DOCSLIB.ORG

Dueling Documents Student Inquiry Hamilton Vs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dueling Documents Student Inquiry Hamilton Vs Summer Learning Dueling Documents Student Inquiry Hamilton vs. Burr Grades 6-8 "Politicans Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton duel, 1804." Gale Biography Online Collection, Gale, 2011. Gale In Context: Biography, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC4205129869/GPS?u=albrjh&sid=GPS&xid=b8b9cbca. Accessed 6 July 2020. Inquiry Question: Why might there be different accounts of the same event? 1 Summer Learning Inquiry: Dueling Documents ​ In this inquiry, you will decide who fired the first shot in the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The famous duel between Hamilton and Burr has all the elements of a great history mystery. By the end of this project, you will be able to defend your position on “who fired the first shot?” An inquiry gives you the opportunity to learn about something new, ask questions, make a decision, and take action. The focus of Dueling Documents is to discuss whether “first hand” accounts of an event can be different. Pace your work so you stay excited and engaged. You may do it all at once, or you can spread it out over several days. During this project, you will answer compelling questions, complete a variety of evidence-based tasks, examine firsthand accounts and images and make your decision. If you find this topic interesting, you may want to explore the resources at the Gilder ​ Lehrman Institute’s website. The resources are free and require adult registration. ​ (https://www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/hamilton-education-program-0) th The Granger Collection: halftone print. 19 ​ Century. Hand colored at a later date. ​ "The Burr-Hamilton Duel. This print depicts the common account of the moment Vice President Aaron..." Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 3, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. Gale In Context: High School, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/ PC3401887423/GPS?u=albrjh&sid=GPS&xid=f7e8f77c. Accessed 6 July 2020. 2 Summer Learning Writing an Argument By the end of this project, you will finish the story of the duel by using the evidence to make your argument and answer the question – who fired the first shot? ​ ​ ​ ​ Taking Action You will take informed action by creating a short public service announcement (PSA) that answers the compelling question – why might there be different accounts of the ​ same event? ​ Supporting Question 1: Why is “Setting the Stage” Important? ​ Background Information Over 200 years ago, a tragic event occurred. The event involved two men who served ​ ​ in the War for Independence, were lawyers, and held various state and federal offices after the war. In order to understand the circumstances leading to the tragic event, you ​ ​ ​ ​ will interpret a timeline to assist you in thinking chronologically. Read the Timeline (Source A) on page 4, and then respond to the questions using the ​ ​ space provided. Preview Questions: ● Why is “setting the stage” important? Explain your reasoning. ● How would you describe the relationship between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? ● By 1804, what do you think would be Burr’s point of view toward Hamilton? ● By 1804, what do you think would be Hamilton’s point of view toward Burr? 3 Summer Learning Source A: Timeline Read through the timeline that appears below, and then answer the questions that bollow. 1789 Aaron Burr accepts a position as Attorney General for New York after supporting Alexander Hamilton’s candidate. Hamilton questions Burr’s principles. (Ellis 40) 1791 President George Washington appointed Alexander Hamilton to be Treasurer of the United States. Aaron Burr defeats Hamilton’s wealthy father-in-law for a U.S. Senate seat from New York. Burr opposed Hamilton’s economic plan as a Senator. (Ellis 40-41) 1792 Alexander Hamilton urges people not to vote for Aaron Burr when he runs for the Office of Vice President. Burr lost. (Ellis 41) 1794 Alexander Hamilton blocks Aaron Burr’s nomination as American minister to France. (Ellis 41) 1800 Aaron Burr published a document written by Alexander Hamilton that is highly critical of his fellow Federalist, President John Adams. The document was never intended for public viewing and causes Hamilton a great deal of embarrassment. The Presidential election of 1800 ends in a tie between two Republicans—Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Federalist Alexander Hamilton convinces his fellow Federalists to support Republican Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson defeats Burr. (Ellis 41) 1804 Alexander Hamilton urges people not to vote for Aaron Burr when he runs for governor of New York. Burr loses. (Ellis 41) Ellis, J. J. (2000). Founding Brothers: The revolutionary generation (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ​ ​ 4 Summer Learning Supporting Question 1: Why is “Setting the Stage” Important? ​ Why is “setting the stage” important? Explain your reasoning. How would you describe the relationship between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? By 1804, what do you think would be Burr’s point of view toward Hamilton? By 1804, what do you think would be Hamilton’s point of view toward Burr? 5 Summer Learning Supporting Question 1 continued: Why is “Setting the Stage” Important? Now that you have an idea about the relationship between Hamilton and Burr, you are going to read a story, Source B: A Duel to the Death, on page 6, where the following ​ ​ words will be featured and may help in your understanding of setting the stage: morning, rowed, vice president, treasurer, duel, despicable, honor. ​ Before reading the story, use the space below to predict what you think the story is ​ ​ ​ ​ going to be about. Read Source B: A Duel to the Death on page 7 ​ ​ Using the space provided, answer the questions. 6 Summer Learning Setting the Stage: Who fired the first shot? Based on the story Source B: A Duel to the Death, how might we find out the answer ​ ​ to the question? Why is setting the stage important when attempting to solve a history mystery? On a separate sheet of paper, draw a sketch of the setting, include as many details ​ ​ from the story and any background information from the Timeline. (Source A). ​ ​ 7 Summer Learning Supporting Question 2: Who Fired the First Shot? ​ th Dueling was not uncommon at the turn of the 19 ​ century. Even though it was illegal, it ​ was rarely punished. Dueling was actually viewed as somewhat acceptable in resolving th “affairs of honor.” The practice died out by the end of the 19 ​ century. ​ Read Source B: A Duel to the Death for events prior to the duel. Compare the two ​ ​ eyewitness accounts from Source C: Statement from Burr’s Second and Source D: ​ ​ ​ Statement from Hamilton’s Second. Your task is to figure out what happened in the ​ time period between the duelists receiving instructions to “present” and the discharge of the weapons. Read the two sources to document evidence to answer the question: ​ ​ who fired the first shot? Use “Dueling Documents” Part 1 and Part 2 to record your evidence. - Continue to the next page - 8 Summer Learning Source B: A Duel to the Death Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr Dueled to the Death – July 11, 1804 ​ ​ On the morning of July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr raised their dueling pistols and took aim. Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury, and Vice President Burr were long-standing political rivals and personal enemies. Burr might have been the president instead of vice president, had it not been for Hamilton's interference. When Burr's term as vice president was almost over, he ran for governor of New York. Hamilton, once again, prevented Burr from winning by opposing his candidacy. Burr retaliated by challenging Hamilton to a duel. As in the practice of dueling at that time, the person who was challenged to the duel selected the weapon. Hamilton selected pistols. Dueling had several practices to ensure the duel was conducted fairly. Bringing a “second” or a trusted friend was one of the practices. The seconds’ responsibilities were to make sure that each man followed the rules for dueling and to help their friends if they were wounded. Alexander Hamilton brought Nathaniel Pendleton, while Vice-President Burr brought William Van Ness. The two seconds were the only people to witness the duel because dueling was illegal. ​ ​ The men who rowed Hamilton and Burr, as well as a doctor, David Hosack, who went in case of injuries, had to stay below in the rowboats so that they could state honestly that ​ ​ they did not witness the duel. Therefore, they would not be able to testify against the duelists if they were charged with a crime. Even though duels were illegal in most states in 1804, they were not uncommon. Wealthy men, in particular, thought that dueling was the only way to defend their honor when that honor was seriously attacked. Following the rules for dueling, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton stood 10 paces apart. Moments after the authorized second said “present,” shots rang out. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr Dueled to the Death. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2020, from ​ http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/nation/jb_nation_hamburr_1.html (modified). ​ ​ 9 Summer Learning Source C: Statement from Burr’s Second (Excerpt) …it becomes proper for the gentleman who attended Col Burr to state also his impressions with respect to those points on which their [sic] exists a variance of opinion. The parties met…& took their respective stations as directed: the pistols were then handed to them by the seconds. Gen Hamilton elevated his, as if to try the light, & lowering it said I beg pardon for delaying you but the direction of the light renders it necessary, at the same time feeling his pockets with his left hand, & drawing forth his spectacles put them on.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Thomas S
    Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville Alumni Book Gallery 2007 Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Thomas S. Mach Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/alum_books Part of the Nonfiction Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Mach, Thomas S., "Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America" (2007). Alumni Book Gallery. 468. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/alum_books/468 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Alumni Book Gallery by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Keywords George H. Pendleton, biography, politics Disciplines History | Nonfiction | Political History | United States History Publisher Kent State University Press Publisher's Note This chapter was published as "The Early Years" (pp. 8-31) in "Gentleman George" Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America by Thomas S. Mach. Copyright © 2007 by The Kent State University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this chapter may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or distributed, in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Kent State University Press. For educational re-use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (508-744-3350). For all other permissions, please contact Carol Heller at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    34 Biographical Directory DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS CONNECTICUT Dates of Attendance Andrew Adams............................ 1778 Benjamin Huntington................ 1780, Joseph Spencer ........................... 1779 Joseph P. Cooke ............... 1784–1785, 1782–1783, 1788 Jonathan Sturges........................ 1786 1787–1788 Samuel Huntington ................... 1776, James Wadsworth....................... 1784 Silas Deane ....................... 1774–1776 1778–1781, 1783 Jeremiah Wadsworth.................. 1788 Eliphalet Dyer.................. 1774–1779, William S. Johnson........... 1785–1787 William Williams .............. 1776–1777 1782–1783 Richard Law............ 1777, 1781–1782 Oliver Wolcott .................. 1776–1778, Pierpont Edwards ....................... 1788 Stephen M. Mitchell ......... 1785–1788 1780–1783 Oliver Ellsworth................ 1778–1783 Jesse Root.......................... 1778–1782 Titus Hosmer .............................. 1778 Roger Sherman ....... 1774–1781, 1784 Delegates Who Did Not Attend and Dates of Election John Canfield .............................. 1786 William Hillhouse............. 1783, 1785 Joseph Trumbull......................... 1774 Charles C. Chandler................... 1784 William Pitkin............................. 1784 Erastus Wolcott ...... 1774, 1787, 1788 John Chester..................... 1787, 1788 Jedediah Strong...... 1782, 1783, 1784 James Hillhouse ............... 1786, 1788 John Treadwell ....... 1784, 1785, 1787 DELAWARE Dates of Attendance Gunning Bedford,
    [Show full text]
  • Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Thomas S
    Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville Faculty Books 2007 Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Thomas S. Mach Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/faculty_books Part of the Nonfiction Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Mach, Thomas S., "Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America" (2007). Faculty Books. 54. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/faculty_books/54 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gentleman George Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Disciplines History | Nonfiction | Political History | United States History Publisher Kent State University Press Publisher's Note This chapter was published as "The Early Years" (pp. 8-31) in "Gentleman George" Hunt Pendleton: Party Politics and Ideological Identity in Nineteenth-Century America by Thomas S. Mach. Copyright © 2007 by The Kent State University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this chapter may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or distributed, in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Kent State University Press. For educational re-use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (508-744-3350). For all other permissions, please contact Carol Heller at [email protected]. ISBN 9780873389136 This book is available at DigitalCommons@Cedarville: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/faculty_books/54 The Early Years he mighty Ohio River brought much more than life-giving water to the burgeoning city of Cincinnati in 1825.
