vimarsana.com

It is about an hour and 50 minutes. Tonight speaker is sam watson, professor of United States and military history at the United States military academy at west point where he has taught for 18 years. He is author of jacksons sword, and peacekeepers and officers, about the borders and frontiers between the war of 1812 and the war with mexico. It was published by united press of kansas, which together won the distinguished book award from the society for military history. Incidentally, of which we are a part. Professor watson is coeditor of the west point history of the societych won for military history George C Marshall Foundation Prize for the use of Digital Technology teaching military history. He is a coeditor of the west point history of the civil war, which won the Army Historical foundation distinguished writing award. Coauthor of the west point history of the american revolution. Forthcoming from simon and schuster this auto. Autumn. He teaches courses on 19th century warfare, 19thcentury america, and about the american frontier. Ladies and job, tonight, sam watson. [applause] prof. Watson thank you, bob, and thank you to all of you. Bob noted i have been teaching at west point for 18 years and i gave my first talk about 18 years ago, in the fall of 1999 on the early medical officers in the seminal war and do they see themselves as medical or military officers. They saw themselves as a bit of both. I will be talking to you about the army before and after Andrew Jackson, focusing on before jacksons presidency, during his presidency, and then after his presidency. He was only in the army for a short period of time. I have to give the standard disclaimer. For thefor myself, not military academy at west point, not for the department of the army, not the department of defense and not for any other agency of the United States government. Willthat out of the way i try to say a few controversial things or a few things you might want to question or debate, and aboutou some information the army and jacksons effect on it, for lack of affect on it. I will talk about for big topics. The first is civilmilitary relations. The armys geopolitics, or the Army Officers of politics, and the armys role in politics. The balance between the National Standing army, for the regular army if you prefer. It is not clear. People did not, the regular army in capitals. You see it as regulars. Talking here about that Standing Army, the more or less Permanent Army rather than the mass of intermittent militia and volunteers. Force structures and the balance between them, to what extent of the u. S. Employed National Standing army, to what extent did it rely on militia or volunteers. We are talking the 1820s and 1830s. No really large wars that would employ lots of militia and volunteers. The third question is that of command. When the United States diploid troops to florida and the second seminole war, for georgia to force the cherokee indians to move fast, tour along the Canadian Border, or the border with taxes, who commanded the u. S. Troops. Or whereular officers the commanders volunteered citizen soldiers . Which we often tend to think they were. We think of jackson himself. He began as a militia general and it was commissioned into the United States army during the war of 1812. Of fourth question is kind the effect and outcomes question. What about the armys capability of performing missions assigned to it . Did that increase, decrease, improve or degrade . During and after jacksons presidency. And then within those topics, military relations, force structure, command of u. S. Forces, and forces capabilities, with questions of perception versus reality. Both with contemporaries and historians. People thinking the united it is from 19 century, all citizen soldiers and volunteers for all militia or it is all Andrew Jackson. On the other hand we have emblazoned on my tie, which one can never see at a distance, we have one phil Scott Winfield scott leading the charge for the regular army. There is a question of change versus continuity. To what extent there was change. To what extent jackson was responsible for it. To what extent were continuities across jacksons presidency. To what extent changes had already been made for jackson becoming president. The army that Andrew Jackson was commissioned in as a general was a small frontier force. It was not very active developing personal capability, and it was not very accountable financially or in supplying its soldiers. Neither the soldiers nor officers displayed the sort of discipline and responsibility and subordination to authority you expect or desire. Jackson himself repeatedly challenged and supported the filion civilian authority, some dynamics i explore in my book, jacksons sword. Book is really a story primarily of dysfunctions, of jackson invading florida pretty much on his own, on his own problems, and of supplying the troops, problems paying the troops. Other officers wanting to attack cuba. You tods of insubordination to the civilian authority that was constitutionally elected, command authority, or other forms of indiscipline. Jacksons victory at new orleans did not really make a big difference to that army. It made a difference in how americans received military perceived military force. The hundreds of kentucky, volunteers of the militia to hims americans attributed victory at new orleans. Scholars today will say certainly a lot of accurate rifleman, but a lot of powerful artillery in jacksons line at new orleans. Some of that was manned by pirates. You have heard the story of john lafitte, but much of that artillery was manned by regular Army Artilleryman, some naval gunners as well. There is a myth of the battle of new orleans, but meanwhile the regular army, the National Standing army is doing its own thing. 1820s, the army beginning in the 1810s and 1820s, they changed quite a bit. There were a variety of reforms initiated by the senior leaders. People like Winfield Scott. A variety of commanders i will talk about here supported by president james monroe and secretary of war john c. Calhoun. In effect the National Standing army, the permanent and hopefully professional army became during the 1820s both a frontier constabulary, a sort of police force to guard the borders and to intimidate or deter opponents and thus keep the peace along the borders. But also a cadre of technical forrts and educators developing and maintaining professional expertise and capability. For example, at west point, but also at the Artillery School at fortress monroe 4 near norfo lk, or at the Jefferson Barracks in st. Louis. Cadreater dimension, that was spawned largely from graduates of the United States military academy at west point, with whom the president s secretary in the senate giving virtual anomaly on commissions for more than a decade during the 1820s. During the 1820s, senior Army Officers were often politically attuned and privately supported president ial candidates like jackson, John Quincy Adams, or John C Calhoun who they knew three the association within a small government. This is an elite politics of gentlemen and government officials who already know each other, and asked such would write a lot of letters to one another privately. What do you think of calvin, but you think of jackson, who will be better for the army . Her member how calhoun supported us on this or what jackson said about that . Not a lot of things that were 1828 and 1829, many of the Senior Officers within a small senior officer corps, but many of that small number of Senior Officers welcomed jacksons president ial victory. Seeing him as a former comrade who would support more troops and more funding for the army. That is usually the main thing that army leaders wanted at that point in time. We dont think we have enough troops for the Canadian Border if things go breakout of the indians inin or the the southeast, florida, for the border with mexico, for the coastal fortifications, for the indians on the planes. When Staff Officers made plans, they said we need three or four regiments for each of those. 