An argument ensued between myself and several users of Wikipedia and rather than muck up their discussion page on the 2003 Iraq War (we weren’t discussing content), I’ve invited the parties to this topic. I’m pasting the conversation below, and hopefully we will discuss it here. I hope my fellow Moorewatchers don’t mind, and I invite them to join as well.
War is never neccessary, you fool. More people have died at the hands of the US military then the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party. It annoys me greatly when you Americans always believe war is the only answer, but you only fight in wars that serve your best interests. If you look at Canada, which has participated in every peacekeeping operation, we have only brought peace, not war. The US only fights if they benefit from it. And also, speaking of stereotypes (look above), I find it ironic that an American is scolding me for stereotypes, whereas the US is the most racist “culture” on the face of the earth.
hhamdy283 July 1st (Canada Day), 2005
Seth regarding hhamdy’s comments:
Some gems from (apparently) hhamdy283 taken from one paragraph:
“War is never neccessary, you fool.”
- Niave, but insulting.
“More people have died at the hands of the US military then the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.”
- Apologist denial.
“It annoys me greatly when you Americans always believe war is the only answer, but you only fight in wars that serve your best interests.”
- Ill-informed stereotyping.
“And also, speaking of stereotypes (look above), I find it ironic that an American is scolding me for stereotypes, whereas the US is the most racist “culture” on the face of the earth.”
I agree with hhamdy, despite being an american myself. And seth, look at the facts. More people have died at the hands of the us military. bob
24.72.227.2 regarding Seth’s:
I can’t remember the latin phrase to define Seth’s philosophical analysis, but he essentially responds with “nuhh-unhh” to every single claim. Stereotyper! Apologist! Hypocrite! Nice, real nice. I wouldn’t go as far to call the US racist, though...but there is a strong undercurrent of Americentrism.
Seth to 24:
Well, seeing as this isn’t a blog commentary section, I didn’t want to over-expound. What I decided to do was quickly point out the fallacies in almost every one of hhamdy’s sentences in that one paragraph.
- The “war is never necessary” comment is niave because I only need to demonstrate one necessary war to invalidate it, while hhamdy must show an alternative to every war that has ever occurred.
- The next sentence is denial because he doesn’t even try to justify it (with bob committing the same) despite years worth of claims that up to 500,000 have died under Hussein since ‘91, while iraqbodycount.net or whatever claims a max of 26,000 killed. It’s apologist if he forgives Hussein for the indirect deaths (which I assume he does), which are likely a large part of the suspected 500,000.
- “...you Americans always believe war is the only answer...” Come on, try to tell me that’s not stereotyping!
- And I shouldn’t even have to spent any unicode on why the last sentence was hypocritical. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you.
If you’re talking about wikipedia being american-centric, perhaps you’re right and that should be undone. Not, however, by leaning anti-american. I know I’ll get flamed for that last, so let me just offer that if you trust our enemies’ words more than our government’s, you’ll have a difficult time convincing me that you’re pro-american...or even neutral.
If, however, your talking about Americans being american-centric (which you seem to, given the context of the statement), I’ll offer a big old, “so what?” Few nations’ people are guilty of any less regarding their own nationality.
Allow me my 2 cents. War is never necessary, that is a fact. Its sometimes the faster, “better”, cheaper, easier, more justifiable way, but never the necessary one. And yes, I can show you that every single war the planet has seen was unnecessary, and I doubt you can show me one who has. Also, Im sorry to point out that this statement is not naive, nor the explanation you gave for it being naive is coherent. Perhaps a more coherent way of defending your point would be that human nature is the cause of the war, and it would be naive to presume people would rather talk it out than get it bashing on with each other. I could dispute that too, but that is beyond the point.
As for denial...perhaps, but not for the reasons you claim. Apologistic, never. Come on, WHO on their right mind would be apologetic to mass murder? No one does that. What the user problably meant, and what is well documented and verifiable, is that the US is responsible for more deaths in its history than Saddam Hussein or any other Iraqi. (Hiroshima, Nagazaki, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Native Americans, etc etc)
As for the following comment (ill-informed stereotyping) your comment falls short on the facts. Just review public polls on wheter the US should invade Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam, prior to the conflicts. You´ll come to realize the the majority (50%+) was in favor of such course of action, even in after the invasion the majority shifted to believe that invasion was not justified and should stop as soon as possible. So, no, theres no stereotyping in that sentece in the strict meaning. Perhaps you feel upset because it was supposed to be a generalization that “every” american believes that “might makes right” or that “shoot first, find WoMD later”, which is obviously not the case. But it cant be disputed that lots of people who think like that show this kind of disposition in here.
