A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217864268116606976",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "The Pox slowed down our production schedule...for awhile, but I now need to get back to work, lots to do! Add to this that I am moving, not far lucky for me, but moves are such a hassle, anyway,<br />So its off of social media until further notice....<br />I used the time while in a slow down to take the research from the former GALVEZ documentary production and post a lot of it on this new page. I do hope it has been of help in getting this neglected, and covered up history into the light of day.<br />Please continue to post relevant material on here, and I have a lot more yet, but it will have to wait, so until later, take care!",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217864268116606976",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:57:47+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The Pox slowed down our production schedule...for awhile, but I now need to get back to work, lots to do! Add to this that I am moving, not far lucky for me, but moves are such a hassle, anyway,\nSo its off of social media until further notice....\nI used the time while in a slow down to take the research from the former GALVEZ documentary production and post a lot of it on this new page. I do hope it has been of help in getting this neglected, and covered up history into the light of day.\nPlease continue to post relevant material on here, and I have a lot more yet, but it will have to wait, so until later, take care!",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217864268116606976/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217864027507359744",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "“The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other.”<br />~John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, 4 April 1790<br /><br />BIENVENIDOS AMIGOS, welcome to the friends of the Conde de Galvez, where we will endeavour to explore the history of his, Spain, and Hispanic's contributions to the success of our American Revolution! More so, I want to dive down deep into the role of Spain in bringing about the settlement of the New World, the nation’s more enlightened views and actions regarding the native peoples, to dispel the unfairness of “La Leyenda Negra.\" [The Black Legend], and to show how Spain’s steady adaptation of the ideals of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason led to both their support of our North American Revolution, and a more enlightened view of government in general, resulting in the Constitution of 1812, [Constitución Política de la Monarquía Española, also known as the Constitución de Cádiz, and as La Pepa,] …still memorialized in the monument and plaza of San Agustin, La Florida.<br />Simply put, on this page we will bring to light the leading role Spain played in the creation of the United States of America, and the birth of the most enlightened form of government and society ever seen in history, truly “Novus Ordo Seclorum”, a New Order of the Ages!<br /><br />Rules of Participation on this page,<br />Now this is a public group, open to all, and contributions and postings on the subject are welcome! Just be sure to keep it factual and free of myths. If disputes arise, they will be settled in the spirt of the Enlightenment, and Age of Reason out of which our nation was born,<br /><br />“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”<br />~Thomas Paine<br /><br />“Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”<br />~Thomas Jefferson, Writings: Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia<br /><br />“…truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”<br />~Jefferson & Madison, from the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, 1786<br /><br />Especially note this one,<br /><br />\"Nothing but good can result from an exchange of information and opinions between those whose circumstances and morals admit no doubt of the integrity of their views.\"<br />~Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797<br /><br />How are those for simplicity? I am not into censorship, if reason can't convince someone who does not agree with me, then either I am failing to present all of the facts, or do so in the most un-convincing way, am wrong and need to become more enlightened...or I am talking to a dunce [...or maybe I'm the dunce?]. Either way, censoring anyone is unproductive, unless that person is being nasty to everyone and calling their character into question. I know what that is like!<br /><br />\"When an objection cannot be made formidable, there is some policy in trying to make it frightful; and to substitute the yell and the war- whoop, in the place of reason, argument and good order…”<br />~Thomas Paine<br /><br />Sound familiar? We will have none of that on here, period!<br />So, please, share and post on here, read the \"About\" section to get the idea of the purpose of this page, and let me remind us all of the governing principles of good history,<br /><br />“For history is to the nation rather as memory is to the individual. As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of the its past will be disabled in dealing with is present and its future…we remain creatures of our times, prisoners of own experience, swayed hither and yon, like all sinful mortals, by partisanship, prejudice, dogma, by fear, and by hope…<br />…in a land without history, he who fills the memory, defines the concepts, and interprets the past, wins the future…<br />[quoting Havel,] ‘Lying can never save us from the lie. Falsifiers of history do not safeguard freedom but imperil it…Truth liberates man from fear.’ Honest history is the weapon of freedom.”<br />― Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217864027507359744",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:56:49+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "“The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other.”\n~John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, 4 April 1790\n\nBIENVENIDOS AMIGOS, welcome to the friends of the Conde de Galvez, where we will endeavour to explore the history of his, Spain, and Hispanic's contributions to the success of our American Revolution! More so, I want to dive down deep into the role of Spain in bringing about the settlement of the New World, the nation’s more enlightened views and actions regarding the native peoples, to dispel the unfairness of “La Leyenda Negra.\" [The Black Legend], and to show how Spain’s steady adaptation of the ideals of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason led to both their support of our North American Revolution, and a more enlightened view of government in general, resulting in the Constitution of 1812, [Constitución Política de la Monarquía Española, also known as the Constitución de Cádiz, and as La Pepa,] …still memorialized in the monument and plaza of San Agustin, La Florida.\nSimply put, on this page we will bring to light the leading role Spain played in the creation of the United States of America, and the birth of the most enlightened form of government and society ever seen in history, truly “Novus Ordo Seclorum”, a New Order of the Ages!