2020 or 25 regiments to perform we need 20 or 25 regiments to perform our missions. The army had 11 regiments. They perceive they are always understrength. Usually the crises that breakout breakout one at a time, one place at a time and they can redeploy forces to the different to meet the different crises. It is fair to say anything 28 and 1829, a lot of Army Officers saw jackson as someone who would favor the army. During jacksons Administration Funding remained tight. Jacksonians talked about keeping spending down, not raising taxes or other revenues. The army did not get more funding, but it did grow by two regiments under jacksons administration. A nearly 20 increase from 11 to 13 regiments. To an army that was only about 5000 soldiers, 5000 jackson entered office. Both regiments were mounted regiments, the first and second dragoons of whom you can see an example here on the cover of my second book. This was an important step in making the army more capable of performing its missions. For two decades the army had not had any cavalry. U. S. Army had dragoons, cavalry who can dismount and fight on foot, although the american officers often liked to think of charging on their horses with sabers. The u. S. Had dragoons in the revolution. They had dragoons on a small scale with Anthony Waynes legion and United States in the 1790s. Those were disbanded. Alexander hamilton, George Washington wanted dragoons at the end of the decade. Never really built that force. During the war of 1812 for a couple of regiments of dragoons, and a lot of volunteer dragoons in kentucky fighting at the earnest battle of the thames in 1813. Dragoons and 1812, horses cost money. You have to feed the horses, that cost money. Congress not willing to pay for that and cutting back. 1832 and 1833,d u. S. Army did not have any cavalry. Sometimes it without infantry soldiers on horses to conduct patrols, but you can imagine those soldiers were not very good horseman or not very experienced. They were not about to go chasing the poni or comanche and pawnee and comanche and catching them. The army did not have the capability of pursuing indians west of the mississippi. If they wanted to cast them or intimidate them and force them to sign a treaty or something. Dragoonsbunes were approved crucial to effective power projection on the plains, in new mexico and california during the war with mexico. The first or gains in particular. The second dragoons were in florida. The army needed troops in florida. Army durings in the the Jackson Administration included more nutritious rations for the soldiers food, which significantly employer improved soldiers health and adding vegetables, beans, legumes, other elements to a diet that before had been like your classic salt pork, salt food. A lot of dry and abolishing the liquor rationing. During the Jackson Administration Army Officers and 80 officers and civilians Navy Officers and civilians created professional journals. I dont have any pictures of the russian. I probably should have pulled one off the web. Different army museums would know what a russian looks like. Ration looks like. Officers began to write in sufficient amount that civilian publishers, like benjamin hellmanns, a baltimore publisher created a monthly magazine or journal. In this case a weekly for the army. Centers for debate about military professionalism, Civil Military relations, military capability, reform, tactics. In 19341835. War, the second seminole 1835 to 1836, by that point the Naval Military magazine is starting to fade, that the army Navy Chronicle became the standard i and is chockfull. If you want to study the second database has the the army Navy Chronicle. You can read a book on the seminal war seminole war largely from that. Today,s of our question Andrew Jackson didnt really have anything to do with this. These are changes that occur during his administration but these are really initiatives within the army or a civilian publisher responding to a demand or army harvesters wanting to write and being willing to buy. The army Navy Chronicle disappears after the second seminole war. They change it to the scientific repository for a couple of years, 1842 taking 44. There is just not enough interest once the war is over. It goes out of business in 1844. The changes that occurred to the army that i mentioned so far were during jacksons administration. They were largely changes initiated by Army Officers. Leaders,olitical whether it was president monroe or now president jackson, or secretary of war calhoun among the secretaries of war who had supported the army, but by and large Army Officers would be talking among themselves or writing letters back and forth and saying we really need an Infantry School. Calhoun would say that sound like a good idea. Then monroe or at that point John Quincy Adams would say yes, good. We will try to find that fund that. Most of his reform was coming from the inside. ,he actual ideas for the reform with a supportive political climate. The 1830s were also difficult years for the army. Jacksons administration of 1829 to the beginning of 1837, these were difficult years for the army brought on insurgents in u. S. Expansion. Forcing indians to leave their land east of the mississippi. We know from the title of the legislation as indian removal. Nowadays that sounds a little harsh and it was harsh. We might say the expropriation of the indians. We might say ethnic cleansing. , if this happened in europe, you would take it is ethnic cleansing. Yet some of those europeans are like that. While officers had professional journals today performs, the infantry and Artillery Schools this is an image of a later painting, a 20thcentury painting, but an image of the Artillery School in the 1820s. Those schools had a close, reducing officers opportunities to train larger units of soldiers. This was because army unit Army Artillery units were deployed from the Artillery School at fortress monroe to deter slave rebellions between 1829 and 1831. This is actually from the outside of the second seminole war, but it is standard iconography. You can see the image of slaves rising up and attacking slaveholders. 1831, there was a way of slave unrest or rumors of slave unrest culminating in net turners rebellion in southampton virginia in 1831. For several years the governors, mayors, state legislators, congressman throughout the south, from virginia, north carolina, South Carolina, mostly the eastern states, but also louisiana, they were constantly sending letters to army commanders. There are rumors they would not say slave. They would say savage unrest in our neighborhood. It was pretty clearly that slaves. , smally forces attachments are being dispatched usually from the coastal fortifications manned by the artillery to try to deter any slave unrest. When they actually get to net turner nat turners rebellion, the army is not involved in suppressing that. They did not show force in the weeks and months after the rebellion. But not only that, we have also got the black hawk war and 1832. And black hawk had almost gone to war, for the United States had gone to war against black hawk in the previous year, 1832. The situation exploded with a lot of this communication, but it certainly exploded. You had infantry units in the region, but they ultimately brought artillery units from the Artillery School numeral folk near norfolk. The First Movement of soldiers by train in the United States, they took them by train part of the way to chicago. Part of the huawei steamboat, part of the way part of the way by steamboat, part of the way by train and that it all caught cholera. , thankind of pressures the artillery had to go back to the eastern seaboard, back down to South Carolina to try to intimidate the nullification advocates in South Carolina. By the time you get to the end of 1832, it was pretty clear they were not going to be able to sustain an Artillery School anymore. The Infantry School, which was designed as a Strategic Reserve at st. Louis in the middle of the frontier, the Infantry School had already lost most of its school purpose. You canto say probably say it closed in 1834, but had not been very active for several years before that. What we today call off tempo, the frequency of deployments in this army and navy had grown from had not really grown from 5000. This small army cannot really sustainld not training at the Artillery School, and intimidating s and natives. It ultimately conducted indian removal. This was before the indian removal act, but trying to keep the peace between cherokee and whites who are invading cherokee land when gold was discovered in northwest georgia. Betweeno keep the peace the creek indians and mostly those in alabama, and the white invading their land. And ultimately the seminole war in the 1830s. This is an image that is supposed to be edmund gains, his staff and his troops at the site of the battlefield, one of the first battles of the war were about 100 u. S. Soldiers