And for the last statement, well, one cant be neutral to a subject were he is involved with it; thats human nature! But bickering in the discussion page will bring nothing productive to the article or to those who read it.
I must confess, however, that those last two paragraphs were highly demonstrative of why America (and thus americans) is seen as an self-centered, arrogant, prepotent, unliked nation (and thus some people) and why this is ever escalating in the world today. Your division of the world in two teams, “those who trust the US gov’t words” being the right and “those who trust our enemies” being wrong is just so typical that I really dont understand how you can point fingers at someone and accusing them of stereotyping. That “youre either with me our against me” attitude leaves most of the world grindind its teeth. And “giving the old SO WHAT?” just exemplifies my point. America is disliked for a lot of things, some justifiable and others not so much, but the straw that breaks the camel´s back is that you (as a people) dont care to be viewd as self-centered, giving this superior feeling over the less fortunate sould who werent born american. LtDoc 19:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
“if you trust our enemies’ words more than our government’s, you’ll have a difficult time convincing me that you’re pro-american...or even neutral”
...since when does having faith in the government have anything to do with being American? And please tell me, what does it mean to be an American? In a country with 23508923508 different ethnic groups, religions and so on and so forth, we don’t really have a national identity...nothing in common really other than an adherance to consumer culture and the ideals we carry about personal freedoms and individual rights. Now If you mean by “anti-American” that I am against the policies that are being carried out and the decisions that are being made under this Administration, I strongly encourage you to analyze the actions of this Administration and decide for yourself whether or not they are making intelligent decisions. If you come to the conclusion that they aren’t, you suddenly aren’t anti-American, so don’t be afraid to second guess yourself.
On top of that, it doesn’t necessarily make you a liberal either, nor does it dismiss you from the chance of being a republican - i’m sure you will still fit in with one of the ranks: wealthy businessmen, NRA member, white supremacist, nationalist, oil tycoon, christian, outdoor sportsman, good old boy. After all, the republicans all have so much in common, just like the athiests, feminists, hollywood, hippies, homosexuals, jews, and countless minorities that make up the democratic party (joking, just something for Wikipedians to consider when constantly polarizing the two parties and stereotyping, i.e. “typical of the militant left to call people who disagree with them “stupid.” liberals are so defensive nowdays now that it’s become clear that they are not the majority! but i digress.")
And no, I don’t believe “few nations’ people are guilty of any less regarding their own nationality”, because...see: History, specifically between the periods of 1803 and 1815, and the entire chunk of history that incudes social darwinism, new imperialism, fervent nationalism, and so on, extending from towards the end of the 19th century to halfway into the next. Especially look at the First World War as well as when nationalism comes to a head in World War II. As a result, Europe was left in ruins, foreign policy aggravated situations or created problems we face today (see: Britain in the Middle East during and after WWI, Europeans in Africa and elsewhere drawing borders, colonizing, oppressing, and so on) To top it all off, humanity as we know it was almost destroyed because of self-serving national interests and agendas, driving nations to the point of developing weapons that threaten our own existance as a species. Yeah, I think most of the world has decided that nationalism is a little bit dangerous; but we’re pretty new to the game, so until we lose an arm or leg (I guess Vietnam didn’t count), its disregard for and polarization of the dissenting world as well as a rewriting of history that seems fit for our boastful and self-absorbant nation. No wonder nobody likes us anymore.--24.72.227.2 10:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Seth’s brief response and invitation to come here:
I imagine the editors of this article would not be pleased with us mucking up the discussion page with such partisan smegma. If an authority on this page doesn’t actually mind, then I’ll continue posting here. In anticipation of them minding, I have copied this conversation to a forum on another website and invite those interested to go to the website instead.
As a teaser to continue, however, I’ll mention the following briefly and say that my full response is posted on the other website:
*I do believe that it is largely human nature (among other animals) that makes aggression, and war by extension, sometimes necessary.
*Comparing deaths caused by Hussein in the period of 1991-2003 against deaths caused by the U.S. during it’s entire 230 year history is ridiculous.
*When referring to human behavior, generalizing across a population IS stereotyping. So hhamdy was stereotyping.
*I identify with America. French people identify with France. Why am I the arrogant one?
*What does it mean to be an Italian? And is 24.72.227.2 regretting the diversity of people that have come to our country because, “...we don’t really have a national identity...”?