\n\nRules of Participation on this page,\nNow this is a public group, open to all, and contributions and postings on the subject are welcome! Just be sure to keep it factual and free of myths. If disputes arise, they will be settled in the spirt of the Enlightenment, and Age of Reason out of which our nation was born,\n\n“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”\n~Thomas Paine\n\n“Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”\n~Thomas Jefferson, Writings: Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia\n\n“…truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”\n~Jefferson & Madison, from the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, 1786\n\nEspecially note this one,\n\n\"Nothing but good can result from an exchange of information and opinions between those whose circumstances and morals admit no doubt of the integrity of their views.\"\n~Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797\n\nHow are those for simplicity? I am not into censorship, if reason can't convince someone who does not agree with me, then either I am failing to present all of the facts, or do so in the most un-convincing way, am wrong and need to become more enlightened...or I am talking to a dunce [...or maybe I'm the dunce?]. Either way, censoring anyone is unproductive, unless that person is being nasty to everyone and calling their character into question. I know what that is like!\n\n\"When an objection cannot be made formidable, there is some policy in trying to make it frightful; and to substitute the yell and the war- whoop, in the place of reason, argument and good order…”\n~Thomas Paine\n\nSound familiar? We will have none of that on here, period!\nSo, please, share and post on here, read the \"About\" section to get the idea of the purpose of this page, and let me remind us all of the governing principles of good history,\n\n“For history is to the nation rather as memory is to the individual. As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of the its past will be disabled in dealing with is present and its future…we remain creatures of our times, prisoners of own experience, swayed hither and yon, like all sinful mortals, by partisanship, prejudice, dogma, by fear, and by hope…\n…in a land without history, he who fills the memory, defines the concepts, and interprets the past, wins the future…\n[quoting Havel,] ‘Lying can never save us from the lie. Falsifiers of history do not safeguard freedom but imperil it…Truth liberates man from fear.’ Honest history is the weapon of freedom.”\n― Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217864027507359744/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217862001841246208",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "CARLOS RODRIGUEZ HURTADO,<br />THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR FORUM<br /><br />“If Spain had not existed four hundred years ago, the United States would not exist today… Because I believe that every young Saxon-American loves justice and admires heroism as much as I do, I have decided to write this book. The reason we have not done justice to the Spanish explorers is simply because we have been misinformed. His story is unparalleled ...<br />We love bravery, and the exploration of the Americas by the Spanish was the greatest, the longest, and the most wonderful series of feats in history ... \"<br />The Spanish Pioneers. Charles Fletcher Lummis.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217862001841246208",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:48:46+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "CARLOS RODRIGUEZ HURTADO,\nTHE REVOLUTIONARY WAR FORUM\n\n“If Spain had not existed four hundred years ago, the United States would not exist today… Because I believe that every young Saxon-American loves justice and admires heroism as much as I do, I have decided to write this book. The reason we have not done justice to the Spanish explorers is simply because we have been misinformed. His story is unparalleled ...\nWe love bravery, and the exploration of the Americas by the Spanish was the greatest, the longest, and the most wonderful series of feats in history ... \"\nThe Spanish Pioneers. Charles Fletcher Lummis.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217862001841246208/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217860695629099008",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "I'm back on here for a bit today, and saw this posting thought it needed to be shared, although it has one bogus bit of history which is so common, its almost funny to me, but I think in the long run of trying to get the history of the role of Spain and Hispanics in our N. American revolution, it can only cause harm, take a read,<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.corsarios.net/en/blog-en/do-you-know-who-that-country-was/?fbclid=IwAR0DccdnPFJeJ7k2mTJGKK5NHotuAJ3rx4IA_7sRKzPvza7p6ZeAs4t4XMY\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.corsarios.net/en/blog-en/do-you-know-who-that-country-was/?fbclid=IwAR0DccdnPFJeJ7k2mTJGKK5NHotuAJ3rx4IA_7sRKzPvza7p6ZeAs4t4XMY</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217860695629099008",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:43:36+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I'm back on here for a bit today, and saw this posting thought it needed to be shared, although it has one bogus bit of history which is so common, its almost funny to me, but I think in the long run of trying to get the history of the role of Spain and Hispanics in our N. American revolution, it can only cause harm, take a read,\n\nhttps://www.corsarios.net/en/blog-en/do-you-know-who-that-country-was/?fbclid=IwAR0DccdnPFJeJ7k2mTJGKK5NHotuAJ3rx4IA_7sRKzPvza7p6ZeAs4t4XMY",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217860695629099008/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217859559574761472",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "Statues make big news these days, but this is one you need to be aware of, and for the sake of historical humor, and the typical example of our ignorance, read the one comment below,",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217859559574761472",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:39:04+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Statues make big news these days, but this is one you need to be aware of, and for the sake of historical humor, and the typical example of our ignorance, read the one comment below,",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217859559574761472/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217857843332673536",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217857843332673536\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217857843332673536</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217857843332673536",