were ambushed and wiped out. Of their frequency of deployment, the overextension of the army meant it was toward between Reform Efforts and the actual deployments. Not all combat operations. Most of the time is spent intimidating people or trying to either push them to do something the u. S. Wanted or deter them from doing something u. S. Did not want, but still lots and lots of deployments. And not just on the western frontier and you would think. Where we have the image of those dragoons chasing indians. Most of this, most of the indian removal, jacksons policy is east of the mississippi to force the indians to the west of the mississippi. Most of the troop deployments are in alabama and georgia and florida. Stretchedvery widely and overextended army. And it getsrse worse for the army because Andrew Jackson did not prevent his commanders present his commanders the autonomy he practiced the generation before. Andrew this is cartoon,a whig but i use it to make the point that they saw Andrew Jackson as an authoritarian leader. He would say he was having a mandate from the majority. Other people would call that tyranny of the for the army, jackson tried to compel those he sent to trouble spots to repress whatever resistance there was but to do so without embarrassing or increasing opposition toward his policies. I want you to crack down on cherokee and make it clear to them that they have to move west. But, i dont want this getting in the newspapers. I dont want newspapers and saying u. S. Troops use force against the cherokee. I dont want the cherokee to actually rebel. You have to intimidate them but not to the point where the actually rebel and we have war in georgia. Seminole were difficult enough. There was a war with creek indians in alabama the same year, 1836, that extended for several years after. You dont want to have wars with the creek, the cherokee and the seminole at the same time that the americans in texas are rebelling against mexico and the army is th deploying troops to that order. We have a lot of deployments, a very high operational tempo and a president who is very impatient, very short tempered with his commanders and very quick to criticize them if they use too much or too little force. Finenders had to walk a line and most of them fell off the tightrope at some point in jacksons eyes. Here, we have a couple of examples of that. That is at the center of the story, i think. Have something of a populist democrat during the 1820s and early 1830s. He was charged with intimidating, pressuring, coursing the cherokee into starting to move in 1836. He was unsuccessful. The cherokee dont move until 1838. Another commander follows him and then finally Winfield Scott. Hes the best example ive got in this whole chapter on peacekeepers and conquerors were the jacksonians are pressuring him and hes trying to explain i try to do this and that didnt work. I take all their weapons . No, that might provoke them. Ok. The cherokee want to hold a council. Could i let them . You should discourage them from holding a council. The cherokee hold a council. We will arrest some of them. Jackson says no. You arent supposed to actually detain them. Now the newspapers will say we are pushing too hard. Wool was constantly caught between the demands of public relations. The indian removal act had passed by a single vote. Indians had ahe choice to remove. We would show them wonderful land in the west and they would probably want to move out there. When they didnt, according to the legislation passed by congress, they could stay in georgia or alabama or florida. That certainly wasnt jacksons intention and these officers are caught in the middle. On the right, we have a younger version of duncan, who was commanding in florida in 1835. Hes constantly sending seminole are, the unhappy. Theres going to be a war. Send in more troops. Maybe if you send more troops i can intimidate them and we can keep the lid on here. That falls on deaf ears back in washington. The army was busy doing a lot of Different Things because all of jackson policies because of all of jacksons policies. Newspaper,s, gets in were with governor of florida, and retires soon after. Whig. Omes a here, we have Winfield Scott in his best portrait. This is from the army art series, portraits of commanding generals of the army. Scott was also deployed down in florida. They were trying every Senior Commander in the army at that point. Are is scotts arrival, younger sheriff gaines. Gaines actually rushed to florida himself. Frontier emergency, i must go there and commanded troops. Which caused all kinds of confusion. Scott quickly got into a newspaper battle of sorts with people in florida and the south. Tt was diplomatic enough jackson was unhappy that scott had to crush the seminoles. In the summer, scott is sent to y to crush the creeks. These unable to do that. Gaines is sent to the texas border in 1836. Its not clear what jackson wanted, but we can infer that he wanted to put pressure on mexico. Historians debate this. There are a number of conspiracy theories. Gaines sent u. S. Troops into in the theory that he was protecting american citizens, and practice to probably try to intimidate mexico. Were inthe battles southern texas. Again, gaines became the subject of jacksons ire. Said, whatry of war are you doing . Gaines wrote back, well, i thought you wanted me to make an impression. Thats not the impression we wanted you to said, what are you doing . Make. Gaines was definitely an impetuous guy. Cases, jackson had put his generals in difficult situations, either denying them troops or denying them the firstity or the autonomy, saying heres the mission and then trying to micromanage them. He would condemn them for not being aggressive enough or for being too aggressive. Wool was criticized for being too aggressive and not aggressive enough. Criticized wolf for virtually everything and anything. Wool repeatedly sought reassignment. Jackson kept him on to age 36. War ands secretary of politicians in georgia blamed fusalfor the cherokees re to move west. Wool had been a pretty populist democrat. Aines, who was facing similar mac messages and criticism from ha had beennt, ye jacksons closest subordinate. Becauses already a whig of his views on society and the economy. Erecan and Zachary Taylor wr whigs or became whigs. Whigh definitely became a and later served as a whig congressman. Newspapers were usually partisan. They were either jacksonian or antijacksonian. Criticized orkson the secretary of war criticized, those criticisms were being echoed and sometimes were being published, the letters were being leaked into newspapers and you had a newspaper war. This is thomas by the time jackson left office in early 1837, he was the only senior officer of the army who remained a democratic partisan. Earlier, i said in 1828 and ys9, a lot of the arm colonels and generals thought jackson would be good for the army. By the time jackson left office, most of the commanders felt jackson had pushed too hard and had not given them the professionalby the time jacksony needed to find the best way to perform their missions. Hes a capable officer. Hes not so much part of my story here. He was the quartermaster general for 42 years from 1818 to 1860. Anderformed Army Logistics made them much more efficient and much more effective. Hand crippled in 1814 throug. E learned to use his left hand he is constantly writing. He probably wrote more correspondence than anybody else in the army. He used his left hand to write. Hes leading troops in battle and gets his eyeglasses ttered by a bullet early in by a bullet 1837. Sunnyside to this story. The military friction encouraged most army leaders to avoid partisan politics. Winfield scott is a great since he was going to run for president in 1852. In 1840. In 1840, he was the mistreating his interest in running for president. Most senior Army Officers stopped writing about who will be the next president. Him . You vote for is not clear to what extent they voted or not. The situation in the 1820s when officers often wrote to each calhoun, ike john c like Andrew Jackson, they pretty much stopped doing that. Thats probably a good thing that they withdrew even privately from partisan politics. Far, ive been talking about changes. Some good changes, but mostly not due to jackson. And some bad changes, mostly due to jackson. There were also some significant continuities. This is where perceptions and realities clash the most. Changesly, i think the the greater than that continuities were