I guess we’ll have to strenuously disagree about whether war is ever necessary. Note that I’m not arguing that war is the first response. I don’t believe that. But a government that took the possibility of war off the table under any circumstances would not long exist, in my opinion. I would, as LtDoc offered, agree that aggression is a result of human (among other animals) nature, which is why I cannot support a blanket statement such as, “war is never necessary.” Not unless you intend to reprogram the entire world population.
Admittedly I was assuming that hhamdy was comparing U.S.-caused deaths to Hussein-caused deaths in Iraq specifically, for that is the only comparison that makes sense. To compare the actions of one dictator’s regime over twelve years to that of an entire country for 230 years is just ridiculous. One could probably conclude that America is worse than Hitler with such a comparison. I still conclude that it’s apologist since he casually dismisses Hussein’s actions in order to make his point.
When referring to human behavior, generalizing across a population IS stereotyping. But you’re wrong about one thing: I’m not upset. I’m just pointing out the ridiculous nature of hhamdy’s statements. It seems that I’m the one who has caused people to become upset around here. I find that to be quite interesting.
I intentionally didn’t apply the value judgments of “right” or “wrong”; you did. You’re twisting what I say in order to vilify me. We’ll get nowhere doing that. You further twist my words by implying that my “so what” referred to the suffering of the poor. You took those words completely out of context!
And both of you seem to have twisted my meaning to imply I’m some sort of American imperialist. All I’m saying is that I have an American identity that I’m proud of, and I suspect that most Spaniards feel a Spanish identity, and Iraqis an Iraqi identity and so on, and don’t blame them one bit for it. The guy with the IP address identity seems to imply that the rest of the world has shed their national identities and America is now an arrogant nation in it’s pride. But you may have noticed that the European people have so far been rejecting the proposed EU constitution. Maybe they’re not so willing to yield their national sovereignty yet?
So while I feel an American identity which can lead to a bias if I’m not careful, you seem to have a bias against America. What do you like about America? I’ve heard our government, culture, and attitude all derided here. Can you at least agree we have great geology? What country do you identify with? If you not American and you still identify with your home country, are you as arrogant as you think I am? Since you were applying value judgments earlier, is your bias better than my bias?
And IP-guy asked me to describe what it means to be an American? Well, apply that to any country and try to answer it. Not so easy, eh? He also seems to regret the diversity of people that have come to this country because, “we don’t really have a national identity...nothing in common really other than an adherence to consumer culture and the ideals we carry about personal freedoms and individual rights.” What does that mean, really?
IP guy also implies that I blindly follow the Bush administration without any analysis. That seems to be a rather cheap generalization considering we’ve discussed only one topic. Just to allay the concern, I do analyze the administration’s policies and don’t agree with all of them. But I haven’t developed any knee-jerk reactions to anything the administration says.
“More people have died at the hands of the US military then the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.”
That’s complete bull shit. Have numbers to back that up?
War is never necessary? So what was the solution for Iraq? What about the Taliban removal? What about the solution for WWI, WWII, and the Revolutionary War?
I just now got the invitation posted on Wikipedia. They were backing up a database when I tried earlier. I hope they come and try to answer your questions. I’m waiting to hear their response as well.
I have grappled with whether war is neccessary or not for my whole life myself. I have come to the belief (atleast at this stage in life so far) that unfortunately, although it should be a last, last resort, war is sometimes neccessary.
I listened to the loony Left scream that war is never neccessary, and the rabid Right scream “bomb ‘em back to the stone age”, and I realized that neither have the answer. I pondered and meditated on it for years. As always, I turned to Nature for inspiration. I relaized that when a Mother grizzly bear feels her cubs are threatened, she will take your head off with one swipe of her paw. That does not mean she is evil or violent, but that she is defending her cubs which I feel is a natural way of things.
War should only be used as a last resort, and only in self defense. The problem is, many times throughout history men in power have sometimes used that desire of people to “defend their cubs” to enlarge their territory and cache of gold and riches by disguising their venture as supposedly defending the Nation or State. One must be wary.
So did Bush invade Iraq to “secure freedom and liberty”?....or to secure oil and American Imperialism in the Middle East?
It might be a little of both. Most people on the “Right” will never admit that it was for oil and Imperialism, and most people on the “Left” will never admit it was for securing our freedom. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere as it usually is.
So what do you think of France helping the American colonies in the late 18th century? They certainly were not participating in a war for their self-defense.
So what do you think of France helping the American colonies in the late 18th century? They certainly were not participating in a war for their self-defense.
