880 in Gro?, Mesertsch.
Resided Hamburg. Deportation: from Hamburg, November 1941, Minsk.
Missing. [30]
November 1941: Terezín Terezín
Město bylo založeno na konci 18. The city was founded in the late 18th století jako vojenská pevnost a nazváno po císařovně Marii Terezii. century as a military fortress and named after Empress Maria Theresa. V listopadu 1941 v něm bylo zřízeno ghetto pro Židy z českých zemí, z Německa, z Rakouska, z Nizozemí, z Dánska, ze Slovenska az dalších okupovaných zemí. In November 1941 there was established a ghetto for Jews in the Czech lands, from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Slovakia and other occupied countries. Přímo v Terezíně zahynulo přes 30 tisíc vězňů, dalších téměr 90 tisíc bylo odtud posláno do vyhlazovacích táborů na východě. Directly in the Terezin killed more than 30,000 prisoners, almost another 90,000 were sent from there to the extermination camps in the East.
November 19, 1941: Erna Gottlieb, born Edelheim, December 9, 1888
Resided Hamburg. Deportation: from Hamburg November 19, 1941, Minsk. Missing. Killed at Tuchinka? [31]
November 19, 1941
The British 7th Armoured Division suffers heavy casualties during an attack by the German 21st Panzer Brigade in North Africa.[32]
November 1942: German military administration regulations define a Jew as any person who now or ever has professed the Jewish religion or who has more than two Jewish grandparents. The regulations order a census of Jews in the Ocdcupied Zone, the stamping of the words “Juif” or “Juive” on their identity cards, and the posting of placards identifying Jewish owned shops and businesses. (The stamping of the word “Jew” on identity cards was not imposed in the Unoccupied Zone until after the Germans occupied all of France in November 1942. A Vichy decree issued December 11, 1942, required the stamp of Jews’ identiy cards and food rationing cards.)[33]
November 1942: The American Mercury and the Reader’s Digest were alone among mass-circulation magazines in bringing the extermination issue to public attention in the weeks following the revelations of late November 1942. Except for a few inconspicuous words on the UN declaration, such news magazines as Time, Life, and Newsweek over looked the systematic murder of millions of helpless Jews. The first clear comment on mass killing of Jews came on March 24, 1944.[34]
November 19, 1942: Soviet forces begin a counterattack near Stalingrad.[35]
November 19, 1943: The Sonderkommando 1005 prisoners in the Janowska camp revolt. Several dozen escape and the rest are killed.[36]
November 1944: USS Scamp (SSN-588), a Skipjack-class nuclear-powered submarine, was the second ship of the United States Navy to be named for the scamp, a member of the serranidae family of fish.
Her keel was laid down on 23 January 1959 at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. She was launched on October 8, 1960, sponsored by Mrs. John C. Hollingsworth, widow of Commander John C. Hollingsworth, the commanding officer of Scamp (SS-277) at the time of her loss in November 1944. She was commissioned at Mare Island on 5 June 1961 with Commander W. N. Dietzen in command. [37]
November 19, 1977: Sadat visits Israel.[38]
November 1978: Only nine of of the 56 signers have been proven to be Freemasons: William Eollery (R.I.), Benjamin Franklin (Pa.), John Hancock (Mass.), Joseph Hewes (N.C.), William Hooper (N.C), Robert Treat Paine (Mass.), Richard Stockton (N.J.) (N.J.), George Walton (Ga.), and William Whipple (N.H.). There are 23 signers with vague and unproven references to Masonry, and 24 were most certainly not Freemasons. [39]
November 1982: Brigadier General John Glover was born at Salem, Mass., on November 5, 1732. There is no record of where John Glover was “made a Mason,” but documents in the archives of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts name him and his brothers Samuel and Johnhathan in “A List of Brothers before the Opening of the Lodge in Barblehead and belonging to the Same Town.” That ladge, constituted March 25, 1760, received its charter on January 14, 1778, and its present name, Philanthropic Lodge, on June 12, 1797 under Grand Master Paul Revere. In January 1775, the Marblehead Regiment of Minutemen elected Glover 2nd Lt. Colonel, its third ranking officer, and its weekly drills sharply increased. With the unexpected death of its Commander in April, Glover assumed command of the regiment. The Marblehead men were fishing on the Grand Banks when “the shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord. On their return Col. Glover’s recruiting efforts soon raised a regiment of 505 officers and men,, all but seven being “Headers.” [40]
November 1997: Private Cemetery: NATHANIEL KING FARM, formerly the WADE FARM, and
originally known as the MOSES VANCE FARM. Located in Upper Tyrone
Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania.