greater than the changes. Words, the crucial changes that promoted the armys capability that made the army more professional had occurred during the 1820s before jacksons presidency and after jackson left the army. We had the old army that wasnt very disciplined and wasnt well organized and wasnt well supplied and was in a countable and wasnt effective before the war of 1812 extending into the war of 1812. The army did become more effective during and after the war of 1812 but still have problems with financial accountability, soldier discipline, officer discipline, Andrew Jackson discipline. But, they had remedied a lot of that during the 1820s after jackson had retired and entered politics. The most important and foundational continuity was the dominance of the National Military academy at west point. This with the monument this was the monument to an early graduate. He was an engineer from jacob brown on the Niagara Frontier in 1814. In fortortally wounded erie. Style is still at west point. Ian hear the plane ,hink it must have been moved but this is still in the West Point Cemetery today. Primarynt remains the commissioning source for new officers throughout the jacksonian era. They are democratic, egalitarian, populists. They are often pretty impetuous, pretty radical. Westhad talked a lot about point as an aristocracy or the Standing Army as an aristocracy or that it would be like the british Standing Army. Jackson ew jacksonian rhetoric was very antiStanding Army, very antiwest point, very antiauthority, very antiofficer core. Writers and newspapermen and propaganda would say get rid of west point. All the officers should be promoted from enlistment centers. Or, the officers should come from the militia. They should be citizen soldiers. They would draw all these parallels to britain. They were semiretired getting a pension of half their pay and could be called back and the army. The jacksonians would say thats like a government monopoly. The government is giving these oficers money and therefore course the officers will support the government. It will be like a militaryindustrial complex. There might be some foresight there. The it came down to it, jacksonians did none of the things i just suggested. New point wasnt abolished, military academies were not created to train officers. There were state academies like Virginia Military institute. There were several state academies, but their officers didnt go into the army. They went to the state militias. R they went into civilian life they were usually from wellconnected families and can make their way into politics or business in virginia or alabama or whatever state there were from. They were from. During jacksons administration, despite all that rhetoric, the Jackson Jackson did not this seven enlisted soldiers were promoted to become officers during the war. The jacksonians did not change the conditions. They did with the first and second degrees. About 2030 new officers from the civilian life. Thats 2030 out of an officer 500 or 600. The vast majority of the officer corps were still either west west points hadnt been effective when they been coming up, they were mostly were of 1812 veterans. It was war of 1812 veterans and younger west point graduates and in theory the jacksonians would put in a bunch of democratic partisans. They did a bit of that. It didnt reshape the officer corps. Although jackson interviewed in the coming for discipline, his leadership do not promote partisanship it could be that it may be like Winfield Scott. The faculty and staff at west point could say jackson is attacking us, we hate jackson, we will try to undermine jackson. But, they didnt do that. Didough the superintendent and wenteassignment off to build coastal fortifications to defend against possible attacks by the british. He requested and received his reforms, but endured. The second big continuity is with force structure and command. Militia, whous commands, and then the armys capability. Supplementsese whether they were actual wars or ,ntimidation or peacekeeping its really the regular army that leads. War, floridale calls up a lot of militia. Peopleoss the south, volunteer to fight in florida, government, u. S. Under Martin Van Buren says wait, these volunteers cost too much, they are not very disciplined, they lose a lot of their equipment, theres a lot of waste, they are very expensive and not welltrained, they are not very effective. The u. S. Government try to minimize the call ups of militia to volunteer. Really relied on the regular army to fight the seminole war. These guys are examples of jacksonian patriots. , who hadenry dodge been invading indian land in wisconsin, became the leader of the battalion of mounted rangers in the black hawk war and then jackson appointed him straight from there to command the first groans in 1833. He resigned and went on to become the first territorial governor of wisconsin. His position was taken by a very offessionally minded veteran 20 years in the regular army. This guy here had entered the army after the war of 1812. Hes a sort of an example of a rough and ready professional officer. Dragoons ork of the when we think of the army in the 1830s, is not the militia like this caricature. Here, we have our dragoons. Here, we have stephen w carney, the professional who commanded the dragoons. Jackson relied on a National Standing army, not those militia. But he relied on the National Standing army to intimidate native americans and mexico and european powers. Performed these missions effectively. The seminole war proved very difficult. And was criticized by officers as unwise and unnecessary or even immoral. Helped the war with the cherokee. Hes the leader of the oppositions moving west. Wool helped prevent a possible war with the cherokee. Gaines did not cause war in texas. Could potential war with britain was avoided in 1838 in part due to diplomacy along the Canadian Border by Winfield Scott and other officers. Both the cherokee and the Canadian Border crises, u. S. Army survey peacekeeping role served a peacekeeping role, deterring potential mass cherokees against the jerk and providing the most concrete demonstration of american good faith to the british on the Canadian Border. This could easily become a disastrous war. Diplomacy,ere was ultimately, the treaty in 1842. The prelude to all that diplomacy is Winfield Scott and and some of the subordinate officers like William Worth talking with the british counterparts and cooperating with the british to keep american citizens from invading canada and sparking a war. Stephen w carney here would lead the first dragoons to california a decade after he became the commander. Historians may better remember these the republican johnndidate, and has c fremont is the pathfinder who is trying to find ways to invade mexican territory. Fremont was a political appointee married to the senators daughter. Im not showing you a picture of fremont. Carney got fremont kicked out of the army for insubordination. Basically clashing basically clashing over who would command in california. Said i gotically here first, and im a real jacksonian guy and my fatherinlaw is a senator, so im going to do what im going to do. Carney was able to get fremont. Ourtmartialed they found fremont guilty and sentenced him to be dismissed from the army. President james t polk, basically known as Young Hickory because he was such a jacksonian he tried because he did not want that, but in the end, he , dismissedmy fremont. He let the army dismissed fremont. The army built on previous reforms from the 1820s to become more capable. Despite jacksons criticism of the commanders he assigned to clean up the messes that his policies made, jackson and his successors again and again, pretty much every time, chose the National Standing army and the national Army Officers, nothing militia or volunteers or, rather, citizen soldiers, to lead the nations territorial. Xpansion known whigse Winfield Scott to intimidate the nullifies. Left then will cherokee country, unhappy after all the difficulty he had had more difficulty, he felt, with jackson and the jacksonians then with the charity, writes . He felt rightly or wrongly that he could get along with the charity and come to an agreement with them, but after he left cherokee country, van buren allowed him to seek a court of inquiry to validate his conduct, and the court of inquiry publicly praised wool and basically criticized his someers, particularly alabama politicians and, in fact, the governor of alabama, opportunity