Cetainly not, I couldn’t agree more. France and England were two Imperiastic Nation States trying to compete for global economic superiority; not to mention they would get a chuckle out of seeig the upstart American colonialists snub the British. After all, France and England were constantly warring with eachtother, including one war that lasted 111 years or so (the 100 years war).
I would even dare to propose as Howard Zinn is purporting in his book I am reading, “Vices of a People’s history of the United States”, that the Revolutinary war was not really about defense eiethr; or even independance; but a tactic to shift the anger by the poor underclass away from the rich upper class towards the British.
The only war I can think of as self defense is World War II.
So what do you think of France helping the American colonies in the late 18th century? They certainly were not participating in a war for their self-defense.
Not directly. But their main enemy (as almost always) was Britain at that time. So part of the reason was to contribute to weakening British power and resources, and helping to take apart the empire that had propelled us ever so briefly into such a threatening superpower status. So certainly, a part of their reason to help the American colonies was to neutralise a potential threat to their country. Pre-emptive self-defense, perhaps?
I think one can make the argument that any war is at least partially self-defense, as in protection of a nation’s interests.
BTW, I’ve actually read some Howard Zinn. That guy is worse than Michael Moore in his one one-sided view of history. The US has been no angel, but Zinn goes out of his way to hype up the bad and totally ignore the good.
Cetainly not, I couldn’t agree more. France and England were two Imperiastic Nation States trying to compete for global economic superiority; not to mention they would get a chuckle out of seeig the upstart American colonialists snub the British. After all, France and England were constantly warring with eachtother, including one war that lasted 111 years or so (the 100 years war).
But we didn’t take our biggest colony, India, by violent means. In fact we took it by accident. Most of our Imperialism was by trade, not by force. Force only became necessary when the ‘natives got restless’.
I think one can make the argument that any war is at least partially self-defense, as in protection of a nation’s interests.
I’d actually say war is absolute necessary in certain instances. These days less so, with nations so established and with their partnerships, boundaries are established and protected. But in principal you need to, as you point out, defend yourselves, and finally that comes down to brute force.
How that now plays out on the global stage is completely different to how it was 50 years ago. Germany, for example wouldn’t get away with a unilateral attack against another nation, no country in the Western world would, but look to Africa, where boundaries are in flux, war is prevelant.
I do tend to take a broader view of “self-defense” than just responding to a direct attack. The real wars of the Cold War period may not have been responses to direct attacks on our land. But I feel that we would have lost the Cold War had we not engaged in them. I guess I’ve placed winning the Cold War as one of the vital turning points in history, and can’t support any policies that would’ve, if used then, lost us the Cold War. Even though the current situation is much different from the Cold War, I still retain the broader view of self-defense. I’m still thinking it through, though, because I can’t clearly delineate the hypothetical boundary between self-defense and otherwise.
There were still a couple of go-arounds on the Wikipedia page, and nobody from there has come here as far as I can tell. What’s kind of ironic is that one berated me for carrying on an argument on an article’s discussion page after I setup this forum topic and invited them to move it to here. Just before berating me, however, they propagated the argument! I invited them again to this forum topic, but perhaps not as graciously as the first time. I probably won’t copy the exchange unless there’s interest. It wasn’t as moving as the ones I already posted here, but kind of funny.
I think one can make the argument that any war is at least partially self-defense, as in protection of a nation’s interests.
BTW, I’ve actually read some Howard Zinn. That guy is worse than Michael Moore in his one one-sided view of history. The US has been no angel, but Zinn goes out of his way to hype up the bad and totally ignore the good.
That is what I have to come to believe, that wars are sometimes a mixture of self defense and political and economic expansion.
Some wars are trumpped up and unneccessary though. For instance, the war the US waged against Mexico to annex Texas, New Mexico, and California was a war for expansion, period. It was in no way shape or form self defense. President James Polk sent a patrol of American troops into territory that was clearly Mexican territory, and when they were attacked, the call to arms to “defend America” was made when we were the aggressors and Mexico was the defender.
As far as Howard Zinn goes, I think you might be misunderstanding him. There are thousands of historians and millions of history books doing the job of sanitizing and writing US history through a skewed lens from the European view of things. Zinn is one man with a few books trying to tell the same story through the eyes of the non-European who kind of got the shaft when it comes to our history. It does not even begin to balance it out.
