 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / February 2008Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Parochial
"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect and noble." -- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter Jones, 2 January 1814) Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319) > "His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, > his deportment easy, erect and noble." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319) he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army. > > "His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, > > his deportment easy, erect and noble." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army. many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or the British army? No revisionist history, please. aaron On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote: > "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army. many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or the British army? No revisionist history, please. aaron they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i doubt any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do. > On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote: >> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > doubt > any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do. By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a regular officer who was senior in rank.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still superior in rank? History says yes. > On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> >> By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from >> a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > superior in rank? > History says yes. I think regular officers always outranked militia officers in British service until the last century. Rank in the British army is horribly complex. Officers had an 'army' rank, a 'regimental' (or corps) rank and many held ranks in armies thatw ere technically foreign but came under British control. General Gordon never held a rank above that of major in the Royal Engineers. On the other hand it would be a brave captain who tried giving orders to Harry Lumsden when he was at the head of the Regiment of Guides, even though Lumsden was technically a lieutenant. I imagine that when John Lawrence was at the head of one of the six regiments he raised and the army he commanded in India during the mutiny nobody much under the rank of general tried giving him orders either, despite him not holding a regular commission at the time. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > General Gordon never held a rank above that of major in the Royal > Engineers. He may well have had a promotion to major-general, but not been actually appointed to such a post. I found someone in the Army Lists (mid-19th century) who had been promoted to major-general, but whose actual appointment was still as a major! SignatureJohn Briggs On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > superior in rank? > History says yes. in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original state colonies consider themselves independent of the crown? were these militias all staffed by locals, or were regular British army officers in charge of each militia? history records when George Washington, decades later, got a commission to join the British royal navy, he had to resign it, begging the question who granted officer commission in the colonies in the 1680s, and earlier, the Colony, or the Crown? aaron On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com" <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > aaron You may be confusing GW's half-brother Lawrence with GW himself. Larry was in the RN. Question: the royal governor of Virginia appointed George to an "adjutantship in the militia", is this a military appointment or a civil appointment? > On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com" > <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > George to an "adjutantship in the militia", is this a military > appointment or a civil appointment? It's a miltary appointment, obviously - but under the Governor's authority (which derives from the Crown), rather than being a direct Crown appointment. Washington himself had received an appointment as a Midshipman in the navy, but his mother refused her permission (necessary because he was underage.) Wasn't Lawrence a Marine? It is debatable whether they were army or navy - they were army regiments under the authority of the Admiralty rather than the War Office. SignatureJohn Briggs > > On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com" > > <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - British marines were under the authority of the army until 1749. They were paid for by the admiralty, but were army regiments. A law requiring that army regiments muster before being paid was the main reason that they were put under Admiralty control as having their companies scattered over many ships made it almost inpossible to muster the marine regiments. Joe in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original state colonies consider themselves independent of the crown? ---------------------------- Certainly not. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original > state colonies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Certainly not. the crown also found it was nigh impossible to ever get the militia to co-operate. they would routinely refuse to be used outside their home colonies and when they did agree it was for reasons of self defense or financial gain. if the british had ever tried to deploy them to europe the crown would have quickly discovered how little control they had. during WWII american enlisted men were required to obey brit officers but that didn't make them part of the british army. >> in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original >> state colonies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have > quickly discovered how little control they had. Australian, Canadian, Irish, Indian, New Zealand, West African and other forces certainly operated with great distinction outside their home colonies. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> <AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >> in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original > >> state colonies [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > forces certainly operated with great distinction outside their home > colonies. and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand. americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are. the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries anyway. they certainly weren't militias. >> >> <AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries anyway. > they certainly weren't militias. And the Irish? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > > and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand. > > americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > And the Irish? a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over the centuries. but as catholics weren't allowed to own land and had trouble getting jobs{short brothers anybody:?