    [Show full text]
  • “THE FINEST SOIL in the WORLD for the CULTURE of LAURELS…” One of Gen
    A modern re-enactment, on the original battle site, of Eutaw Springs; at which engagement Pierce was wounded. “THE FINEST SOIL IN THE WORLD FOR THE CULTURE OF LAURELS…” One of Gen. Greene’s aides, Capt. William Pierce, Relays News from the Southern Department. Originally a captain in the 1st Continental artillery (beginning on 30 Nov. 1776), William Leigh Pierce (1740-1789), from Virginia, was in mid-November 1780, along with Captain Nathaniel Pendleton, enlisted by Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene in Richmond; when in Nov. 1780 the latter was making his way south to assume command of the southern army. On 30 September 1783, he was brevetted (i.e., raised in rank but without additional pay) to Major, and after the war entered politics; serving as a delegate from Georgia for the Federal Convention in 1787. While he did not remain in Phladelphia long enough to sign the Constitution (indeed, he died in only 1789), Pierce did participate and have a tangible impact on some of the debate that went on beforehand; including with respect to guidelines for how members of Congress and Senators are to be elected. Yet of particular consequence, he wrote brief sketches of the Convention delegates which are viewed as being of singular value to historians of the Constitution; though it must in fairness to the delegates be said that these sketches, while useful, are too terse to be taken as entirely just or accurate portraits.1 Collected for this entry in our series are a series of letters Pierce wrote in 1781-1782, and which were sent to Virginia militia cavalry officer2 and subsequently eminent and much respected jurist and Federal judge, Saint George Tucker (1752-1827).
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    Journal of Backcountry Studies EDITOR’S NOTE: John R. Maass, Ph.D. Ohio State, 2007, is a member of the JBS Editorial Board “From Principles of Humanity and Virtue”: Moderation and the Revolutionary Settlement in North Carolina BY JOHN R. MAASS The struggle for American independence in North Carolina was a civil war, especially after the British concentrated their Southern offensive there in late 1778. It was not only a traditional military contest between regular armies in the field, but a bloody internecine struggle marked by plundering, property destruction, violence and murder as well. Lord Cornwallis’s invasion of the North Carolina Piedmont, as well as the partisan warfare welling up in the wake of the Race to the Dan and the retreat from Guilford Courthouse to Wilmington, occurred primarily in the North Carolina backcountry. These concurrent conflicts created great difficulties for Patriot military and civilian leaders in eastern North Carolina as they attempted to establish political legitimacy through the restoration of order and stability. From his home in Edenton, North Carolina, attorney James Iredell wrote a short letter in June 1784 to his friend Archibald Neilson, a merchant and former secretary to the last royal governor of North Carolina. An ardent loyalist, Neilson hastily left the state once war seemed imminent in 1775. Having not heard from Neilson in years, Iredell welcomed the renewal of an interrupted friendship “between old Friends, however separated by the war or political sentiments.” He lamented the vindictive spirit demonstrated throughout the war years—and since then—against those like Neilson who remained attached to the crown and had suffered so much because of their loyalty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Indispensable Mr. Jay and George Washington's
    THE INDISPENSABLE MR. JAY AND GEORGE WASHINGTON’S VALEDICTORY For nearly a quarter of a century, John Jay proved himself indispensable to the cause of American liberty and the establishment of the United State of America. The positions that Jay held were so numerous they consumed an entire page when he took the time to write a partial history of his career as a public officiali. The more notable positions held by Jay were that of president of the Continental Congress, first Chief Justice of the State of New York during which period he served on a committee to draft the state‘s first constitution which provided for a bicameral legislature that would ultimately be included in the U.S. Constitution. In a letter to Robert R. Livingston and Gouveneur Morris he regretted that the issue of slavery had not been dealt with in the state constitution, “I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery. “ii Jay was also Minister Plenipotentiary to Spain during the Revolutionary War and he worked for Spain‘s support and financial assistance for the American cause. He was key to the negotiations as Peace Commissioner to the Treaty of Paris and Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. He co-authored THE FEDERALIST with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and their efforts led to the ratification of the Constitution in New York state. In support of the ratification efforts in New York State, Jay also wrote a pamphlet entitled AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit History of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment (1776–1781): Insights from the Service Record of Capt