July, 1949, Inscriptions of graves copied and compiled. The following
statement is made about the cemetery: "This cemetery was destroyed by the
Pittsburg 7 West Virginia Railroad Company when they constructed their
branch through this section, about the year 1935. There are only two stones
remaining, and they are large flat table stones, in excellent condition,
with inscriptions that are very legible, and as follows:"
VANCE "In memory of ELIZABETH VANCE, consort of MOSES VANCE, who departed
this life, 9/8/1849, age 76 years."
MOSES VANCE, who departed this life, 6/27/1829, age 56 years.
---------------------------------
Postscript and History:
"A descendant of the MOSES VANCE Family, who retained a copy of their
original family bible, states several of the
MOSES VANCE descendants were buried in this same cemetery, but no doubt
their stones were destroyed when the
Railroad constructed their branch, or they could have been moved elsewhere,
but the above two stones remain under a
group of trees.
We shall add here the bible records as follows:
MOSES VANCE, b. 5/23/1773; died 1/27/1829; married ELIZABETH, daughter of
JACOB & ELIZABETH STRICKLER, settlers in Tyrone Township in 1797.
ELIZABETH STRICKLER, b. 1773; died 9/8/1849, and both (husband and wife)
are buried on the NATHANIEL KING Farm.
Their Children:
JOHN VANCE, b. 1/11/1797; d. 3/12/1886; married MARY STRICKLER, daughter
of ABRAHAM STRICKLER.
JACOB VANCE, b. 11/7/1798; d. 11/4/1883; married CHARLOTTE HARDY
SAMUEL VANCE, b. 7/30/1800
FRANCES VANCE, b. 3/27/1802
WILLIAM VANCE, b. 12/6/1804
CRAWFORD VANCE, b. 3/13/1806; married SUSAN CLAYTON
MARGARET VANCE, b. 3/29/1808
ALFRED VANCE, b. 4/22/1810
ELISA VANCE, b. 9/22/1813; single
GEORGE VANCE, b. 1/12/1815; single"
[Reference, MOSES VANCE FAMILY, found in the book "History of Fayette
County, Pennsylvania, pages 401, 784, 787", by author Franklin Ellis;
information transcribed for PA Archives, November 1997.]
End of Vance index[41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 62 Muster Rolls & Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, 1775 - 1783,
Muster of Maryland Troops, Vol. 1, First Regiment, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore, MD.
1972
[2] 63 Maryland State Archives, St. John's Parish Records, Microfilm Roll M 229. Page 331
[3] 64 Muster Rolls & Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, 1775- 1783,
Muster of Maryland Troops, Vol. 1, First Regiment, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore. MD.
1972
10
[4] http://washburnhill.freehomepage.com/custom3.html
[5] George Washington Journal
[6] George Washington Journal
[7] EHB)Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia (Extracted from the Original Court Records of Augusta County, 1745-1800), Chalkley, 1912, Volume I, page 176:http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/C/CUTLIP+1998+1837576+F
[8] The Complete Guide to Boston’s Freedom Trail by Charles Bahne, page 20.
[9] William Crawford is listed as serving in the 5th Virginia and later in 1776 in the 7th. In Harlem Heights, the Americans formed a stronghold and Gen. Howe moved up the Sound to gain another rear onslaught. From here, Washinton moved his army to a camp at North Castle. Howe, fearing the worst, ordered the Hessians to take Fort Washinton, which they did at a tremendous cost to the American army.
