The Monster of Monticello (NYT on Jefferson)

New York Times ^ | November 30, 2012 | Paul Finkelman

[Jacquerie]

when he allowed the British to hang around the frontier

Huh? He who?

[pepsionice]

I would agree, this arm-chair quarterback routine doesn’t work well.

Bottom line....if you wanted to own 500 acres...then you had to farm it. And one mere man, or two mere men, or even four mere men...would never have been enough to run a 500-acre or a 1000-acre farm. So where do you get manpower? There’s only one answer to that. For those in NY or Penn...if you ran a nice tidy 100-acre farm...great for you....you got by with your cousin or nephew helping, and you could manage with two adult men and simply a corn scheme.

[rollo tomasi]

Once President under the new Constitution in 1789, Washington, did not want to duke it out with the British again over the frontier ( Who were in constant violation of the 1783 Treaty of Paris). Eradication of British forces in the frontier was never enforced (Of course under the AoC, so had several years before Washington to fester). Then the one-sided Jay Treaty and you got Washington who tried to avoid further war (And ticked off the pro-French side). Good thing Napoleon was still creating havoc (The Peninsular War) enough in 1812-14 that drained resources from the British. Who knows what would of happened if Wellesley/Wellington (Whatever name to use) was free to set his sights solely upon "British North American" vengeance from the onset.

“I have turned my mind but little to American affairs; that I have but little knowledge of the topography of that country and I have no means here of obtaining information to enable me to form an opinion on which I could at all rely.” (But became more involved with strategy after 1814, but too late despite US blunders)

[Jacquerie]

By the 1783 treaty, we owned the land to the Mississipi River. Brits occupied Detroit and other forts because of our treaty violations. Among them were the state’s refusal under the Confederation to allow Brit merchants to sue for payment of pre-war debt.

Though the Jay/Gardoqui treaty almost torpedoed Union under the Constitution, it was never ratified.

[rollo tomasi]

Odd, what did the US Senate ratify on June 24, 1795 and in 1805 what did Pres. Jefferson refuse to renew?

Also right after the 1783 Treaty, the British maintained their outpost, traded guns with the Indians and in turn used the Indians to hamper the US. Any action of US defense was retaliation, not violation which the British constantly came under.

[rollo tomasi]

You could make an argument that the HOR never got their hands on the treaty, despite the regulation of commerce stuff, but that would be Constitutional nitpicking despite Madison's insistence.

[rollo tomasi]

Also under the AoC, the Fed government was pretty much stuck in cement (Some would consider that a good thing) thus the desire for a new Constitution.

You have your Jay treaties mixed up BTW, Washington was not President during that Jay treaty.

[Jacquerie]

I never said GW was Prez when Jay/Gardoqui was negotiated.