Posted on 12/22/2006 4:29:21 AM PST by Molly Pitcher
The area that is now the state of Vermont (based on "vere mont" -- the French translation for "green mountain") was a disputed territory long before the revolution. The region between Lake Champlain in the west and the Connecticut River in the east had been subject to competing claims by three different British jurisdictions (the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Provice of New York, and the Province of New Hampshire) at various times as far back as the 1660s. Because of the rugged terrain and harsh climate, it was basically ungovernable by any of the three -- and the "Green Mountain Boys" under Ethan Allen was an informal militia that effectively functioned as the only legitimate form of government since its inception in 1770 (some years before the revolution began). The basic purpose of the militia at the time was to allow settlers in this region enforce their New Hampshire land titles against the wishes of the British government (which had awarded these lands to the Province of New York).
Allen and his fellow leaders of the Green Mountain Boys saw the success of the colonists in the American Revolution as a means to negotiate deals with both the British government and the new American government to secure the best arrangement with either one -- to have Vermont join either Lower Canada as a British colony or the new American government as a U.S. state. At the time, the status of Vermont was so uncertain that it was conspicuously absent from the original Thirteen States.
Vermont's historical influences can be seen even to this day -- as Vermont still has a reputation for being among the most libertarian of all states in the U.S.
I know this is a long-winded reply, but it's basically a long way of saying this: Ethan Allen may have carried out the raid on For Ticonderoga "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress," but the Continental Congress had absolutely no authority over the Green Mountain Boys and would have been completely powerless to do anything if he had refused to carry out the raid (hence the captain's question to Allen about "by whose authority that he demanded it [the surrender of the fort].
Thank you for posting these facts about John Glover and the Marblehead Men!
However, I don't think that the Naval Special Warfare Command would agree that the Marbleheaders belong in the USMC lineage. NSWC has laid claim to Glover and his men as the antecedents of the Special Boat Squadrons.
(On a side note, one of my ancestors, Major Amos Morrill of the New Hampshire Grants, was with Allen and Arnold when they took Fort Ti by stealth in 1775. Of course, there's no mention in the family genealogy that specifies exactly where he was when Johnny Burgoyne's expeditionary forces showed up to retake possession, virtually unopposed, in 1777. (g) )
Merry Christmas bump!
Hmmm....
Thanx, but I am really not impressed w/whatever any stinkin' gub-mint entity thinx bout anything--fuggem!
Boyoboy, that's good! Thanks for posting...
Thank you--and all the best to you and yours this Christmas season!
BTTT
I wonder if he is related to my family. My grandfather, William Augustus Glover, was a Secret Service operative on the White House detail during the Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations. My late mother would have probably known as she was the family historian. She put together a family book- I'll have to check.
He would've likely been your grandfather's grandfather. That shouldn't be too hard to check, but wouldn't such a famous ancestor as Gen. Glover be known in your family?
Thanks for the post and the ping.
Thanks PB for the ping. A sidebar, from the Icky-pedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies
During his lifetime, George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) never held the rank "General of the Armies." During the American Revolution he held the title of "General and Commander in Chief" of the Continental Army.
George Washington was not answerable to Continental Congress or the President of Congress while he commanded the Continental Army. In that regard, George Washington was the only person in United States history to actively command with complete authority all military forces of the United States.
[and he was worthy of that level of trust and responsibility, perhaps uniquely so]
A year prior to his death, Washington was appointed by President John Adams to the rank of Lieutenant General in the United States Army during the Quasi-War, after he had left office as President of the United States. Washington never exercised active authority under his new rank, however, and Adams made the appointment mainly to frighten the French, with whom war seemed certain.
Making up for lost time, and to maintain George Washington's proper position as the first Commanding General of the United States Army, he was appointed, posthumously, to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States by congressional joint resolution of January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976, and formalized in Department of the Army Special Order Number 31-3 of August 13, 1978, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1776. The appointment confirmed George Washington as the most-senior United States military officer - more senior than Pershing because the date of Washington's posthumous commission predates Pershing by 143 years, but still subordinate in rank to the Commander In Chief. By normal US Military policy and precedent, no person may be elevated in seniority before their original date of appointment or enlistment.
Since George Washington is considered to be the most senior military officer, permanently outranking all other military officers, except the Commander In Chief, it is inferred that Washington's rank is considered a six star general, but there has never been any six-star insignia authorized or manufactured, since the rank of a five star general has already been established.
If you like this synopsis, be sure to read "WASHINGTON'S CROSSING" by David Hackett Fischer. You'll love it.
It's really one of my favorite history books...would make a great movie. It seems like the screenplay is all there in the book, already written.
I live but two miles away from the site of THE Crossing. I will be there on Christmas day for the reenactment.
I thought the exact same thing about how great a movie would be of either book. Gibson's "The Patriot" was a good human interest story and visually appealing, but didn't do a thing for communicating history or making it understandable. Either of the two books would make great war movies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.