ofhe this public forum to condemn jacksonian policy. He basically got put in the record saying he thinks it is unconstitutional, etc. , which you can view as really insubordinate. You can also view it as the army taking care of its own,. Rotecting itself in practice, it means a lot of jacksonian smoke, not much jacksonian fire. I would say that its better to have john wool criticizing indian removal than it would be to have a bunch of militia and volunteers raping and massacring as volunteers and militia and citizen soldiers had done to the creek during the creek removal. So, finally, in 1846, president sent the Young Hickory, Zachary Taylor, a known quake intimidate along the rio grande border. He does lessen the democrat, does not send a volunteer, does not send a militia man, does not send fremont, who, i guess, was busy trying to overthrow the Mexican Government in california. When taylors campaign in northern mexico had gone as far as it could you know, because of supply problems moving across the mountains and deserts polk tried to get John C Calhouns father sorry, john c fremonts fatherinlaw to command the army that would attack mexico city, but the senate to beard and polk had to turn to whig Winfield Scott the senate demured. Ends of using two whigs, plus carney, who is not clear, but is definitely not jacksonian, to fight his war. Polk, like jackson before him, believe he could rely on the army to do what polk and jackson wanted, even knowing that taylor in particular seems to have disagreed with the war with mexico, but still, taylor, despite his politics, would subordinate we execute the policies made by the constitutionally elected authority. Jackson and his supporters often criticized the National Standing officer army, its officers, and its committees, but they relied on that army to achieve their objectives, and they gave it authority and generally speaking the resources to do so, despite some friction, the army did so effectively and subordinate lien. Thank you. Subordinate late subordinately. Thank you. [applause] and i am supposed to wait for someone else to choose you for questions. Certainly gave an excellent and detailed presentation about the commanders, the officers. I am curious, though, about the rankandfile, the troops and the regular army. Who were they . How well were they treated . Why did they enlist . How long did they stay in the service for . In general, an understanding of who the rankandfile were during the period you are discussing. The enlisted soldiers mostly the soldiers are listed mostly as far as we can tell for economic reasons. Obviously, there were a wide range of reasons personal, individual ones, but mostly economic reasons. By and large, they came from either farmers or increasingly from people in the cities, increasingly from immigrants. It was not regarded as a prestigious occupation. It was seen generally as you were subordinating yourself to inebody else, in particular the United States, with its you know, with the Racial Attitudes of the United States for one white guy to let another white guy boss him around all was seen as subservient or slavish. Sawhe political culture soldiers that way, and the result was a real divide between the officers and soldiers, and there was a lot of brutality, violence by the officers toward the soldiers. Some of that had been legal like, flogging had been legal at least up to the war of 1812. Then it was made illegal, but it was still common for officers to casually strike soldiers, hit them, kick them, whack them with big flat of their swords, push them, shove them, and sometimes as punishments, to do things that we would recognize as torture, to have them sit on a sawhorse, uncomfortable position, or sometimes to hang them by their thumbs, things we all today would recognize as torture. What this meant was it aggravated it intensified that perception, so it became harder. The army wanted to find nativeborn americans, not immigrants, to be in the army, but nativeborn americans would say, the army isnt that where they treat white guys like slaves . Im not going to do that. Increasingly, they had to find recruits among people who really did not have other opportunities. Enlisted meant most soldiers did not remain in the army for an extended period of time. The listed soldiers their term of service buried from three to five years depending on the law and most of them did not reenlist the term of service varied. One reason i did not discuss them is that officers and politicians did not really take much account of them. They sort of only got noticed when they became a problem. You know, if they resisted officers violence, that will be a problem for the officer. That would be a larger problem for discipline. You might say it was surprising they did not have more mutinies or more resistance by the this is a period when even the noncommissioned officers, even the sergeants only average about five years of service, so you do not have a long serving noncommissioned officer the way we do today, or even for we might think of the wars with the indians after the civil war. Did not jacksonians really do much about this. Periodically, the Army High Command would try to launch officero reduce violence against soldiers. Like in the early 1820s, jacob brown, the commanding general, and Winfield Scott they courtmartialed some officers for brutality against soldiers. Usually went handinhand with contemporaries, which is their word for drunkenness, and they got guilty verdict against some of those officers, but another cases, the courtmartial desta courtmartial is basically you have a jury. In other cases, the jury would captains ande lieutenants, and theyre looking at me, captain lieutenant, and im accused, and they are worried they are going to get accused, so they would find their. Not guilty. R peer about every 10 years or so, the army would try to or the high command would try to reduce that violence by officers against soldiers, but without much success. The jacksonians in congress did these army and say officers are brutal. They could have made that case, but they did not. It is ironic, but there is a strand in the historiography interpretation of jacksonians that most jacksonian leaders were men from pretty elite backgrounds. Jacksonian leaders by and large were not ordinary working men or yeomen farmers. They owned plantations in the south, or they owned businesses in practice did not show a whole lot of concern for most soldiers. I have two questions. Number one, you showed a picture of general harney. Decades ago, i read a book called compact history of the American Indian wars, and it mentions something about in the 1850s, general harney was involved in some sort of skirmish or whatever, and it was a rather humiliating defeat for him. It was not disastrous in the worst possible way, but it made him look silly. , the wayw years later the book expressed it, he got his revenge and letter pretty terrible massacre. . Mber one, is that true if it is, i would like to hear more about it. My second question is when you were talking about how the regular army was less likely not all the time but less likely to commit massacres against indians than the local militias, is the sand creek massacre led by sherrington a good example of that . Here he harney was not himself humiliated. There is a lieutenant who was defeated, kind of became. Verconfident, pushed too hard cow, horse, buffalo probably a horse. People would steal horses back and forth. But harney did see that as a humiliation inside the army, and harney, who was much less restrained than, say, carney, harney actually fled indictment for murdering a slave woman in the about 18341835 . He was later reprimanded for pressuring soldiers to fight for other, like bareknuckle his amusement or for discipline, and was accused of having soldiers fight slaves to punish the soldiers, so this guy looks like your grandfather or your uncle. This guy was a pretty brutal fellow. In the seminole war maybe this was kind of there were two things. Seminole war in a good, active soldier. He was leading a small party. Own in south florida a group of indians surprised his camp at night, and he had to flee in his underwear, so he is swimming through the swamp and his underwear. When he caught several of those later, heuple months promptly just hung them from a tree. Rather than taking them prisoner, taking them back to prisoner of war capmps. That is 1839. So he is indicted for murdering a slave woman in the early 1830s. 1839. 