"published": "2021-03-14T15:32:15+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1217857843332673536",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1217857843332673536/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182903760362209280",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "During the Revolutionary War of the United States the Spanish help to the colonists was considerable, and in many cases decisive. However, American historians, with notable exceptions, have ignored this fact, referring only to the French contributions. There is always the doubt about whether the reason for this omission could be the ignorance by American historian of foreign languages or the traditional Anglo-Saxon hostility against Spain. Whatever the reason the fact is that most Americans do not know about that fundamental aspect of their history. It is also fair to add that there is a similar ignorance in Spanish America and the Spanish speaking population of the United States, in spite of a growing bibliography on the subject.<br />The historical and political antecedents of the French and Spanish help can be found in the Seven Years War (1756-1763). In that war France and Spain were defeated by England and lost among other possessions Canada and Florida. However, as a compensation to her ally, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. When the colonists revolted against England, France and Spain saw the possibility of revenge, of recovering their possessions and of neutralizing the English power. Both France and Spain were ruled by the house of Bourbon and were united by a family pact which was, in fact, a military alliance. Consequently the Revolutionary War turned out to be a desired opportunity.<br />Although France and Spain began their economic aid the year of the Declaration of Independence, there were some differences in the foreign policy of the two Bourbon families. In France, the ideological influence of the encyclopedists and the attractive personality of Benjamin Franklin--representative of the Continental Congress of Philadelphia--made the American Revolution very popular. In Spain, on the contrary, there was a more conservative and cautious political philosophy because of the possible damage the English naval power could inflict on the Spanish American colonies and the Spanish maritime commerce.<br />The main difference in the political courses followed by the two allies were as follows: in regard to France, the recognition of American independence in December of 1777 and, scarcely more than two years later, the arrival of the first French expeditionary force under the command of the Count Rochambeau; with respect to Spain, a constant economic and military aid kept secret for a long time and delivered through France, but a refusal to recognize the independence of the thirteen colonies. It should be added that the Spanish government gave all its help aware of the possible liberal influence of an independent and republican state near its American colonies.<br />The Spanish contribution to the independence of the United States had three main aspects: asylum given to American ships in peninsular and colonial ports, as well as payments made for needed repairs of the ships; the use of armed forces in attacking the English possessiones in the Gulf of Mexico; and finally, throughout the whole duration of the Revolutionary War, numerous financial donations and loans for payments and supplies to the Continental Army.<br />Very soon after the beginning of hostilities in North America the Spanish peninsular ports of Bilbao, el Ferrol and Cadiz, among others, became safe havens for the patriots' ships, while in the Americas Havana, which had a magnificent navy yard, and New Orleans were the main ports of refuge.<br />It is necessary to stress that the participation of Cuba was very important in all the different aspects mentioned above. Because of its geographic situation and its safe harbors, even before 1776, the island had legal and illegal commercial relations with the thirteen colonies. But from that year on it became the Spanish strategic center for operations on the continent against England. For that reason the Cuban merchant from Havana, Juan de Miralles, was the first Spanish representative to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Appointed by the governor of Cuba, don Diego José Navarro, Miralles developed very close relationships with some of the members of the Congress and with George Washington. As the Cuban historian Herminio Portell Vilá says, the Cuban envoy became very enthusiastic about the colonists' cause and with the possibility of a free republic without commercial restrictions. He also was an ardent supporter of the war against England.1 When Miralles became sick in Washington.s camp, he was attended by the general's physician, but died a few days later. He was buried with military honors, and Washington wrote moving letters of sympathy to his relatives and the governor of Cuba.2<br />Miralles had been in favor of an immediate declaration of war against England, but it finally took place in June of 1779. At that time Louisiana was under the jurisdiction of Cuba's Captaincy General. That historical circumstance was another of the causes that linked the island to the independence of the United States.<br />Once hostilities against England broke out, Bernardo de Gálvez, the governor of Louisiana, created an army with natives of the Canary islands, residents of the colony, troops from Mexico y local militia of whites and blacks. With this small force in less than a month--from September 7 to October 5 of 1779--he captured Fort Manchac, to the west of Lake Pontchartrain, and the city of Baton Rouge, forcing also the surrender of Fort Panmure in Natchez. These victories not only displaced the English from the lower Mississippi but also broke their communications with their armies in the north and with their Indian allies along the river. But since his main objectives were the cities of Mobile and Pensacola, he began in haste the preparations for their conquest. With his army of little more than 700 men, which then included troops from Havana and some American volunteers. Gálvez took Mobile March 14, 1780, just before the arrival of an English army coming from Pensacola to help the city. On this occasion he would complain that the hesitation of the captain general of Cuba in sending more reinforcements had stopped him from defeating that army and capturing Pensacola.3<br />During the years of these campaigns, Gálvez' tenacity surpassed many other obstacles, including the damages suffered by his forces of land and sea by various storms.4 However, by February 24 of 1781, the Spanish troops from Mobile, New Orleans and Havana had established their camp in the vicinity of Pensacola, and the next day they began the initial maneuvers for the siege of the city. The Spanish fleet from Havana, together with a few French ships, had brought more than 1,600 men under the command of Field Marshal Manuel de Cagigal. One of his aids was Francisco de Miranda who years latter would be the \"precursor\" of Spanish American independence.5Cagigal had been born in Santiago de Cuba and according to Francisco Calcagno in his Diccionario biográfico cubano \"was the first one to break through the fortifications of the city,\"6 but we have not been able to find any other reference to confirm it. Among the expeditionary forces from Cuba were a light infantry brigade, , companies of dragoons, fusiliers, sappers and volunteer militia, which included a Battalion of Free Mulattos and Blacks.7 The opportune arrival of the fleet and troops from Cuba was an important factor in the capture of Pensacola, on May 9, 1781, as Gálvez himself recognized on two occasions at least (Reparaz, 220, 222). A particularly interesting aspect related to Gálvez' troops--usually unknown--is that their descendants are eligible for membership in the Sons of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the American Revolution, \"even though neither Gálvez nor any of his men ever wore an American uniform.