(From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969 pg. 142.)
[10] The grievous loss of men and supplies at Fort Washington must be laid at the Commander in Chief’s door. Washington had believed this last American stronghold on Manhattan should be abandoned; General Nathanael Greene, who was in command of the fort, wanted to defend it. Washington, as he so often did, yielded. His reluctance to impose his decisions was a flaw in leadership; it would disappear only as he came to recognize that since his was the ultimate responsibility, his must also be the final decision. Troubles multiplied. Reporting to the president of Congress on the situation in New Jersey, Washington had not finished his letter before he was forced to tell of a fresh disaster.
[11] http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924017918735/cu31924017918735_djvu.txt
[12] http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924017918735/cu31924017918735_djvu.txt
1. [13] ^ James S. Olsen, ed. (1991). Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism. Greenwood Press. pp. 332. ISBN 0-313-26257-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=uyqepNdgUWkC&dq=isbn=0313262578. Retrieved 2007-11-19.
2. ^ 8 Stat. 116
3. ^ Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation (1998) p. 177
4. ^ Todd Estes, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture (2006) p. 15
5. ^ Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic: 1801–1815 (1968) pp. 139, 145, 155–56.
6. ^ George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776 (2008) p. 80
7. ^ Gouverneur Morris quoted in Perkins (1955) p. 22; the British foreign minister felt, "this Country is anxious to keep the Americans in good humour." ibid.
8. ^ Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations, (1974) p. 55.
9. ^ The Treaty also allowed people to pass freely across the US-Canadian border to carry on trade and commerce.
10. ^ INA, Cornell.
11. ^ "First Nations and Native Americans". United States Embassy, Consular Services Canada. http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/first_nations_canada.asp. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
12. ^ Karl S. Hele, Lines Drawn upon the Water: First Nations and the Great Lakes Borders and Borderlands (2008) p. 127
13. ^ Varg, 1963 p. 95.
14. ^ William Weeks, Building the Continental Empire, p. 23.
15. ^ Elkins and McKitrick, p. 405.
16. ^ William Nisbet Chambers. Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809 (1963), p. 80.
17. ^ Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy (2006) 67–68.
18. ^ Estes 2001.
19. ^ Estes pp. 398–99.
20. ^ "Jay’s Treaty", American Foreign Relations.
21. ^ Rakove, pp 355-365
22. ^ Elkins and McKitrick
23. ^ Elkins and McKitrick, p. 410.
24. ^ "Soft" means matters important in principle or symbolism; "hard" meant matters of immediate material importance
25. ^ Elkins and McKitrick, p. 412.
26. ^ Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815 (1968).
27. ^ Perkins p. vii
28. ^ Perkins p. 1.
29. ^ Perkins: The First Rapprochement p. 3.
30. ^ Perkins, Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations I: The Creation of a Republican Empire,(1995) pp. 99, 100, 124.
31. ^ Elkins and McKitrick, pp. 396–402.
32. ^ George Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776 (2008) p 73, 78
33. ^ Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (2000) pp. 136–7.
[edit] References
•Bemis, Samuel Flagg. Jay's Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy (1923) remains the standard narrative of how treaty was written
•Charles, Joseph. "The Jay Treaty: The Origins of the American Party System," in William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 12, No. 4. (Oct., 1955), pp. 581–630. in JSTOR
•Combs, Jerald. A. The Jay Treaty: Political Background of Founding Fathers (1970) (ISBN 0-520-01573-8) Focusing on the domestic and ideological aspects, Combs dislikes Hamilton's quest for national power and a "heroic state" dominating the Western Hemisphere, but concludes the Federalists "followed the proper policy" because the treaty preserved peace with Britain.
•Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800. (1994), ch. 9
•Estes, Todd, "The Art of Presidential Leadership: George Washington and the Jay Treaty," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 2001, vol 109, no. 2 pp 127-58 in JSTOR
•Estes, Todd, "Shaping the Politics of Public Opinion: Federalists and the Jay Treaty Debate." Journal of the Early Republic (2000) 20(3): 393-422. ISSN in JSTOR
•Estes, Todd. The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, And the Evolution of Early American Political Culture (2006)
•Farrell, James M. "Fisher Ames and Political Judgment: Reason, Passion, and Vehement Style in the Jay Treaty Speech," Quarterly Journal of Speech 1990 76(4): 415-434.
•Fewster, Joseph M. "The Jay Treaty and British Ship Seizures: the Martinique Cases." William and Mary Quarterly 1988 45(3): 426-452. in JSTOR
•Perkins, Bradford. The First Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1795–1805 1955.
•Perkins, Bradford. "Lord Hawkesbury and the Jay-Grenville Negotiations," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 40, No. 2. (Sep., 1953), pp. 291–304. in JSTOR
•Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1997. ISBN 0-394-57858-9
•Varg, Paul A; Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers. 1963.
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty
[15] Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000653
[16] Gettysburg: Speech, Military, 12/06/2008
[17] On This Day in America by John Wagman.
[18] Gettysburg: Speech, Military, 12/06/2008
[19] The Real Abraham Lincoln 01/20/2009
[20] Wikipedia
[21] Civil War 2010 Calendar
[22] Gettysburg: Speech, Military, 12/06/2008
[23] Famous American Speeches by Orville V. Webster, III page 37
[24] Abraham Lincoln; Famous American Speeches by Orville V. Webster, III page 38-39.
[25] William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary by Jeff Goodlove
[26] Memorial to the Jews Deported from France 1942-1944 by Serge Klarsfeld, page 236.
[27] "The Spade Family in America", author Abraham Thompsom Secrest. Published privately November 1920, Columbus, Ohio.
[28] Hessian (soldiers)
From Wikipedia(View original Wikipedia Article) Last modified on 6 November 2012, at 14:46
From Wikipedia
Two Hessian soldiers of the Leibregiment
The Hessians ( /ˈhɛʃən/)[1] were 18th-century German soldiers hired through their rulers by the British Empire. About 30,000 German soldiers served in the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolutionary War; nearly half were from the Hesse region of Germany; the others came from similar small German states. In the context of the British service, they were all referred to as "Hessians." The American colonists called them mercenaries.
They were hired in units, not as individuals. They received wages but the prince of their respective states received most of the funds; Britain found it easier to borrow money to pay for their service than to recruit its own soldiers.[2]
The British used the Hessians in several conflicts, including in Ireland, but they are most widely associated with combat operations in the American Revolutionary War. They provided extensive manpower to support the American Loyalist cause. The pro-independence side made propaganda use of the fact that the soldiers were non-British mercenaries. They also offered them land bounties to desert and join the Americans. Several German units were placed on garrison duty in the British Isles to free up British regulars for service in North America.[3]
History
John Childs wrote:
Between 1706 and 1707, 10,000 Hessians served as a corps in Eugene of Savoy's army in Italy before moving to the Spanish Netherlands in 1708. In 1714, 6000 Hessians were rented to Sweden for its war with Russia whilst 12,000 Hessians were hired by George I of England in 1715 to combat the Jacobite Rebellion. ... In the midst of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1744, 6,000 Hessians were fighting with the British army in Flanders whilst another 6,000 were in the Bavarian army. By 1762, 24,000 Hessians were serving with Ferdinand of Brunswick's army in Germany.[4]
During the American Revolutionary War, Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel (a principality in northern Hesse or Hessia) and other German leaders hired out some of their regular army units to Great Britain for use to fight against the Patriots in the American revolution. About 30,000 of these men served in America. They were called Hessians, because the largest group (12,992 of the total 30,067 men) came from Hesse-Kassel. They came in entire units with their usual uniforms, flags, weapons and officers.
Units were sent by Count William of Hesse-Hanau; Duke Charles I of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel; Prince Frederick of Waldeck; Margrave Karl Alexander of Ansbach-Bayreuth; and Prince Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Zerbst.