} the army was one of the few jobs open once the brits were tossed out of the south the pool dried up how many served in the brit army im WWII? >> > and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand. >> > americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over > the centuries. snip: proff that the oirish never forget History nor have never learnt anything from it. > how many served in the brit army im WWII? According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits were cited. But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account will regale everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish men fought WITH British forces against the Nazis. SignatureBRIAN > According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the British armed > forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish men fought WITH > British forces against the Nazis. men from ulster. and hitler was of no concern to irland. he didn't have the ability ti invade england and he had no reason to ever invade ireland. the nazies had reasons for invading who they did, lebensraum in the east and because france and england declared war. if the brits and french had let poland go down without objection they would have sat out the war.{to their credit they didn't} but hitler wasn't trying to take over the world. if he was he would have also attacked swe and suisse. >> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the >> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > men from ulster. For a start you mean "Northern Ireland", as three counties of Ulster are in the Republic. But in any case, because of Irish sensibilities there was no conscription in Northern Ireland - with the net result that more men from South than from the North served in the British army during World War II. SignatureJohn Briggs > >> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the > >> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Northern Ireland - with the net result that more men from South than from > the North served in the British army during World War II. and they are routinely referred to as ulster, so go back to your corner anal retentive ways. >> >> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the >> >> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > anal > retentive ways. Ooh, _ray_ ! Does Mary allow you to use such puerile language on her account? Does Mary's ISP permit such usage in its terms and conditions? Now; ask an adult to explain to you that the wikipedia. previously cited, term " Irish citizens " does mot. can not, refer to _British citizens_ resident in the six counties that form the province of Northern Ireland. You asked a specific question - that you've snipped - of "how many Irish citizens served in the British Army during WWII?" ; apparently the public domain answer is upsetting your fixed world-view and you've reverted to "throwing your rattle out of the pram". -- Brian > You asked a specific question - that you've snipped - of "how many Irish > citizens served in the British Army during WWII?" ; apparently the public > domain answer is upsetting your fixed world-view and you've reverted to > "throwing your rattle out of the pram". No change there. Sorry Brian. I set a trap, Ray fell into it and you've shovelled my carefully piled manure all over his head. That'll teach me to get up earlier on Sunday mornings... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the >>>> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and they are routinely referred to as ulster, so go back to your corner anal > retentive ways. Not by anyone who knows anything about Ulster and Northern Ireland. It's a bit like saying California is a Southern state. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada > >>>> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the > >>>> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Not by anyone who knows anything about Ulster and Northern Ireland. > It's a bit like saying California is a Southern state. ulster has 9 counties, 6 are in the british controlled northern ireland. any one who thinks ulster isn't used as a catch phrase for NI is mistaken and your anology is typical of a frostback, mistaken. when my reletives from ireland call someone an ulsterman then mean a prot from NI you and the fool blackguard as idiots. >>>>>> According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the >>>>>> British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did " [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > any one who thinks ulster isn't used as a catch phrase for NI is mistaken > and your anology is typical of a frostback, mistaken. > when my reletives from ireland call someone an ulsterman then mean a prot > from NI > you and the fool blackguard as idiots. This may well be so but nicknames for people are not quite the same thing as territorial names. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over > the centuries. > but as catholics weren't allowed to own land and had trouble getting > jobs{short brothers anybody:?} the army was one of the few jobs open > once the brits were tossed out of the south the pool dried up > how many served in the brit army im WWII? From a number of sources, about 70,000 (all three services). An interesting article may be found at http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/war.htm I think you'll find religious strictures on land ownership was not an issue by WW2 and had not been for some time. You might like to read up on land reform and Catholic Emancipation before you go on about it. Cheers CJA > > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over > > the centuries. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > An interesting article may be found at http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/war.htm > I think you'll find religious strictures on land ownership was not an > issue by WW2 and had not been for some time. You might like to read up > on land reform and Catholic Emancipation before you go on about it. > > Cheers > CJA that's because the irish got the brits out in 1921. but it explained why probablt half the "english" troops at places like waterloo were irish. > that's because the irish got the brits out in 1921. > but it explained why probablt half the "english" troops at places like > waterloo were irish. I don't think I can let that pass. Source, please. Cheers CJA > > that's because the irish got the brits out in 1921. > > but it explained why probablt half the "english" troops at places like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers > CJA http://www.doyle.com.au/irish_soldiers_of_the_british_ar.htm this paragraph in psarticular. By 1707 the British had six Irish Regiments, by 1713 this had dropped to 2, but later raised to 5 Irish Regiments. However it was estimated that by 1860 some two thirds of the British Army including the English country regiments was constituted by Irishmen or their descendants. A Quarter of a million Irishmen would die the 1st World War when the 3 Irish Divisions were created, being the 10th, 16th and 36th Divisions. In the Second World War, the 38th Irish Brigade was formed. Irish Regiments were formed in the Armies of South Africa, Canada and Australia. >> > that's because the irish got the brits out in 1921. >> > but it explained why probablt half the "english" troops at places like [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the 38th Irish Brigade was formed. Irish Regiments were formed in the Armies > of South Africa, Canada and Australia. As its author cites no sources, one cannot give "The Doyle Page" much credence. It sounds like B.S. to me. The Irish Regiment of Canada was not particularly Irish; it adopted Irish dress (saffron kilts, caubeens and all that) and customs, but it was largely Torontonians (1st Bn) and is now largely Canadien nickel miners from Sudbury (2nd Bn). The infantry raised in the Ottawa Valley (The Lanark & Renfrew Scottish Regiment and the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa) had more folks of Irish descent, as did/do the Black Watch in Montreal. The Irish Fusiliers of Canada was really the Vancouver Regiment in Irish dress. None of the Canadian Irish units went into action as formed battalions during the Great War, they were broken up for reinforcements for other battalions of the C.E.F. First Bn, Ir RC, saw service as part of 5th Cdn Armd Div in Italy and NW Europe. However, only 2nd Bn, Ir RC, survives, the 1st Bn and the IFC having been reduced to nil strength and placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success > over [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > but it explained why probablt half the "english" troops at places like > waterloo were irish. You've never quite 'sussed' the distinction between 'British" and _english(sic)_ have you _ray_.? SignatureBrian (British/English of Irish descent). -- Brian >>> > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success >> over [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Brian (British/English of Irish descent). Most Americans don't Canadian/English of Scots/English descent SignatureRich Enfield NS Canada > >>> > a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success > >> over [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Most Americans don't yeah. the welsh and scots are brit slaves. [snip] > And the Irish? Will fight anybody. They look down at their clothing to see if they should be saluting the British officer or shooting him today. ;) Andrew Swallow > [snip] > > > And the Irish? > > Will fight anybody. yet they've never invaded anybody > They look down at their clothing to see if they should be saluting > the British officer or shooting him today. ;) > > Andrew Swallow the best soldiers in every army . but somehow the irish army scares nobody. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the best soldiers in every army . but somehow the irish army scares > nobody. Seemed quite effective between the Greek and Turkish Army in Cyprus where an Irish Army Battalion formed part of UNFICYP. Durinf last year's 'Easter Uprising' commeration a very large contingent of blue-bereted former soldiers marched up O'Connel Street past the saluting base. SignatureBrian [Mediaeval groups trimmed.] >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > blue-bereted former soldiers marched up O'Connel Street past the saluting > base. During the Turkish invasion of '74, elements of the Irish battalion funked and had to be evacuated from their camp by other contingents. Up to the early '90s, the quality of their field officers was highly variable because of their use of seniority as the basis for promotion to commandant. The most useless excuses for majors or their equivalent I have ever met were from the Irish forces when I was with UNTSO in '92-'93. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> [snip] >> >>> And the Irish? >>> >> Will fight anybody. > yet they've never invaded anybody The Irish fight to fight rather than fight to win. When something needs winning British/North Ireland officers are used. Andrew Swallow On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not always. Sir William Johnson, a Major General with a Provincial commision, took over the British army and militia forces at the Battle of Fort Miagra in 1759 upon the death of General Sir John Prideaux, who held a regular British army commision. About 2,000 British regulars were involved. Joe "Joe Osman" <Joseph.Osman@verizon.net> wrote in message news:cf459452-cb87-4536-9f18- Not always. Sir William Johnson, a Major General with a Provincial commision, took over the British army and militia forces at the Battle of Fort Miagra in 1759 upon the death of General Sir John Prideaux, who held a regular British army commision. About 2,000 British regulars were involved. Joe it didn't hurt that billy johnson, an irishman, had made himself the richest man in america and had earned the favor of the crown by winning the battle of lake george, the only british victory in 1755. johnson is a very interesting man. a poor catholic boy who's father married the daughter of the local landlord named warren, the wife was banished but her brother the great admiral sir peter warren hired billy to manage his comercial affairs in america. he took care of his uncles affairs but he took better care of his own and through indian trading and land speculation he became extremely wealthy. he switch to being a prot because he saw there was no avenue for a catholic to advance. the iroquis chief hendrick saw great potential in him and they adopted him into the tribe. he with his indian paramour the equally capable molly brant , sister of te iroquois chief joseph brant became the most influential people on the american frontier and he was appointed the commissioner of indian affairs in north america. he was noted as an honest indian trader, that means he did business first then he broke open the casks of rum and whiskey. On Feb 23, 3:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a > regular officer who was senior in rank. Maybe, but the Americans had just that situation in the War of 1812. I can't remember the details, but there was a well planned campaign to use some (New York?) state "militia" forces and some Federal Army forces, and then a third force for attacking up into Canada. It was a good plan, but the state commanders wouldn't take orders from the Federal general, and he wouldn't take orders from them, and they couldn't get coordinated and the thing went poorly. >> On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote: >>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a > regular officer who was senior in rank. How would they have actually received such an order? At least during the Seven Years/F&I War, communications were abysmal. -- Les Cargill > >> <AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > >> On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote: > >>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > Les Cargill brit officers commanded any expedition that had regular and colonial troops. if the brits weren't with the militia they had no control over it. a good case in study is billy johnson of new york. he was a " major general" but he defered to a regular british officer of lesser rank, big gen john prideaux during the fort niagara expedition. at least until that officer was killed , then johnson took command again. > >> <AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > -- > Les Cargill If you are standing in front of someone it is not a problem of communication but of discipline. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.