18 42, 1844 is when he seems to have had enlisted soldiers fighting each other, fighting slaves, what not. I think it is 1855, he leads an expedition out which then and,ks the Sioux Village you know, sort of just precipitously ataxic, gratuitously attacks and precipitously at tax precipitously attacks it, gratuitously attacks it without any regard for the village. Shillington is a civil war volunteer shivi ngton is a civil war volunteer. Can say any atrocity is an atrocity, but if you were to make a list of atrocities, especially of out and out atrocities, you do find lets say the bear river massacre in that itu generally find is volunteer troops, or you find of volunteers who are almost vigilantes or ruffians or bullies, you find them attacking i refer to the creek camps when they were being escorted west by Army Officers in 1834. The Army Officers right in their journals about how these guys attacked camp last night because there really are not any enlisted soldiers. Its just a couple of supply officers who are trying to make sure the creeks get fed. At night, these volunteer vigilantes, these guys would go into the creek camps and and rob the women creeks. With thelly happened army i would say is that you get custer, but also mckenzie, and they will say what is the best way to catch the indians . To attack them at dawn in their village in their winter cap camp. It is hard for us to chase them around the planes. They are better horseman then we are. They know the land better than we do. We have a hard time catching them, but historic drought in American History. Kind of true in the counterinsurgency if you like in general but certainly an American History, its like where will the indians be . They will be in their villages, so they will either have to defend their village, in which case we can kill them or kill the warriors at least, or they will run the way runaway and we can burn the village and burn the food supply and they will starve. If you call that an atrocity or not depends on your historic context. That. Today would call it in world war i, we would call it the british blockade of germany. We call it economic warfare. The result, then, is that people 1868 asuster, in the indian village, is dawn, the indians are sleeping, we can surprise them. Of course, the village is full of women and children. Beingldiers are not ordered to kill the women and children, and by and large, the soldiers are not trying to kill the women and children, otherwise i think you would see a lot more women and children killed. I mean, if you have several hundred women and children in the village and 10 or 15 get killed, that is, you know, tragic and regrettable, but it is not the same thing as lining up 200 or three hundred women and children and killing them. Its kind of like in terms of prisoners. We talk about atrocities when taking prisoners. When our prisoners most vulnerable . Its the moment when they surrender. I have been shooting down your buddies for the last five minutes, finally, you get close , and then do we call that an atrocity, but do we blame you or your commander because your commander was not right there with his hand on your shoulder . At that point, things got a little less black and white. Thank you. By the time of the civil war, a lot of the enlistment soldiers spoke english only as a second language at that. Was that much of a problem at this time . The other question that i have there never was an ineffective, lasting treaty with the seminoles, was there . Their tactics were fairly simple. June oh, stayly in a line shoulder to shoulder, so i dont know that the lack of facility with english was that much of a problem it was basically drill. It did aggravate or deepen the gulf because he would have your nativeborn american officers, immigrantould disdain soldiers who could not speak english. There is the anecdote where Zachary Taylor does not understand the soldier or the soldier does that understand taylor, a german soldier, and taylor pulls him why his ears and pulls him by his nose. You can view that as brutality, you can view that as Zachary Taylor being often ready. I do not think it was much of a problem for the army effectiveness, but it certainly aggravated that division between soldiers and officers. For ending the seminole war, it was really into gradually by a series of agreements. In peacekeepers and conquerors, i called it family diplomacy, that basically the army would try to convince some seminoles to move, and sometimes they outd send those seminoles to their families to try to persuade their families, hey, look, i realize the americans have a point. The war is really difficult. We are hiding out in swamps. We really dont want to do that. So rather than Army Officers themselves doing the persuading or negotiating, they would try to get the seminoles to do it. The war basically comes to an end in 1842 with the u. S. Saying, hey, we dont want hey, we won. Not even really declaring that. There are still combat operations in 1853. There are patrols. A lot of accounts of smallscale patrols in 1843 in princeton. 1843,here is the gap from 1844 into the mid1850s with the seminoles at this point withdraw down to the everglades like, we dont want to deal with white people anymore. Were going to hideout down here. But as White Settlement expanded southward, they started expanding up against the seminoles, so in the 1850s, we have what we sometimes call the third seminole war, and that when kind of ends the same way. Petersish, it kind of out. The seminoles retreat deeper into the swamp, the numbers being 200 or 300 in florida. There is sort of a long period its not really until about the 1890s until you start seeing, i guess, sustained contact between whites and seminoles again. Usually say there is that in effect, some historians will say the army never conquered the thenoles, but in effect, army forced the seminoles out of. Lorida, for better or worse but, you know, they did prove effective through attrition we would call it through attrition in achieving their assigned mission. Is this on . You talk about the intellectual the u. S. Nt of military. I am wondering what is the european influence . As i understand it, they are largely copying the u. S. Military. I am french doctrine, especially in terms of tactics. I wonder if that is correct and if you have anything more on that. Yes, by and large, they are copying french tactical doctrine. British aware of doctrine. Militaryleon, most officers at the time tended to think of the french as kind of militarycapable professionals. This is before the francoprussian war, the austro they are awareo of british tactics they are aware to some extent of prussian tactics. Like, in 1835, 1836, they had a in quanticoate about infantry tactics. Its very well informed. They are constantly citing 20, 30, 40yearold tactical regulations from these different countries. A larger question implied in that might be how much of an effect that had on the army. Who arguesome people it basically makes the American Army a copy of the french army. What i would say, kind of a deeper argument in both my books is although the u. S. Army sought saw itself preparing to fight with europeans like a repeat of the war of 1812, they try to prepare for that, but in practice, most of what they did deter intimidate or to native americans or mexicans or. Anadians or american citizens so that to whatever extent that the tactical doctrine was french or british, in some sense i do not think is as important as we often think because that was not really their primary mission. What i would say in terms of the developing tactics is that the tactics that really count lets say, the horse until her tactics with the war with mexico, to have a mobile Field Artillery that plays a big role vista lto, buena those are sort of a combination. They had a board, and they had officers who would travel to europe, so they had french tactics, they had british tactics. They had a whole range. So the infantry tactics were very french. The artillery tactics were less french. I would give them credit for having put that effort to consider the different tactics, to go to europe, to look at what was being done in europe, to put together a board of officers to study at the top and come up with a new and very effective tactic. Thank you very much for the top. We have not seen you around here for a while. I missed the first part of the talk, so i did know if you spoke about this. There was a series of books put out on the history of the United States, and one of them was about the army between 1814 and 