Hessian hussars in America
The Hessians did not act individually. Their princes determined whether to hire out the units. Many of the men were press-ganged into Hessian service. Deserters were summarily executed or beaten by an entire company.[5]
Hessians comprised approximately one-quarter of the forces fielded by the British in the American Revolution. They included jäger, hussars, three artillery companies, and four battalions of grenadiers. Most of the infantry were chasseurs (sharpshooters), musketeers, and fusiliers. They were armed with smoothbore muskets, while the Hessian artillery used three-pounder cannon. Initially the average regiment was made up of 500 to 600 men. Later in the war, the regiments had only 300 to 400 men.[citation needed]
About 18,000 Hessian troops first arrived in North America in 1776, with more coming in later. They landed at Staten Island in New York on August 15, 1776. Their first engagement was in the Battle of Long Island. The Hessians fought in almost every battle, although after 1777, the British used them mainly as garrison troops. An assortment of Hessians fought in the battles and campaigns in the southern states during 1778–80 (including Guilford Courthouse), and two regiments fought at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781.
The British use of Hessian troops rankled American sentiment, and pushed some Loyalists to favor the revolution. The British use of non-English speaking foreign troops to put down the rebellion was seen as insulting, as it treated British subjects no differently than non-British subjects. Pro-British Tories believed that the British colonists deserved more than mercenary foes.
Hessian captives
In the Battle of Trenton, the Hessian force of 1,400 was surprised and virtually destroyed by the Continentals, with about 20 killed, 100 wounded, and 1,000 captured as prisoners. General George Washington's Continental Army had crossed the Delaware River to make a surprise attack on the Hessians on the early morning of December 26, 1776.[6]
Family records of Johann Nicholas Bahner(t), one of the Hessians captured in the Battle of Trenton, indicate that some of the Hessian soldiers enrolled in the service of King George III of England believing that they were needed to defend the American Colonies against Indian incursions. (Note: This contradicts historians' accounts that they were hired by the unit, with decisions made by princes.) When they arrived in North America, they discovered they had been hired to fight against the British colonists, rather than the Indians.[7] It is rumored that these Hessians fought only under force of arms, later deserting their regiments or voluntarily allowing themselves to be taken prisoner. The Hessians captured in the Battle of Trenton were paraded through the streets of Philadelphia to raise American morale; anger at their presence helped the Continental Army recruit new soldiers.[8] They were marched through the snow to Lancaster, where many of the men were allowed to work among the farmers, merchants, and tradespeople.[9]
By early 1778, negotiations for the exchange of prisoners between Washington and the British had begun in earnest. On a one-for-one exchange if a Hessian soldier deserted, there would be one less American who would return home.[10] Nicholas Bahner(t), Jacob Strobe, George Geisler, and Conrad Kramm are a few of the Hessian soldiers who deserted the British forces after being returned in exchange for American prisoners of war.[11] These men were hunted by the British for being deserters, and by many of the colonists as an enemy.
Americans tried to entice Hessians to desert from the British and join the large German-American population. The US Congress authorized the offer of 50 acres (200,000 m2) of land to individual Hessian soldiers to encourage them to desert. They offered 50 to 800 acres to British soldiers, depending on rank.[12]
In August 1777 a satirical letter, "The Sale of the Hessians", was widely distributed. It claimed that a Hessian commander wanted more of his soldiers dead so that he could be better compensated. For many years the author of the letter was unknown. In 1874 John Bigelow translated it to English (from a French version) and claimed that Benjamin Franklin wrote it, including it in his autobiography, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, published that year. There appears to be no evidence to support this claim.[13]
When the British General John Burgoyne surrendered to American General Horatio Gates during the Saratoga campaign in 1777, his forces included around 5,800 troops. The surrender was negotiated in the Convention of Saratoga, and Burgoyne's remnant army became known as the Convention Army. Hessian soldiers from Brunswick-Lüneburg, under General Riedesel, comprised a high percentage of the Convention Army. The Americans marched the prisoners to Charlottesville, Virginia, where they were imprisoned in the Albemarle Barracks until 1781. From there they were sent to Reading, Pennsylvania until 1783.