For instance, when I was growing up in Virgina (Jesusland! Heehee!) I was given a history book that painted a picture of svage brutal Indians attacking these poor European settlers. I found out later that actually the Indians greeted them warmly and shared everything. Conveniently left out was the atrocities that Europeans committed against Indians.
History books given to American children in Public Schools tell a skewed, edited version of History sometimes not even close to the truth. Howard Zinn just wants people to know there is more knowledge out there, seek it.
I’m no historian, but have heard of Zinn, and have a thought on what you earlier referenced from his book:
I would even dare to propose as Howard Zinn is purporting in his book I am reading, “Vices of a People’s history of the United States”, that the Revolutinary war was not really about defense eiethr; or even independance; but a tactic to shift the anger by the poor underclass away from the rich upper class towards the British.
Would the richer class really have benefitted from independence? Sure, the taxes were a problem (for everybody), but I would think that the upper class would have benefitted more from a continuing relationship with the motherland than to start a new country from scratch. I’m a little leery of Zinn’s proposal, because it seems to me that the upper class would be shooting themselves in the foot.
I’m no historian, but have heard of Zinn, and have a thought on what you earlier referenced from his book:
I would even dare to propose as Howard Zinn is purporting in his book I am reading, “Vices of a People’s history of the United States”, that the Revolutinary war was not really about defense eiethr; or even independance; but a tactic to shift the anger by the poor underclass away from the rich upper class towards the British.
Would the richer class really have benefitted from independence? Sure, the taxes were a problem (for everybody), but I would think that the upper class would have benefitted more from a continuing relationship with the motherland than to start a new country from scratch. I’m a little leery of Zinn’s proposal, because it seems to me that the upper class would be shooting themselves in the foot.
That would probably be correct, however he is showing striong evidence that the small amounts of landowners were treating the lower class like “serfs”, and shows many letters, and accounts to support this. Also, England was in debt after fighting the “Seven Yaers War” with France (known in America as the French-Indian War) and turned to the colonies to raise revenue. In addition, with the French out of the way, the colonial leadership didn not have to rely on the English for protection so much anymore.
One thing they conveniently leave out of American history books is that by the year 1760 there were eighteen uprisings aimed at overthrowing colonial govenrments. You had the Nathaniel Bacon Rebellion, the Mast Tree riot in New Hampshire where the poor rioted because they were just trying to cut firewood on the estate lands of the wealthy to keep themselves warm in the winter .
One way to deflect thios anger growing against the wealthy land owners is to redirect it towards the British. It is a sound theory in my book.
Smedley D. Butler - US Marine Corps 1898- 1931
Fought in the Spanish-American War, China, Philippines, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Mexico and Haiti
Twice winning the Congressional Medal of Honor - Achieved the Rank of Major General
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of the country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for Capitalism…..I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street,. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….During those years, I had, as boys in the back room say, a swell racket.”
Butler published a powerful condemnation of the business interests he served in those imperialist ventures. War is a racket”. Here is a section form the Chapter, “Who Makes the Profits?”
War is a racket – 1935
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believed, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit for the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them know what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights , ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. The newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the self-same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is the bill?
The bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
- from Howard Zinn’s book, “Voices of a people’s history of the United States”
According to Wikipedia, Butler gave speeches to the Communist Party USA in the 1930s, and the quote you gave was actually published in a Socialist newspaper in 1935. While this doesn’t negate his opinion, it does provide the context that he probably wasn’t a great fan of private industry anyway. Despite his remarkable service, I’m guessing he was motivated more by his socialist ideology than anything else.
The original argument for which I opened this thread was on Wikipedia, not DU. (I’d have been banned on DU after the first post.) At this point I’d kindly request that nobody go there and start a fight. I’m still hoping to move the argument to this thread, since it didn’t pertain to the 2003 Iraq War article anymore. I’ll copy the final exchange tomorrow if they don’t provoke another round.
Has Howard Zinn shouldered a rifle or dug a trench?
Howard Zinn has neither shouldered a rifle, started a war, nor profited from war.
Dick “5 deferments” Cheney, on the other hand has profited form war, and has never shouldered a rifle. To make matters worse, Cheney started the war he is currently profiting from!
To top it all off, even though he is using you and your buddies to war profiteer, you will probably defend him!! Incredible!! You are doing this willingly and joyfully!!!
Cheney, who served as CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton executives enjoy a seat at the table during Administration discussions over how to handle post-war oil production in Iraq.
