The History Book Club discussion

In chapter 14, we really begin to see the strains of the relationship between Congress and the CIC.

What do you think about the Staten Island Peace Conference? Do you think it undermined GW's position?

Thanks, Jim. Your point is well said; the CINC is much different now.

Do you think Logan effectively bring out those similarities and differences?

I didn't see the Staten Island Peace Conference as undermining GW. Both sides seemed to go into the conference knowing that not much would come of the talks. I gathered that Franklin et. al. went in merely to get a pulse on Howe's attitude.

Benjamin Franklin

So, what did everyone think of the British use of germ warfare? I've always been taught that the colonists fought dirty. Because they didn't always use the traditional "stand there and shoot" european warfare style. Instead, they often hid along the road and shot at the British as they marched. I never knew that the British tried to give the colonists smallpox, or that the colonists inoculated themselves. I didn't realize that there were "vaccinations" that early.

I'm glad that Logan told us about the frustrated and angry Washington in Manhattan. I'm very glad that muskets are so inaccurate since otherwise we could all still be British subjects. Given the description of what he was going through just before the British attacked, I'm not surprised that he was driven to action. I'm grateful that his subordinates thought fast and acted faster to protect him. I'm wondering if future actions will show us what he learned from that experience.

Thanks for the story of Private Plumb at the beginning of Chapter 15. The stories about other folks during this time really make the history come alive by showing different perspectives. I also liked the story of Mary the "pitcher". I always thought the pitchers were for the men, not the cannons.

Re: the smallpox vaccine, I didn't know that Martha Washington had herself inoculated (very brave thing to do, I think), and while I understand the rationale of not having down time for the troops, I was surprised that New York was specifically against vaccinations. I wish I had a clearer understanding of the time frame. Could the troops have been inoculated before the Battle of Brooklyn? Would it have made a difference? Given what appears to be the number of defections, would the inoculations have kept them in service? I think this is an interesting side story as a part of the bigger dynamic.

Good comments on the Staten Conference. Going to the conference is an excellent intelligence run.

Yes, the smallpox. I have heard about this before and it was pretty nasty tactic, but I can understand it was one in the "toolbox."

The inoculation was pretty controversial back then. I suppose if you do it for an entire army, there might be some down time as they suffer through a low-grade sickness. I wonder if they don't get small pox, they would contract some other illness, anyway.

It's always amazing to me how close we came to losing the war against the British. These chapters really illustrate how close things got very well.

Yeah, NYC must have been a huge blow to moral. You can see Congress & GW went back and forth on what to do.

What are your impressions of Congress trying to manage the war and GW's response to it?

I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . . to signify their new elite status."

Snob power at its best.

Bryan wrote: "What are your impressions of Congress trying to manage the war and GW's response to it?"'

They were all part of a fledgling democracy trying to work things out. Still, I was a little surprised at GW's complete deference to Congress. That required a lot of patience, I think, but he sensed that he needed to earn the confidence of Congress before they would trust him with the decision making. And I think Congress surely began to see the difficulty of long distance management.

Tension in the command structure seems inherent in a civilian controlled military operation. I side with civilian control. Washington would have destroyed NYC as militarily expedient with the resulting loss to history if not held in check by civilian control. As long as the population supports goals other than strict military efficiency in the conduct of war we can expect conflict. This seems to be a main theme of the book.

Good points, Donna and Phillip. Civilian and military relations are actually a important topic in National Security Studies and military history, so it is a fascinating dynamic.

Here is an interesting quote relating to the inoculation and GW & Congress:

"Washington's emerging boldness as a leader in the face of civilian disagreement would help save thousands of men and probably the American army itself." (p. 113)

So, he went ahead and inoculated his troops. For a guy who understood that he was appointed by Congress and was under civilian leadership, it was a risky decision.

Jim wrote: "Actually, I don't think that Logan has addressed the difference between Washington's role as "CINC" and the American President's role as CINC. At least I don't recall it. Perhaps he is going to f..."