German soldiers in the American Revolution
Conclusion of the war
27,839 served in the Americas and after the war ended in 1783, some 17,313 Hessian soldiers returned to their German homelands. Of the 12,526 who did not return, about 7,700 had died. Some 1,200 were killed in action and 6,354 died from illness or accidents, mostly the latter.[14] Approximately 5,000 Hessians settled in North America, both in the United States and Canada.
Ireland 1798
After the Battle of Mainz in 1795, the British rushed Hessian forces to Ireland in 1798 to assist in the suppression of rebellion inspired by the Society of United Irishmen, an organization that first worked for Parliamentary reform. Influenced by the American and French revolutions, its members began by 1798 to seek independence for Ireland.
Baron Hompesch's 2nd Battalion of riflemen embarked on 11 April 1798 from the Isle of Wight bound for the port of Cork. They were later joined by the Jäger (Hunter) 5th Battalion 60th regiment. They were in the action of the battles of Vinegar Hill and Foulksmills. In 1798 the Hessians were notorious in Ireland for their atrocities and brutality toward the population of Wexford.
Hessian units in the American Revolution
Anhalt-Zerbst
· Rauschenplatt's Princess of Anhalt's Regiment
· Nuppenau's Jäger Company
· Anhalt-Zerbst Company of Artillery
Ansbach-Bayreuth
· 1st Regiment Ansbach-Bayreuth (later Regiment von Volt; 1st Ansbach Battalion)
· 2nd Regiment Ansbach-Bayreuth (later Regiment Seybothen; 2nd Bayreuth Battalion)
· Ansbach Jäger Company
· Ansbach Artillery Company
Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
· Dragoon Regiment Prinz Ludwig
· Grenadier Battalion Breymann
· Light Infantry Battalion von Barner
· Regiment Riedesel
· Regiment Specht
· Regiment Prinz Friedrich
· Regiment von Rhetz
· Geyso's Company of Brunswick Jägers
Hesse-Kassel
· Hesse-Kassel Jäger Corps
· Fusilier Regiment von Ditfurth
· Fusilier Regiment Erbprinz (later Musketeer Regiment Erbprinz (1780))
· Fusilier Regiment von Knyphausen
· Fusilier Regiment von Lossburg
· Grenadier Regiment von Rall (later von Woellwarth (1777); von Trümbach (1779); d'Angelelli (1781))
o 1st Battalion Grenadiers von Linsing
o 2nd Battalion Grenadiers von Block (later von Lengerke)
o 3rd Battalion Grenadiers von Minnigerode (later von Löwenstein)
o 4th Battalion Grenadiers von Köhler (later von Graf; von Platte)
· Garrison Regiment von Bünau
· Garrison Regiment von Huyn (later von Benning)
· Garrison Regiment von Stein (later von Seitz; von Porbeck)
· Garrison Regiment von Wissenbach (later von Knoblauch)
· Leib Infantry Regiment
· Musketeer Regiment von Donop
· Musketeer Regiment von Trümbach (later von Bose (1779))
· Musketeer Regiment von Mirbach (later Jung von Lossburg (1780))
· Musketeer Regiment Prinz Carl
· Musketeer Regiment von Wutgenau (later Landgraf (1777))
· Hesse-Kassel Artillery corps
Hesse-Hanau
· Pausch's Artillery Company
· von Creuzbourg's Jäger Corps
· Janecke's Frei Corps
· Hesse Hanau Erbprinz Regiment
Waldeck
· 3rd Waldeck Regiment
In popular culture
· Washington Irving's collection The Sketch Book (1819) included the story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", which contained a figure now known as the "Headless Horseman". Irving described it as "the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannonball, in some nameless battle during the Revolutionary War."
· Christopher Walken played a version of Irving's Headless Horseman, a brutal and sadistic Hessian mercenary sent to America during the American Revolutionary War, in Tim Burton's 1999 film Sleepy Hollow.