    Unit History of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment (1776–1781): Insights from the Service Record of Capt. Adamson Tannehill Tucker F. Hentz 2007 Article citation: Hentz, Tucker F. Unit History of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment (1776–1781): Insights from the Service Record of Capt. Adamson Tannehill. 2007. Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, E259 .H52 2007. http://www.vahistorical.org/research/tann.pdf Unit History of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment (1776-1781): Insights from the Service Record of Capt. Adamson Tannehill Tucker F. Hentz (2007) Details of the origins, formal organization, and service record of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment have defied easy synthesis. Primarily because most of the unit was captured or killed at the battle of Fort Washington on 16 November 1776, the historical trail of the regiment’s “surviving” element has become complex. Modern and contemporaneous accounts of the 1776 New York City Campaign of the War of American Independence convey the impression that the battle marked the end of the regiment as a combat entity. In truth, however, a significant portion of it continued to serve actively in the Continental Army throughout most of the remainder of the war. Adamson Tannehill, a Marylander, was the regiment’s only officer with an uninterrupted service history that extended from the unit’s military roots in mid-1775 until its disbanding in early 1781. His service record thus provided a logical focal point for research that has helped resolve a clearer view of this notable regiment’s heretofore untold history. Antecedents On 14 June 1775 the Continental Congress directed the raising of ten independent companies of riflemen in the Middle Colonies1 as part of the creation of the Continental Army as a national force for opposition to the actions of the British government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2010 The Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union Bradford R. Clark George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bradford R. Clark, The Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1817 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 123 JUNE 2010 NUMBER 8 © 2010 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE UNION Bradford R. Clark TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1819 II. CURRENT THEORIES OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT ...................................... 1825 A. The Immunity Theory .................................................................................................... 1826 B. The Diversity Theory ...................................................................................................... 1830 C. The Compromise Theory ................................................................................................ 1832 D. The Inadequacy of Current Theories ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War
    Southern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War Phase III: Research in the United States Final Report For the National Park Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by Evans-Hatch & Associates 510 Duane Street, Astoria, Oregon (503) 325-1313 / [email protected] June 2005 ii CONTENTS PART I: Narrative Report A. Introduction Objectives Methodology B. Regiments List: British and Loyalist C. Repositories Contacted D. Observations and Findings Resources Investigated General Findings E. Suggestions for Future Activities F. Bibliography Printed Primary Sources Guides and Finding Aids Books and Other Published Material G. Appendices 1. Sample “Inventory of Records” form 2. Sample letter of inquiry sent from Evans-Hatch to repositories 3. Letters to Evans-Hatch from repositories 4. Copies of selected research material 5. “Microform Holdings Master List” at The David Library of the American Revolution, Washington Crossing, PA 6. Examples of on-line resources “The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies” “Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution” newsletter, October 2004 and January 2005 PART II: Archive Document Record Index Summary of Record Content Inventory of Records Electronic Report Final Report in MS WORD Inventory Data Base in MS ACCESS iii iv PART 1: Narrative Report A: Introduction This report presents the results of a survey conducted by Evans-Hatch & Associates to identify primary documentation that focuses on British involvement in the American War of Independence. The survey, which is the third and final phase of a three-phase project organized by the Southeast Regional Office of the National Park Service, aimed to locate and record data housed in repositories in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Download a PDF Version of the Guide to African American Manuscripts