\"8<br />With the victory of Pensacola, and the previous victory at Mobile, England was completely expelled from its bases in the Gulf of Mexico, and Spain was in control of the land from the Apalachicola River in western Florida to the Mississippi. If Gálvez' campaigns increased the prestige and possesions of the Spanish monarchy, they were also of consirable benefit to the American colonists. As the American historian Caughey observed, Gálvez \"victories inclined England toward greater generosity to the United States with respect to the Trans-Alleghany West\".9 From an ampler perspective N. Orwin Rush noted:<br />Since our American history books barely, if at all, mention it, most Americans know very little about the battle which may have been the most important one of the American revolution.<br />As we look at the wider and most comprehensive picture today, we begin to see more clearly the significance of the battle of Pensacola as a decisive factor in the outcome of the Revolution, even though none of the thirteen colonies in the rebellion was involved. . . .<br />In spite of Great Britain's military defeat by the American colonists. it takes very little imagination to see the possibilities of a decisive military squeeze that the mother country could have executed against the rebellious colonies by attacking simultaneously with recuperated and strengthened troops from Canada and Florida. One could easily go a step further and speculate on what might have been a very different outcome of the War of 1812, had Pensacola remained in British hands at that time. 10<br />Rush indicates that the poet William Cullen Bryant and the editor Sidney Howard Gay were exceptions among American writers in giving great importance upon the outcome of the battle in their book A Popular History of the United States (1881). The words of those two writers, reduced to their main idea, would be as follows: \"Had England been in possesion of the Mississippi as well as of the St. Lawrence, at the negotiation of peace . . . it is not difficult to see that the United States would have had, in all human probability, quite another destiny.11<br />In 1946 the Sociedad Colombista Panamericana placed a plaque on the wall of the old navy yard of Havana which mentions two of the previous methods of help to the rebellious colonists: the asylum given to their ships and the expeditionary troops in Gálvez' campaigns. As an exponent of the times the inscription is worth remembering. It says:<br />This was the arsenal of democracy during the Revolutionary War of the Unites States--1778-1781--. The \"Medley\", the \"Carolina\" and other ships of commodore Alexander Gillon's squadron were repaired, armed and supplied in this arsenal, and from this place departed the expeditions commanded by Juan Manuel de Cagigal, in which took part the Cuban militia who fought for the independence of the United States in Louisiana and Florida. 12<br />A third way of help, not as obviuos as the previous ones, in a number of occasions meant the difference between the impossiblity of continuing military opperations, because of scarcity of resources, and victory, after receiving supplies.<br />Donations and loans made by the Spanish government, coming from peninsular Spain, Havana, New Orleans, and Mexico, as well as all kinds of military supplies, began to support the colonists' cause before the beginning of their struggle against England. However it is difficult to estimate the total value in currency and various types of articles. Constant deliveries of money were made through France or representatives of the thirteen colonies. And sometimes it happened that those representatives incurred debts not previouly approved by the Spanish officials, although they were finally accepted.13<br />In June of 1776, Charles III approved a credit of 1.000,000 \"livres tournois\" to buy armaments and clothes which were sent the colonists from French ports.14According to the list of contributions compiled by Juan F. Yela-Utrilla, from 1776 to 1779, the main sums sent to the thirteen colonies from Spain were 203,000 pesos and 1,210,000 \"livre tournois,\" which included the credit approved by Charles III, To these amounts should be added, in November of 1778, a request for 30,000 blankets made by the revolutionary general Charles Lee (2:375-377). Besides all this help Morales Padrón mentions other considerable sums in 1781 and later (38-39).<br />The aid to the colonists, which began in Louisina at the end of Luis de Unzaga's government (1770-1776), continued and increased with his succesor Bernardo de Gálvez (1776-1785). Besides the asylum given to revolutionary ships and his military campaigns, his monetary help amounted to 73,905 pesos between 1778 and 1781 (Yela-Utrilla, 1:376-378). But if his victories against England in the south were of capital importance to the independence of the United States, significant also was the direct assistant to the colonists in their difficult moments. In 1777, when General Charles Lee was in great need of military supplies in Fort Pitt (today Pittsburgh), Gálvez sent him 10,000 pounds of powder in a ship that eluded English fortifications and, sailing up the Ohio river, arrived safely at the fort. That powder \"will make possible the defeat of the English forces in the campaigns of the region\" (Reparaz, 18).<br />Next year, in Illinois, the situation of General George Roger Clark was also very critical when he failed to obtain supplies requested from the state of Virginia. And again, although Spain was still officialy neutral in the conflict, Gálvez sent money and enough aid for the revolutionary army to gain control of the region north of the Ohio river (Portell Vilá, Historia, 78; Reparaz, 19-20) It must be added that a good part of Gálvez' help came from Cuba and it reached the colonists through Oliver Pollock, the representative of the Congress of Philadelphia.