· D. W. Griffith co-wrote and directed the short film, The Hessian Renegades (1909), about the early stages of the American Revolution.
· In the Merrie Melodies short "Bunker Hill Bunny" (1950) set during the Revolutionary War, Bugs Bunny faces off against Hessian soldier Sam von Schamm.
· The 1972 novel The Hessian by Howard Fast centers around a Hessian soldier who tries to escape.
Footnotes
1. ↑ "hessian". Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hessian. Retrieved 2009-12-26.
2. ↑ Rodney Atwood, The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution, (Cambridge University Press, 1980), ch 1.
3. ↑ Marston, Daniel. The American Revolution 1774–1783, Osprey Publishing (2002) ISBN 978-1-84176-343-9. 95 pages
4. ↑ John Brewer, Eckhart Hellmuth, German Historical Institute in London (1999). Rethinking Leviathan: The Eighteenth-Century State in Britain and Germany, Oxford University Press. p.64. ISBN 0-19-920189-7
5. ↑ David Hackett Fischer (2006). Washington's Crossing, Oxford University Press. p.60. ISBN 0-19-518159-X
6. ↑ "Battle of Trenton", British Battles.com, accessed 13 Feb 2010
7. ↑ History of Our Ancestors: The First Bohner (Bahn, Bahner) to Migrate to America
8. ↑ [Johannes Schwalm the Hessian, p. 21]
9. ↑ "British Prisoners of War", Bradford Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Volumes 1–4
10. ↑ Herbert M. Bahner and Mark A. Schwalm, "Johann Nicholas Bahner – From Reichenbach, Hessen To Pillow, Pennsylvania", Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association, Inc. Vol 3, No. 3, 1987
11. ↑ [Journal of Johannes Schwalm Historical Assoc., Inc Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 2]
12. ↑ R. Douglas Hurt (2002) American Agriculture: A Brief History, p. 80
13. ↑ Everett C. Wilkie, Jr., "Franklin and 'The Sale of the Hessians': The Growth of a Myth", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 127, No. 3 (Jun. 16, 1983), pp. 202–212
14. ↑ Name. "Revolutionary War - The Hessian involvement". MadMikesAmerica. http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/07/revolutionary-war-the-hessian-involvement/. Retrieved 2012-10-29.
Further reading
· Atwood, Rodney. The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 1980), the standard scholarly history
· Fischer, David Hackett (2004). Washington's Crossing. Oxford university Press. p. 517. ISBN 0-19-517034-2. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryAmerican/ColonialRevolutionary/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3MDM0NA==.
· Ingrao, Charles. "'Barbarous Strangers': Hessian State and Society during the American Revolution," American Historical Review Vol. 87, No. 4 (Oct., 1982), pp. 954–976 in JSTOR
Primary sources
· Johann Conrad Döhla. A Hessian Diary of the American
Revolution (1993)
[29] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rosemarypro/spaid/beginning.htm
[30] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.
[2] Memorial Book: Victims of the Persecution of Jews under the National socialist Oppression in Germany, 1933-1945. Gedenkbuch (Germany)* does not include many victims from area of former East Germany).
[31] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1768.
[32]On This Day in America by John Wagman.
[33] French Children of the Holocaust, A Memorial, by Serge Klarsfeld, page 9.
[34] The abandonment of the Jews, by David S. Wyman, page 57, 364.
[35] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1774
[36] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1778.
[37] This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.Skipjack-class submarine:
•Skipjack
•Scamp
•Scorpion
•Sculpin
•Shark
•Snook
[38] Jimmy Carter, The Liberal Left and World Chaos by Mike Evans, page 497
[39] The Northern Light, November 1978, Declaration of Independence by Heaton and Voorhis.
[40] The Northern Light, November 1982, Vol. 13, “George Washington’s Amphibious Commander”, Vol. 13, No. 5, page 14.
[41] http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/fayette/cemeteries/scems0001.txt
No comments:
Post a Comment