Hi Jim, good points. In chapters 5 and 6, I speak to the Executive powers generally, but intentionally focus on the Commander in Chief powers specifically because that is what General Washington's precedents inform. The President certainly has a host of other powers, but those should not be confused with the Commander in Chief powers themselves. The powers the Founding Generation believed that they were bestowing with that one particular CinC clause was based on their experience during the Revolution. The other clauses of Article II were less clearly defined and came from Locke, Blackstone, State Governors, etc. rather than Washington. I could have delved into the President's other powers and how they interact with CinC but that would likely be a multi volume set.

As we have discussed, I sought to write a nuanced book that is not bluntly saying "Washington did X so the President can/should do X" - rather, Washington's Revolutionary War precedents are meant to inform the powers the Constitution was thought to convey and provide analogies from which we might learn from today. But you are right, many judges (and a couple Justices) do look at the history like that I have provided and make very literal conclusions. Whether we agree with that approach or not is a different story! I am happy to talk through any of this further.

Blood of Tyrants seeks to draw out these parallels to modern times because 1. they impact our modern law, and 2. we might learn from the moral truths our Founders fought to establish. And I hope you enjoy it in the process!

Kathy wrote: "I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . . to signify their new elite status."

Snob..."

Thank you, Kathy - that is one of my favorite parts of the book! I was surprised when I learned it.

Bryan wrote: "Good points, Donna and Phillip. Civilian and military relations are actually a important topic in National Security Studies and military history, so it is a fascinating dynamic.

Here is an intere..."

One of the tricky aspects of writing a book like this is building suspense and intrigue when everyone knows how the war turns out (spoiler alert - the Americans win!). To accomplish this, I tried to focus on these largely unknown dramas. If you dig deep enough, you will find that the history you think you knew is still full of intrigue!

Logan wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . . to signify their new elite ..."

I, too, loved reading about the manufactured British accent. This was something totally new to me.

Logan wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . . to signify their new elite ...

Thank you, Kathy - that is one of my favorite parts of the book! I was surprised when I learned it. "

Yes, I had to tell all my friends. I love all the extra little pieces of history that you sneak into the book.

Logan, it just goes to prove that there are still stories to tell after 240 years. Thank you.

One tidbit that I didn't know was that GW wanted to do scorch the NYC area in a withdrawal.

Another question that arose for me was the naming of Fort Washington and Fort Lee. Was that because Washington and Lee were commanders of the forts, respectively?

Also it was embarrassing that the Congress was wishy washy until it was clear Philadelphia was in peril. There are a lot of information bits in this book which are new to me, as was previously noted by others.

I wonder how Washington's image would have changed during and after the war if he would have done what he thought needed to be done rather than letting congress be so involved. If he had decided to leave New York earlier and burn it in opposition to what the congress had requested, many of the following events very well have turned out the same, but congress would have been angry rather than supportive of the retreat. This also may have added fuel to the fire to the distrust of power given to a commander in chief/executive.

It seems that Washington walked the narrow line between trying keep everyone pleased along with making sure we did enough to win the war.

Regarding Congress' control of Washington - while I am all for civilian control of the military, micromanaging a war from 90 miles away (any by committee!) has nothing to recommend it, especially when communication was so slow.

The civilian control (and, indeed, military control) must be at appropriate levels. Long term and large strategic goals should be set by civilians. But exactly how to do that should not. Similarly, a 4 star general issues orders to people at the next lowest levels, not to noncom officers (or even to majors).

G wrote: "Another question that arose for me was the naming of Fort Washington and Fort Lee. Was that because Washington and Lee were commanders of the forts, respectively?

Also it was embarrassing that the..."

Thanks G, you do get a sense that Congress was conducting things more conservatively.

Mark wrote: "I wonder how Washington's image would have changed during and after the war if he would have done what he thought needed to be done rather than letting congress be so involved. If he had decided t..."

Well said, Mark. I don't think GW could stop Howe from taking NYC, anyway you look at it. I am discovering how well GW handles himself with Congress. He was very smart in reminding people that he is under civilian control. Too many commanders that had GW's power in the past just do his own thing and not consult or follow the government.