<br />In the majority of sources examined, the financial contributions of Cuba do not seem to be important. There is the usual mention of a Royal Order of March 27, 1778, giving the governor of the island the authority to lend the Congress of Philadelphia up to 50,000 pesos with the assurance of other later sums. But there is also evidence that in Havana, the commander of the South Carolina naval squadron, Alexander Gillon, received somewhat more than 14,424 pesos for expenditures incurred in two emergency arrival at the port. It should not be forgotten, however, that that amount was reimbursed later by the Continental Congress to Juan de Miralles (Yela-Utrilla, 2:378) What is not generally considered is Cuban assistance through a third party and, especially, the help given by private funds. Portell Vilá mentions \"great amounts of money advanced by the Cuban government,\" as well as military supplies, sent to Oliver Pollock and Bernardo de Gálvez in Louisiana. He also refers to some cases like that of Juan de Miralles, who assumed reponsibility for letters of credit \"with his own funds, or in cooperation with merchants and shipowners from Havana, when it was very difficult for the Continental Congress to obtain money (Los cubanos, 8). Private was also, to a great extense, Cuban monetary aid so important in the decisive victory of Yorktown.<br />The economic condition of the Continental Army was usually very precarious during the war against England, in spite of the frequent financial and military assistant of France and Spain. During the years 1780 and 1781 conditions became worse, to the point of being desperate on some occasions not only for Washington's forces but also for the French expeditionary army of Marshal Rochambeau. This is well attested to by the many letters written to Washington by Jefferson, Lafayette, and a great number of generals, governors, and members of the government.15 A good example is the letter of General Nathanael Greene, dated December 7, 1780:<br />Nothing can be more wretched and distressing than the condition of the troops, starving with cold and hunger, without tents and camp equipage. Those of the Virginia line are, literally, naked; and a great part totally unfit for any kind of duty. . . . (Sparks, 3: 166)<br />In August of 1781 the French officer Ludwig von Closen described in a similar manner the miserable conditions of Washington's army while crossing the Hudson River at the beginning of its march to Virginia and Yorktown. In what can be considered an abbreviated version of his sentiment von Closen's words were as follow \"These brave fellows made one's heart ache\"16",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1182903760362209280",
"published": "2020-12-08T04:37:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "During the Revolutionary War of the United States the Spanish help to the colonists was considerable, and in many cases decisive. However, American historians, with notable exceptions, have ignored this fact, referring only to the French contributions. There is always the doubt about whether the reason for this omission could be the ignorance by American historian of foreign languages or the traditional Anglo-Saxon hostility against Spain. Whatever the reason the fact is that most Americans do not know about that fundamental aspect of their history. It is also fair to add that there is a similar ignorance in Spanish America and the Spanish speaking population of the United States, in spite of a growing bibliography on the subject.\nThe historical and political antecedents of the French and Spanish help can be found in the Seven Years War (1756-1763). In that war France and Spain were defeated by England and lost among other possessions Canada and Florida. However, as a compensation to her ally, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. When the colonists revolted against England, France and Spain saw the possibility of revenge, of recovering their possessions and of neutralizing the English power. Both France and Spain were ruled by the house of Bourbon and were united by a family pact which was, in fact, a military alliance. Consequently the Revolutionary War turned out to be a desired opportunity.\nAlthough France and Spain began their economic aid the year of the Declaration of Independence, there were some differences in the foreign policy of the two Bourbon families. In France, the ideological influence of the encyclopedists and the attractive personality of Benjamin Franklin--representative of the Continental Congress of Philadelphia--made the American Revolution very popular. In Spain, on the contrary, there was a more conservative and cautious political philosophy because of the possible damage the English naval power could inflict on the Spanish American colonies and the Spanish maritime commerce.\nThe main difference in the political courses followed by the two allies were as follows: in regard to France, the recognition of American independence in December of 1777 and, scarcely more than two years later, the arrival of the first French expeditionary force under the command of the Count Rochambeau; with respect to Spain, a constant economic and military aid kept secret for a long time and delivered through France, but a refusal to recognize the independence of the thirteen colonies. It should be added that the Spanish government gave all its help aware of the possible liberal influence of an independent and republican state near its American colonies.\nThe Spanish contribution to the independence of the United States had three main aspects: asylum given to American ships in peninsular and colonial ports, as well as payments made for needed repairs of the ships; the use of armed forces in attacking the English possessiones in the Gulf of Mexico; and finally, throughout the whole duration of the Revolutionary War, numerous financial donations and loans for payments and supplies to the Continental Army.\nVery soon after the beginning of hostilities in North America the Spanish peninsular ports of Bilbao, el Ferrol and Cadiz, among others, became safe havens for the patriots' ships, while in the Americas Havana, which had a magnificent navy yard, and New Orleans were the main ports of refuge.\nIt is necessary to stress that the participation of Cuba was very important in all the different aspects mentioned above. Because of its geographic situation and its safe harbors, even before 1776, the island had legal and illegal commercial relations with the thirteen colonies. But from that year on it became the Spanish strategic center for operations on the continent against England. For that reason the Cuban merchant from Havana, Juan de Miralles, was the first Spanish representative to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Appointed by the governor of Cuba, don Diego José Navarro, Miralles developed very close relationships with some of the members of the Congress and with George Washington. As the Cuban historian Herminio Portell Vilá says, the Cuban envoy became very enthusiastic about the colonists' cause and with the possibility of a free republic without commercial restrictions. He also was an ardent supporter of the war against England.1 When Miralles became sick in Washington.s camp, he was attended by the general's physician, but died a few days later. He was buried with military honors, and Washington wrote moving letters of sympathy to his relatives and the governor of Cuba.2\nMiralles had been in favor of an immediate declaration of war against England, but it finally took place in June of 1779. At that time Louisiana was under the jurisdiction of Cuba's Captaincy General. That historical circumstance was another of the causes that linked the island to the independence of the United States.