The Cheney-Halliburton story is the classic military-industrial revolving door tale. As Secretary of Defense under Bush I, Cheney paid Brown and Root services (now Kellogg Brown and Root) $3.9 million to report on how private companies could help the U.S. Army as Cheney cut hundreds of thousands of Army jobs. Then Brown and Root won a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers all over the globe. In 1995, Cheney became CEO and Halliburton jumped from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon’s list of top contractors, benefiting from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
One way to deflect thios anger growing against the wealthy land owners is to redirect it towards the British. It is a sound theory in my book.
It could certainly work. I’m just not convinced it was the driver behind the AmRev.
Probably not the driving force, I agree. But there is parts of history that we have not been told, or have been glossed over for the sake of certain parties. For instance, I was shocked to hear that George Washington had to deal with mutiny because the soldiers were not getting enough food and whatnot. The main point also being that there were classses back then, and there are now. America is not a classless society where all men are equal. and there is justice for “all”. Alot of what American children are brainwashed with in public schools is not quite exactly the whole truth.
The reorganization caused a major crisis in the Pennsylvania line, which was camped for the winter at Morristown. On the evening of 1 January, before the reorganization was actually implemented, the enlisted men mutinied over chronic shortages of food, clothing, and pay. The reorganization acted as the precipitating factor since most men believed that it released them from 1777 enlistments ambiguously recorded as “for three years or the duration of the war.” Sergeants took control after an initial scuffle and marched the regiments to Princeton where they negotiated with representatives of Pennsylvania and Congress. The men turned several British agents over to the negotiators and indicated that they only wanted a redress of grievances. The settlement set up an impartial review panel which examined each man’s enlistment. It released 1,250 infantrymen and 67 artillerists from Continental service by the end of January. The remaining 1,150 men were judged to have clearly enlisted for the duration, but they received furloughs until 15 March. Other terms included promises of back pay, clothing issues, and freedom from any punishment for the mutiny. The reorganization, with an effective date of 17 January, consolidated cadres on paper for six regiments and ordered them to reassemble at specific towns.
The mutiny not only deprived Washington of two brigades of troops but also opened the door to future revolts. On 20 January the New Jersey regiments mutinied in an effort to obtain similar concessions. Washington reacted swiftly and asked Congress not to interfere. He sent Maj. Gen. Robert Howe from the Highlands with a detachment of New Englanders and orders to “compel the mutineers to unconditional submission” and to execute “a few of the most active and most incendiary leaders.” On 27 January Howe suppressed the mutiny and ordered two ringleaders to be shot, thereby checking the spread of unrest.
Shortly after this, Pennsylvania sent out recruiting parties to the camp to re-enlist men. They were offering 25 dollars in silver for recruits- while the currant soldiers could not get paid. In addition, they were told that anyone who had enlisted for “three years or the duration” would have to serve the longer of the terms, while it was obvious that it should mean the shorter of the two. (Congress would not want to pay and maintain men after the war.) The New Jersey Brigade, under General William “Scotch Willie” Maxwell, were stationed in East Jersey along the coast near Elizabethtown. They were beset by many of the same problems.
On January 1st, 1781, the Pennsylvania Line mutinied.
The Mutineers marched south to Vealtown during the night, and then went on to Princeton. Others who had not immediately joined them, followed the next day. They marched in regiment fashion, under strict discipline, without disturbing the inhabitants, which was considered highly remarkable. At Princeton they were approached by two British agents, who offered them back pay in hard cash if they would desert to the enemy. These two men were arrested as spies, and turned over to be tried as spies. (They were later convicted by a trial of officers and hanged.)
Pennsylvania President Reed met them in Princeton, where he was received with respect. A board of sergeants made their demands known to him, and he made some proposals to assurage them, and passed on some communications from Congress. They agreed to march to Trenton (away from the British), where the negotiations continued.
A Commission was appointed to review the disputed enlistment’s, and it granted immediate discharges to those who professed their enlistment’s were up, a process Washington was later to object to strongly, as he said the army should have been given time to bring forward the enlistment papers for each man first.
The soldiers also were promised payment of part of their back pay, and a supply of various articles badly needed. Many of those who received discharges, re-enlisted to receive the bounty after a short furlough, with in 20 days.
A few weeks later, part of the New Jersey Line stationed at Pompton also mutinied. Washington could not let mutiny become a standard for the army and decided to take harsh measures to stop it.
The mutineers marched to Ringwood, on the route to Trenton, when Washington had them surrounded by New England troops, and the militia, and forced them to surrender. One ringleader from each regiment was tried for Mutiny, and two were executed immediately by a firing squad made up of the convicted mutineers.