    Guide to African American Manuscripts In the Collection of the Virginia Historical Society A [Abner, C?], letter, 1859. 1 p. Mss2Ab722a1. Written at Charleston, S.C., to E. Kingsland, this letter of 18 November 1859 describes a visit to the slave pens in Richmond. The traveler had stopped there on the way to Charleston from Washington, D.C. He describes in particular the treatment of young African American girls at the slave pen. Accomack County, commissioner of revenue, personal property tax book, ca. 1840. 42 pp. Mss4AC2753a1. Contains a list of residents’ taxable property, including slaves by age groups, horses, cattle, clocks, watches, carriages, buggies, and gigs. Free African Americans are listed separately, and notes about age and occupation sometimes accompany the names. Adams family papers, 1698–1792. 222 items. Mss1Ad198a. Microfilm reels C001 and C321. Primarily the papers of Thomas Adams (1730–1788), merchant of Richmond, Va., and London, Eng. Section 15 contains a letter dated 14 January 1768 from John Mercer to his son James. The writer wanted to send several slaves to James but was delayed because of poor weather conditions. Adams family papers, 1792–1862. 41 items. Mss1Ad198b. Concerns Adams and related Withers family members of the Petersburg area. Section 4 includes an account dated 23 February 1860 of John Thomas, a free African American, with Ursila Ruffin for boarding and nursing services in 1859. Also, contains an 1801 inventory and appraisal of the estate of Baldwin Pearce, including a listing of 14 male and female slaves. Albemarle Parish, Sussex County, register, 1721–1787. 1 vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Magazine of HISTORY and BIOGRAPHY
    THE Pennsylvania Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY Reinterpreting the "Very Trifling Mutiny" at Philadelphia in June 1783 N A LETTER OF JANUARY 16, 1784, to the Marquis de Chastellux, Thomas Jefferson reported "some dissatisfaction in the army at not Ibeing paid off before they were disbanded, and a very trifling mutiny of 200 soldiers in Philadelphia." Some historians have likewise dismissed the unrest in the Continental army at the moment of its disbandment. They consider that George Washington quelled the officers' conspiracy at Newburgh in March 1783; they then project the image of an army that suffered patiently during the war and departed quietly after it—an image designed to reassure European observers that the fledgling nation I would like to thank Elizabeth M Nuxoll, Kenneth R Bowling, E James Ferguson, Clarence L Ver Steeg, Robert F Hueston and two anonymous readers for their thoughtful and constructive criticisms of this article It derives in part from research undertaken for The Papers of Robert Morris, a project sponsored by Queens College, CUNY, and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, and the private contributors listed in its volumes 1 See Julian P Boyd, et al, eds , The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, 1950-), 6 466 Jefferson appears to be quoting financier Robert Morns, who described the mutiny as "a trifling Thing which has no Importance in itself and which might derive some by treating of it senously" See RM to the consortium of Dutch bankers, Dec 31, 1783 (first letter), in E James Ferguson, John Catanzanti, et al, eds, The Papers of Robert Moms (hereafter, PRM) (Pittsburgh, 1973-), vol 8, forthcoming THE PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY 6C BIOGRAPHY Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • SC 010803 'American I Teachingg
    DCCUMENT,RESUEE ED 153 894 SC 010803 AUTHOR Griffin, J. David TITLE Georgia and the United States Ccnstituticr 1787-1789. INSTITUTION, Georgia Commission for tbe Eicertenrial Celebraticn, Atlanta.'; Gecrgia State Dept. cf Educaticn, Atlanta. PUPIPATE. 77 \ NOTE 23p. O' EDRS PRICE EF-$0.83 H-$1.67 Plus Ecstage. DESCRIPTORS 'American Idians; Ccicrial HistcLy (UnitedStates); *Constitutonal History; Federal Gcvernaext; *Federal State Relaicnship; Histcry; !,Histcry Instructoi.on;. Iastructioal Materials; fievcluticnarx Waz (United States); SccndaLy Edtcaticr; Scci,a1 Studies" Units; Southern Sates; State Gcverrmert; *State History; TeachingGides; United States EistcLy . IDENTIFIERS Constitutinal Converticr; Constitution of the United States; *Gorgia ABSTRACT \ This pamphaet'on revOuticAory Geor'gia is one of a series des gned for use imi the state's pudic schocls. The cbjective is to present a clear, concise picture cf Gecrgia's history during the American.Revcluticn. The first and Itajcx part of the text. presents an histOrical summary. It descrites how Gecrgia was an early and strong supperteL Of the Constituticx.cf the United States because it needed national support to protect its land hcldings from the Indiahs, Spanish, and French. Under tte Articles cf Ccnfederaticn, Georgireceived little help. Wanting a sticng central government, Georgia readily sent fOur delegates tc the Ccnstituticnal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The four delegates, lucre irterested in ;- dealing with the Indian menace and the security of the state than With ideas and theories, stayed for tte signing cf the CcnstitUticn in September. One mcnth later, the Gecrgia state legillature met in special session to prepare for war with the Indians. A till, Calling for aconvention to ratify the Ccnstittticn passed with r.c dissent: The bill was regarded as a geasure tc g'et naticnal help in the fight againf the Indians.
    [Show full text]