\nOnce hostilities against England broke out, Bernardo de Gálvez, the governor of Louisiana, created an army with natives of the Canary islands, residents of the colony, troops from Mexico y local militia of whites and blacks. With this small force in less than a month--from September 7 to October 5 of 1779--he captured Fort Manchac, to the west of Lake Pontchartrain, and the city of Baton Rouge, forcing also the surrender of Fort Panmure in Natchez. These victories not only displaced the English from the lower Mississippi but also broke their communications with their armies in the north and with their Indian allies along the river. But since his main objectives were the cities of Mobile and Pensacola, he began in haste the preparations for their conquest. With his army of little more than 700 men, which then included troops from Havana and some American volunteers. Gálvez took Mobile March 14, 1780, just before the arrival of an English army coming from Pensacola to help the city. On this occasion he would complain that the hesitation of the captain general of Cuba in sending more reinforcements had stopped him from defeating that army and capturing Pensacola.3\nDuring the years of these campaigns, Gálvez' tenacity surpassed many other obstacles, including the damages suffered by his forces of land and sea by various storms.4 However, by February 24 of 1781, the Spanish troops from Mobile, New Orleans and Havana had established their camp in the vicinity of Pensacola, and the next day they began the initial maneuvers for the siege of the city. The Spanish fleet from Havana, together with a few French ships, had brought more than 1,600 men under the command of Field Marshal Manuel de Cagigal. One of his aids was Francisco de Miranda who years latter would be the \"precursor\" of Spanish American independence.5Cagigal had been born in Santiago de Cuba and according to Francisco Calcagno in his Diccionario biográfico cubano \"was the first one to break through the fortifications of the city,\"6 but we have not been able to find any other reference to confirm it. Among the expeditionary forces from Cuba were a light infantry brigade, , companies of dragoons, fusiliers, sappers and volunteer militia, which included a Battalion of Free Mulattos and Blacks.7 The opportune arrival of the fleet and troops from Cuba was an important factor in the capture of Pensacola, on May 9, 1781, as Gálvez himself recognized on two occasions at least (Reparaz, 220, 222). A particularly interesting aspect related to Gálvez' troops--usually unknown--is that their descendants are eligible for membership in the Sons of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the American Revolution, \"even though neither Gálvez nor any of his men ever wore an American uniform.\"8\nWith the victory of Pensacola, and the previous victory at Mobile, England was completely expelled from its bases in the Gulf of Mexico, and Spain was in control of the land from the Apalachicola River in western Florida to the Mississippi. If Gálvez' campaigns increased the prestige and possesions of the Spanish monarchy, they were also of consirable benefit to the American colonists. As the American historian Caughey observed, Gálvez \"victories inclined England toward greater generosity to the United States with respect to the Trans-Alleghany West\".9 From an ampler perspective N. Orwin Rush noted:\nSince our American history books barely, if at all, mention it, most Americans know very little about the battle which may have been the most important one of the American revolution.\nAs we look at the wider and most comprehensive picture today, we begin to see more clearly the significance of the battle of Pensacola as a decisive factor in the outcome of the Revolution, even though none of the thirteen colonies in the rebellion was involved. . . .\nIn spite of Great Britain's military defeat by the American colonists. it takes very little imagination to see the possibilities of a decisive military squeeze that the mother country could have executed against the rebellious colonies by attacking simultaneously with recuperated and strengthened troops from Canada and Florida. One could easily go a step further and speculate on what might have been a very different outcome of the War of 1812, had Pensacola remained in British hands at that time. 10\nRush indicates that the poet William Cullen Bryant and the editor Sidney Howard Gay were exceptions among American writers in giving great importance upon the outcome of the battle in their book A Popular History of the United States (1881). The words of those two writers, reduced to their main idea, would be as follows: \"Had England been in possesion of the Mississippi as well as of the St. Lawrence, at the negotiation of peace . . . it is not difficult to see that the United States would have had, in all human probability, quite another destiny.11\nIn 1946 the Sociedad Colombista Panamericana placed a plaque on the wall of the old navy yard of Havana which mentions two of the previous methods of help to the rebellious colonists: the asylum given to their ships and the expeditionary troops in Gálvez' campaigns. As an exponent of the times the inscription is worth remembering. It says:\nThis was the arsenal of democracy during the Revolutionary War of the Unites States--1778-1781--. The \"Medley\", the \"Carolina\" and other ships of commodore Alexander Gillon's squadron were repaired, armed and supplied in this arsenal, and from this place departed the expeditions commanded by Juan Manuel de Cagigal, in which took part the Cuban militia who fought for the independence of the United States in Louisiana and Florida. 12\nA third way of help, not as obviuos as the previous ones, in a number of occasions meant the difference between the impossiblity of continuing military opperations, because of scarcity of resources, and victory, after receiving supplies.\nDonations and loans made by the Spanish government, coming from peninsular Spain, Havana, New Orleans, and Mexico, as well as all kinds of military supplies, began to support the colonists' cause before the beginning of their struggle against England. However it is difficult to estimate the total value in currency and various types of articles. Constant deliveries of money were made through France or representatives of the thirteen colonies. And sometimes it happened that those representatives incurred debts not previouly approved by the Spanish officials, although they were finally accepted.13\nIn June of 1776, Charles III approved a credit of 1.000,000 \"livres tournois\" to buy armaments and clothes which were sent the colonists from French ports.14According to the list of contributions compiled by Juan F. Yela-Utrilla, from 1776 to 1779, the main sums sent to the thirteen colonies from Spain were 203,000 pesos and 1,210,000 \"livre tournois,\" which included the credit approved by Charles III, To these amounts should be added, in November of 1778, a request for 30,000 blankets made by the revolutionary general Charles Lee (2:375-377). Besides all this help Morales Padrón mentions other considerable sums in 1781 and later (38-39).