1816, and they had a lot of stuff involved in not only the exploratory aspects of the United States army, fremont, and others, but also zebulon pike and others, but they also had roadbuilding. Will know about general need general meade who built the lighthouse along long beach lee and jackson were involved in the Harbor Defense of new york city. Theres a whole controversy now leet the street named after , i believe. If you can talk about those things, but also speak about why im just wondering meade was involved in and i know other officers were involved in lighthouse building. Was west point more engineeroriented i would think maybe the navy should be more involved in lighthouse building. Did west point put more emphasis on engineering than the Naval Academy at that time . Im just wondering about that. If you could talk about those things. Thank you. The Naval Academy was not founded until 1845, so weve got 25, 30 years when naval officers were trained basically on the job at sea. You could say their training or their education was not as scientific or it was definitely more ad hoc. West point certainly was focused on engineering and math and math supporting engineering. I think the case of lighthouses and roadbuilding and exploration those are examples where the United States did not have a. Arge Civil Service the government did not have a lot of civilian employees, right . So there was what do they call it . I cannot remember now, but there was sort of an ancestor of the u. S. Geological survey, and, basically, they are the guys who do the lighthouses, but they only had a sense of, here is the head of the agency, and here s his clerk. The u. S. Government, because there was so much antagonism to having a large government because of the emphasis on limited government, decentralization, low taxes, right . The government did not have a lot of revenues and did not have a lot of employees and certainly did not have a lot of ways to all theem, but going way back to jefferson, they can say at west point, we have people who are scientifically trained. Remember, at a time when most colleges was still training in the classics latin and greek and rhetoric. Pointers had that scientific and engineering training that they could do things like surveying for roads, surveying for railroads, surveying for canals, building lighthouses, infrastructure. Because they were in the army, in essence, the government could we have these guys for national defense, but while they are not out fighting and this is the 30your period when we are not fighting a major war against a conventional adversary against another nations eight nationstate, there would be a lot of demand to use those west point is to survey canals or railroads. They did that especially in the the 1830s, itng started to become a bit of an issue because people would say the government basically paid this army officer to go and roof thatailroad on a goes through a town that competes with my town, so the government is favoring that town at the expense of my town by sending an army officer at taxpayer expense to go and survey that route. Itsarmy would generally say national defense, but the army itself was not terribly committed to this. Say often meant that, lets you would have five officers in an artillery company, and one of them would be off on leave or recruiting duty or courtmartial duty. Be sick, andould one of them would be off on this forched duty surveying roads and canals. With the army, there was a lot of unhappiness. Im supposed to have five officers in this company. Ive only got two. Maybe you have got four, but one is sick and one is on leave, but, still, wheres the other guy . So there was both political pressure and a lot of at least commanders in the army were not very happy with this, and they basically put an end to the governmentsponsored surveys in 1838. We come back a little bit, especially for clearing obstacles in rivers, you know, like, when degree and lumber and whatnot buildup in the upper end of the river, that kind of reappeared in the 1850s. The topographical engineers during the exploring, like fremont, had a similar situation where the army idea was these guys are basically going to do reconnaissance for us. They are going to make maps of the routes we are going to march on, and then they will work with the quartermasters. The quartermasters will figure out how much food is available, and together, we can decide if we should move on this axis against the enemy or on this axis. The topographical engineers as explorers was again, the government kind of using the army because the army was there and they did not have civilians available to do that. So then there was kind of a again,h within the army and they kind of ended up with a compromise, right . That is sort of a good story of American Government in general, have a often juxtaposition or contradiction between things that our citizens want they want a lot of Different Things, and theyre not always willing to pay for all those Different Things, or at least there are plenty of liticians out there saying, no, youd want to pay taxes, but you still want to do all these things you dont want to pay taxes, but you still want to do all these things. In the 1800s, the workaround was to not pay a bunch of bureaucrats to do these things but to pay the army to do it. They are already in the army, they are already doing these things, they are already getting paid. If we can say its national defense, awesome. They are justified as a national but what mostre, congresspeople wanted from the interstate highway system was faster commerce, faster transportation. Two. Have first of all, were blacks fighting for the seminoles treated differently . Or were they returned to slavery . At what point did west Point Institute a loyalty oath . Was that in this time period . Was that during the civil war . The question about the loyalty oath is an issue. Its basically during the time of the civil war. During the nullification crisis, direct department did some Commanding Officers to administer loyalty else i think in cases where they were concerned about some of the loyalty of some of the officers in some places or cadets at west point from certain states, but its basically a civil war thing. I guess the best term would be the refugees from american slavery of on the a highly because it is contested issue the army saw them as first, they were very dedicated to not being reenslaved, so they were fighting very hard against the u. S. Because they figured, pretty accurately, that if the u. S. Got you, then they might be reenslaved. The armys response as a whole was to say, if you surrender, we will not reenslave you, so guys like Jessop Jessop was a slave owner. Zachary taylor was a slaveholder. Scott was probably a slaveholder. More acase, probably couple of servants rather than a plantation, but Zachary Taylor had a plantation in louisiana. Will wool was in new york, by the way. , but,is a monument to him harney was obviously a slaveholder. Gains, his second hadiage was to a woman who a number of slaves. Clinch basically acquired a plantation as part of his role in the conquest of florida, in getting florida from the spanish. He then moved into northern florida, became the commander there, but also married, got a plantation. But jessop here was from kentucky, and he had plantations in kentucky. He had overseers running them , but he was in washington jessop is really the architect of the policy here of divide and conquer. In my book, i call that freedom diplomacy, were essentially, he promises the black seminoles freedom. Papers,ing to give them right . Freedom papers that they can take with them to the west rather than turning them over to americans who are coming to army youquarters saying, i hear captured a cup a bunch of black people among the seminoles. Some of them are my slaves. Real issue. The war department, by and you have to turn over these former slaves or these fugitives from slavery to their owners. Said, weretty much captured these guys. They are prisoners of war. Under law, we are treating them as prisoners of war and we will dispose of them through our military authority, rather than turning them over to the people who claim them as property. Jessop is anecause abolitionist. Again, hes a slaveholder. , theyecause for jessop are black seminoles. Ometimes, we call them maroons there are some historians who see the seminole war jessop himself set at one point this is saidch a knee grow as at one point, this is as much a war. S a seminole there are some who