Peter wrote: "Regarding Congress' control of Washington - while I am all for civilian control of the military, micromanaging a war from 90 miles away (any by committee!) has nothing to recommend it, especially w..."

Hey Peter. Yeah, you are seeing GW's growing frustration on his decision to submit to Congress at this stage. Congress was doing some micro-managing which did not help GW at all.

What about the British side? Do you see more freedom for Howe in relation to the Parliament/Crown?

DonnaR wrote: "Logan wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . . to signify th..."

Yes, I found this to be fascinating. I guess I had just always assumed that the colonists had changed it, wanting to steer as far away from the Crown as possible. Very interesting!

I'm enjoying this book so much that I'm constantly reading sections of it to my wife.

I had no idea that Washington had tried to ban innoculations.

Me, too. It shows you how entrenched British culture was.

Bryan wrote: "Peter wrote: "Regarding Congress' control of Washington - while I am all for civilian control of the military, micromanaging a war from 90 miles away (any by committee!) has nothing to recommend it..."

The Crown seems to have had the proper (as I see it) relationship with Howe. Hard to see how it could be otherwise with a long ocean voyage between them.

Bryan wrote: "In chapter 14, we really begin to see the strains of the relationship between Congress and the CIC.

What do you think about the Staten Island Peace Conference? Do you think it undermined GW's p..."

I believe the Staten Island Peace Conference was a great attempt despite and unlikely favorable outcome.

I would like to believe SIPC was acting as moderator and/or advisory committee to GW. I would hope they wouldn't undermine GW intentionally but merely seek to and the conflict.

Bryan wrote: "What are your impressions of Congress trying to manage the war and GW's response to it?"

Bryan wrote: "Thanks, Jim. Your point is well said; the CINC is much different now.

Do you think Logan effectively bring out those similarities and differences?"

Congress should have expressed their opinions but left the final resolve to GW. GW should have argued his case to Congress. I understand his respect of authority but he caved to easily, he never really fought to be heard or plead his case strongly. GW took his orders and marched on and I must say I was surprised given his character.

I think for the most part GW did faithfully "obey" his orders, yet when the livelihood of his army was at risk he stepped up. For example petitioning Congress to proceed with smallpox inoculations despite previous opposition to it. I really enjoyed this section with so many new bits of information and fun history facts I never knew.

Good points all. Sarah good comment. I think he knew he had to keep his army going so he had to make that his top priority.

I wonder when he made those choices, he didn't push too far out of congressional parameters.

Jodi wrote: "Robyn wrote: "So, what did everyone think of the British use of germ warfare? I've always been taught that the colonists fought dirty. Because they didn't always use the traditional "stand there a..."

Unfortunately, rape has been a part of war for a long time, probably as long as there has been war. Oddly, I found out that one of the first (if not the first) leaders to order his troops *not* to rape women was Genghis Khan (*provided* that the enemy surrendered). I read this in by Jack Weatherford which is a very interesting book.

Thanks Jodi and Peter. You are right, Peter, rape is usual but horrible part of war. I did not know the British soldiers were involved, though. It adds to the ugliness.

Jodi, you mentioned women, an excellent point. Women played important parts in history but when it came to the vote, no way. I suppose it was too revolutionary, the culture too ingrained that needed more time and work to make happen.

Thanks, Libby. I agree with you on the inoculation thing. I have to say, GW, took a big risk in doing that since many of his much needed troops got sick. I don't know how many died from this inoculation...

So true Libby, the morale was pretty low. It shows the growing bond between GW and his soldiers.

Great, Libby.

Evin wrote: "DonnaR wrote: "Logan wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I also really enjoy the bits of historic trivia that Beirne gives us. For example (page 116): ". . . The British accent is actually a manufactured one. . ..."

Thank you Evin - this seriously makes my day!

Libby wrote: "Chapter 16: Another line that summarizes an interesting socio-political scenario (perhaps scandal) and equally reflects the author's sense of humor: "Howe had quite the love shack" (pg. 137).