\nThe aid to the colonists, which began in Louisina at the end of Luis de Unzaga's government (1770-1776), continued and increased with his succesor Bernardo de Gálvez (1776-1785). Besides the asylum given to revolutionary ships and his military campaigns, his monetary help amounted to 73,905 pesos between 1778 and 1781 (Yela-Utrilla, 1:376-378). But if his victories against England in the south were of capital importance to the independence of the United States, significant also was the direct assistant to the colonists in their difficult moments. In 1777, when General Charles Lee was in great need of military supplies in Fort Pitt (today Pittsburgh), Gálvez sent him 10,000 pounds of powder in a ship that eluded English fortifications and, sailing up the Ohio river, arrived safely at the fort. That powder \"will make possible the defeat of the English forces in the campaigns of the region\" (Reparaz, 18).\nNext year, in Illinois, the situation of General George Roger Clark was also very critical when he failed to obtain supplies requested from the state of Virginia. And again, although Spain was still officialy neutral in the conflict, Gálvez sent money and enough aid for the revolutionary army to gain control of the region north of the Ohio river (Portell Vilá, Historia, 78; Reparaz, 19-20) It must be added that a good part of Gálvez' help came from Cuba and it reached the colonists through Oliver Pollock, the representative of the Congress of Philadelphia.\nIn the majority of sources examined, the financial contributions of Cuba do not seem to be important. There is the usual mention of a Royal Order of March 27, 1778, giving the governor of the island the authority to lend the Congress of Philadelphia up to 50,000 pesos with the assurance of other later sums. But there is also evidence that in Havana, the commander of the South Carolina naval squadron, Alexander Gillon, received somewhat more than 14,424 pesos for expenditures incurred in two emergency arrival at the port. It should not be forgotten, however, that that amount was reimbursed later by the Continental Congress to Juan de Miralles (Yela-Utrilla, 2:378) What is not generally considered is Cuban assistance through a third party and, especially, the help given by private funds. Portell Vilá mentions \"great amounts of money advanced by the Cuban government,\" as well as military supplies, sent to Oliver Pollock and Bernardo de Gálvez in Louisiana. He also refers to some cases like that of Juan de Miralles, who assumed reponsibility for letters of credit \"with his own funds, or in cooperation with merchants and shipowners from Havana, when it was very difficult for the Continental Congress to obtain money (Los cubanos, 8). Private was also, to a great extense, Cuban monetary aid so important in the decisive victory of Yorktown.\nThe economic condition of the Continental Army was usually very precarious during the war against England, in spite of the frequent financial and military assistant of France and Spain. During the years 1780 and 1781 conditions became worse, to the point of being desperate on some occasions not only for Washington's forces but also for the French expeditionary army of Marshal Rochambeau. This is well attested to by the many letters written to Washington by Jefferson, Lafayette, and a great number of generals, governors, and members of the government.15 A good example is the letter of General Nathanael Greene, dated December 7, 1780:\nNothing can be more wretched and distressing than the condition of the troops, starving with cold and hunger, without tents and camp equipage. Those of the Virginia line are, literally, naked; and a great part totally unfit for any kind of duty. . . . (Sparks, 3: 166)\nIn August of 1781 the French officer Ludwig von Closen described in a similar manner the miserable conditions of Washington's army while crossing the Hudson River at the beginning of its march to Virginia and Yorktown. In what can be considered an abbreviated version of his sentiment von Closen's words were as follow \"These brave fellows made one's heart ache\"16",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182903760362209280/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182897951683182592",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "In June 1762, a British force consisting of nearly 13,000 soldiers, 17,000 sailors and marines, 23 ships of the line, 19 auxiliary warships, and 160 transports arrived in Havana in the midst of the Seven Years’ War. By mid-August 1762, the British expedition had conquered the city. The jubilation of Britons and British Americans was immediate. One New York preacher likened the British triumph to the victory over the Armada in 1588. For Spain, the cost of losing Havana was immense: in the 1763 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Florida to Britain in exchange for the return of Cuba....<br /><a href=\"https://clas.berkeley.edu/.../cuba-slavery-and-siege-havana\" target=\"_blank\">https://clas.berkeley.edu/.../cuba-slavery-and-siege-havana</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1182897951683182592",
"published": "2020-12-08T04:14:07+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "In June 1762, a British force consisting of nearly 13,000 soldiers, 17,000 sailors and marines, 23 ships of the line, 19 auxiliary warships, and 160 transports arrived in Havana in the midst of the Seven Years’ War. By mid-August 1762, the British expedition had conquered the city. The jubilation of Britons and British Americans was immediate. One New York preacher likened the British triumph to the victory over the Armada in 1588. For Spain, the cost of losing Havana was immense: in the 1763 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Florida to Britain in exchange for the return of Cuba....\nhttps://clas.berkeley.edu/.../cuba-slavery-and-siege-havana\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182897951683182592/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182897151690649600",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "Virginia Delegates to Bernardo de Gálvez, 4 May 1783<br /><br />Copy (Sección Cuba 2370, Archivo General de Indias, Seville).<br /><br />Addressed to “His Excellency don Bernardo de Galvez, Governor of the Havana.”<br />This copy, including the signatures and the enclosure, appears to have been made by a clerk. For a suggested explanation of the copy’s origin, see n. 3.<br /><br />Editorial note<br />Oliver Pollock, a merchant of New Orleans, had rendered important service to both Congress and Virginia as commercial agent. To pay for military supplies, Pollock had used his own money or loans secured by his notes from business acquaintances. By the spring of 1782 he desperately needed remuneration to satisfy his impatient creditors.