see it as a war over slavery, and seminal say it was about the u. S. Trying to take their land and make the move. Its a little bit of old. A little bit of both. Slipped theically refugees to new orleans and the red river into oklahoma, and then they were free there, at least for a time. The creek indians at least the creek indian leaders had pretty much adopted slavery, so you find the creeks, like, in the 1840s in what we call oklahoma the creeks tried to seize these we can call them friedman free people, like free people in the freedmens bureau. Jessop writes letter to the secretary of war and other people in the government saying, i put my name on these freedom papers. I pledged my honor that these people would be free in the west, and im hearing these really disturbing rumors that they are being seized and taken back into slavery. Outcome ofe what the that was to we have to be realistic probably be probably the outcome was that a number of them were reenslaved. Thats probably go down to texasmexico border and even into mexico to try and maintain their freedom there. Another jessop quote, fairly well known among scholars is, he make slaveill not catchers or i think he said neg we will not make slave catchers of the army. Bedtime time for two more very quick questions. I am interested in the violence of the war that did not happen. For me, it seems to be the main Security Threat at this point is britain. The Canadian Border is really interesting at this point, particularly at the carolinas, etc. Can you talk in a little more detail about the role of the army here . I only mentioned it briefly, but in 1837 after several years two rebellions broke out in canada. There was a rebellion in what was called lower canada, meaning , so the st. Lawrence river essentially montreal and quebec, the countryside there among the frenchspeaking canadians, and then the was rebellion in upper canada, basically meeting ontario, among a list speaking canadians, who wanted more maybe self rule, probably not independence, but at that point, you had a british governor general, who was pretty much a military governor. There was some representation. Some of the cities had city government, but canadians in general ordinary canadians looking for more of a role in their own selfgovernment. Both of those rebellions were crushed very quickly by not so much british forces, but by loyal canadians. There was a pretty Strong Canadian militia that was loyal , and the french rebellion then pretty much fizzled out. There was some low level and ambushes,are but the leaders of the upper canadian rebellion fled to the u. S. In the u. S. , they went around saying they are fighting for democracy against the british, so this could be, like, the third war of independence and the u. S. Could get canada. So a lot of americans this was at the beginning of an economic panic, the panic of 1837, that became a depression and lasted for almost a decade. So there were a lot of essentially unemployed americans. This is like michigan, northern ohio, along the new york order, along the vermont border, who along the new york border, along the vermont border, who saw an opportunity or were inspired by the rhetoric, and they began to form these organizations we call them filibusters, not, like, in the senate, but it word, so itsutch basically a private citizen who goes and attacks another country. Ith which we are at peace but these guys started invading canada in smallscale raids. Usually, were talking 50 or 100 people. They would go and basically attack something or burn something. But the british were saying, if you cannot control your border, we are going to control it for. So the americans, particularly Martin Van Buren was a jacksonian, but he was the slide fox. Hes very crafty, very smart, and pretty moderate on the whole. Van buren says we dont want a war with britain in the middle of an economic depression. Will roll upavy and bombard new york city. For hamilton did not have all its guns or military men. For hamilton will not stop the british. So he says Winfield Scott and some other officers, and they go off first, they go around and detain its kind of a trick here legally. Its not clear they had the authority, but in 1838, Congress Passed loss to give them the authority. Givengress passed laws to them the authority. If they see people crossing the border with weapons, they could stop them and arrest them for a while and take the weapons, or the would tell the british filibusters were crossing the river and they knew when and where, and the british could stop them. So the British Ambassador to the United States credited the army and credited Winfield Scott with having helped to prevent a war by showing good faith, showing that the u. S. Government was not just letting these people invade canada. I was fascinated to hear the story about how jackson was such a micromanager with his military leaders, especially in an era of relatively poor communication. Other american president s have indulged in this pastime, meeting to maybe to a greater or lesser extent. Im just wondering in your opinion what are the lessons history has to teach us about this issue of micromanagement rom afar . The interesting thing for me with jackson is that he himself had sought you could say usurped the authority. He certainly had sought the autonomy. Like im the commander on the spot. I know the situation. I know whats best. And then reversed himself. I would say the policy lesson was that jackson was too impatient. It is not you need some oversight. You need a constitutionally, probably need is strategically. I need to make sure you are a lighting your actions with your objectives, but i think the problem with jackson was he was saying, look, i want you to get the indians out of the south. I want you to do it fast. I want you to do it really cheap , and i dont want anyone to notice it. I just want the indians to disappear and the taxpayers not to have to pay for it. Nobody could achieve that. Say knowing the limitations of policy, noting that there will be dilemmas and tradeoffs and that there are costs to any policy. [indiscernible] [applause] thank you all for having me here again. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this weekend on American History tv on cspan3, today at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on the civil war, generals we love to hate with author craig simon on confederate general joseph johnston. Johnstons critics argue that his timidity with the enemy and his combativeness with the confederate government in richmond so undermined the southern war effort as to make in a contributing factor confederate defeat. To these critics, johnston was the real mcclellan of the west. [laughter] a man who lacked the moral will to commit troops to battle unless he could be absolutely certain of victory, and since those circumstances never , he seldom, if ever, sought battle at all. Sunday, the white house monthly reports on president lyndon johnson. Two days after his return from new york, the president s oldest daughter became the bride of captain charles robb of the United States marine corps. Historically, it was the First White House wedding in 53 years. At 6 00, the 200year history of the Willard Hotel in washington, d. C. , whose guest include abraham lincoln, world war ii soldiers, and the first japanese delegation to the United States in 1860. Abraham lincoln conducted quite a bit of this is here. He stayed for 10 years. The First White House wedding was held at the white house but at the ward hotel. When he introduced himself and his wife who was quite a bit said, ihan him, he want to introduce you to the long and the short of the new presidency. American history tv all weekend every weekend on cspan3. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up sunday morning, we discussed the upcoming vote on the final republican tax reform. Ill also, threats to the u. S. Homeland over the holiday season. Journalwashington live beginning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern sunday morning. Join the discussion. All weekend, American History tv is featuring Sarasota Springs, new york. Solomon northup, author of the memoir 12 years a slave was a local africanamerican abolitionist. His memoirs were later adapted into a motion picture. Learn more about Sarasota Springs all weekend here on American History tv. I represent 1 3 of the geography of new york state, a wide swath of the state of new york. What is the excitingng

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.