T..."

I probably should not have put some of those lines in there but could not help myself. I figured, "this is my book and I am going to let my personality show rather than take the safe path." I have read enough dry histories myself and wanted spare you from another one!

I am very happy to hear you are enjoying it!

I always view history books as beneficial if they provide me little stories or vignettes I could possibly use in my high school classroom to keep my students engaged (hopefully to be the type of high school history teacher that Logan laments he never had...)

Anyway, these little sidebars are really helpful in that regard. Now I just need to figure out a way to see if I can incorporate some of these little details into lessons on events of the revolution that I'll be beginning shortly with my high school juniors (two dangers being I certainly don't want to be coarse or provide too much information and also, in the big picture, a lot of this is material they don't need to hear to try to understand the reasons there was an American Revolution or what it led to...)

Awesome, Craig, yes, I think a little finesse is in order to get this stuff in, but if they help illustrate a point, then do it.

I suppose you could grab a bunch of these stories and just start the lesson with one of them.

Craig wrote: "I always view history books as beneficial if they provide me little stories or vignettes I could possibly use in my high school classroom to keep my students engaged (hopefully to be the type of hi..."

This is exactly what I was hoping for Craig! I already knew you were far too interesting to be anything like my history teachers (let's just say that my particular teachers just wanted the day to be over even more than the students did) but this seals the deal.

I have heard from many high school teachers assigning the book to their students - do you think juniors would respond to it?

I think one great question to ask when teaching is "What inspires my own love of SUBJECT (e.g. here history) and how can I spread that virus to my students?" or, put another way "How can I inspire desire?"

I've never assigned a history book to my APUSH students. There's just not enough time for that type of assignment in an AP course where you're working so hard for them to get through the entire survey of American history before the AP test date in May (if they're reading, it really needs to be their textbook.) I am currently teaching a dual credit College/HS course and I have a little more flexibility there (no test to prepare them for) and I could offer, say, four or five choices of books and let them pick one as a historical book review assignment. This could certainly be one of those choices.

Great comments Peter, Jodi, and Craig. When I took my AP History class there was no time for a book like this.

It is a shame, but it is what it is right now. You do hope one or more get that spark and read outside of class.

I think the idea that the Army should be under civilian control is so deeply engrained in me (look what happened in Egypt!) that I find the many references to the "meddling" Congress difficult. One big difference between Washington during the Revolution and a President as Commander in Chief is that today's presidents are elected leaders. Washington's claim to authority rested on his authorization from Congress. No wonder he felt obliged to listen to them!

RE: the commonplace of raping women and children, I sadly reflected on what Washington would do to obtain better treatment for his troops and what he did to get better treatment for women (nothing, at least nothing mentioned here).

Mary Ellen wrote: "I think the idea that the Army should be under civilian control is so deeply engrained in me (look what happened in Egypt!) that I find the many references to the "meddling" Congress difficult. On..."

Hi Mary, those are good points. I do not think the book is saying that Congressional supervision is bad at all - in fact, the book cheers civilian control as we go on.

The references to meddling refer to Congress's attempts to control almost every detail despite their (admitted) lack of expertise in military tactics as well as knowledge of the situation. Oversight is healthy, improper micromanagement was losing the war. Indeed, Congress gave General Washington his authority - but during 1775-1776, they did not allow him to always use it. It is like the difference between giving a trusted teenager the keys to the car with detailed instructions and having him check in at various points vs. installing some sort of remote control device where you can randomly slam on the brakes without seeing what is happening.

Regarding rape, I wanted to convey the deep pain Washington faced over his powerlessness to stop these atrocities. He was able to get better treatment for his troops via retaliation, but he did not have the same option for women. Rape was technically illegal on both sides (although the Hessians were said to have enforced it even less than the British) and people were often punished for such a grievous offense. On the other hand, they often they got away with it too - the only thing Washington could do was drive out the invaders and protect his people. And as you see, he was eager to do so!

Thanks Logan for those thoughtful answers.