<br />At the request of Governor Jefferson in 1779, Governor Gálvez, who was a friend of the American cause and of Pollock, had advanced him $74,087 from the Spanish provincial treasury. In the same year Jefferson authorized Pollock to draw bills for nearly $66,000 on Penet, d’Acosta Frères et Cie, the commercial agent of Virginia at Nantes, France. Unknown to Pollock, J. Pierre Penet by 1782 was bankrupt, partly at least because Virginia had been unable to furnish him with the cargoes of tobacco promised in return for his shipments of military matériel. In the meantime Pollock had drawn bills on the Penet Company and used them as security for the repayment of additional loans.<br />Threatened with suits by his creditors who were holding his worthless bills of exchange drawn on Penet, Pollock late in April 1782 was granted permission by Don Estavan Miró, who was acting as governor in Gálvez’ absence, to go to Richmond and Philadelphia to seek payment by the Virginia General Assembly and by Congress. Both bodies already had acknowledged their heavy indebtedness to Pollock, but neither they nor he knew the exact sums owed. Some of his vouchers had been lost; some of his consignments evidently had been priced in specie, others in paper currency; some goods shipped on the continental account had been diverted to the use of Virginia and vice versa; and some had been forwarded to military or civilian officials of Virginia in the Ohio country who had no legal authority to order them. Adding to the baffling complexity, some of the bills of exchange issued by Pollock had been purchased by Simon Nathan. These two men, being creditors of the bankrupt Penet Company, expected its debtor, Virginia, to cover their losses. See NA: PCC, No. 50, fols. 285, 331; Papers of Madison, I, 277, n. 7; III, 98; 99, n. 1; 256, n. 1; IV, 349, and n. 5; James Alton James, Oliver Pollock: The Life and Times of an Unknown Patriot (New York, 1937), pp. 74, 81, 270–72, 276; Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765–1794 (3 vols.; Washington, 1946–49), II, 8–12; John Walton Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez in Louisiana, 1776–1783 (Berkeley, Calif., 1934), pp. 85–93, 98.<br />From August 1782, when he arrived in Philadelphia, until the date of the present letter, Pollock found that the controversial nature of many of his claims and the empty state of both the continental and Virginia treasuries combined to thwart him from gaining immediate cash payments. On 31 October 1782 President John Hanson wrote Miró that Congress was well disposed toward Pollock and would deal justly with him “as soon as possible.” About four months later President Elias Boudinot affirmed this promise by sending Miró a duplicate of Hanson’s letter. In Richmond, where Pollock tarried for almost three months, the legislature adjourned on 28 December 1782 after adopting the resolution, of which a copy was enclosed in the present letter, postponing further action upon his claim until the session of May 1783. By then the report of the commissioners on western accounts, including their judgment of the validity of many of Pollock’s bills, would probably have been submitted. Also the Virginia delegates in Congress were expected to gain from Pollock, who had returned to Philadelphia in February, adequate guarantees to assure Virginia against paying twice the sum covered by the protested bills of exchange which he had drawn on the Penet Company and given as security for loans from businessmen in New Orleans.<br />In their letter of 29 April 1783, the delegates informed Governor Harrison, “Mr. Pollock has declined offering any security for the present, as he expects the returned Bills themselves, which he says will be the best Vouchers in his power to give.” In other words Virginia obviously would not assume for payment the amount of the bills of exchange unless they were surrendered to her treasury. Only Pollock’s creditors in New Orleans, who held these bills, could submit them. Virginia, therefore, was amply protected against any claim by him in their regard. See Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 55, 63–64, 71, 75–76; Papers of Madison, III, 345, n. 5; V, 208, n. 5; 287, n. 19; 455, n. 10; VI, 474; 475, nn. 3–5; 476, n. 6; 478, n. 3; 502; JCC, XXIV, 149, n. 1, 234–38; James A. James, Oliver Pollock, pp. 276, n. 9, 280, 282, 288; John W. Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez, pp. 99–100.<br /><br />Philada. May 4th. 1783<br />Sir<br />We have the honor of Enclosing to your Excellency1 a Resolution of the General Assembly of our State, by which your Excellency will see that the Accounts of Mr. Oliver Pollock, are Liquadated, and the balance put into a due Course of payment.2<br />We think it proper to give your Excellency this Information for the benefit of such of the subjects of the King of Spain as are in Possession of the Bills drawn by the said Mr Pollock on Penette, Dacosta, Freres & Co[.] these Bills will be paid agreeable to the Inclosed Resolve, upon thier being presented at the Treasury of Virginia.<br />We beg leave to recommend Mr Pollock to your Excellency’s protection, as one who has suffer’d much and who has discharged his duty both to the Publick & to his Creditors with Zeal & Integrity<br />We have the honor to be with sentiment of the highest respect Your Excellencys Most Obedient and Humble Servts.<br />(Copy) Sign’d { Arthur Lee<br />J. Madison Jur.<br />Theod. Bland Jr<br />John F. Mercer<br />delegates in Congress from the<br />State of Virginia3<br /><br />When the present letter was written, the positions held by Don Bernardo de Gálvez (ca. 1746–1786) were far more impressive than merely “Governor of the Havana.” Ever since early in 1777, after military service in Europe, Africa, and against the Indians in Louisiana, he had been the governor of that province. On 12 November 1781, in recognition of his success in capturing Pensacola from the British and driving them from the rest of West Florida, Charles III of Spain issued him a patent of nobility, promoted him to the rank of lieutenant general, and added West Florida to the vast area of which he was governor. In May 1782, although the decisive naval victory of Sir George Brydges Rodney on 9–12 April in the Battle of the Saints had effectively ruined Gálvez’ plan to mount an expedition against the British in Jamaica, he brought the Bahama Islands under the flag of Spain.<br />At the time of the Virginia delegates’ letter to Gálvez, he had sailed, or was about to sail, for Spain. When he finally reached Havana again on 4 February 1784, he was captain general of Cuba as well as the governor of Louisiana and West Florida. Early the next year he became viceroy of New Spain with his seat of authority in Mexico City. His residence in Mexico began with his arrival at Vera Cruz on 21 May 1785 and closed with his death from fever on 30 November 1786 (John W. Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez, pp. 61–68, 210–11, 214, 244–46, 251, 252, and n. 36, 253, 257; Papers of Madison, I, 218, n. 6; II, 39 and n. 1; 110, n. 2; III, 83, n. 1; 183, n. 21; IV, 36, n. 16; 113, n. 6; 239, n. 14).<br />By “Liquadated,” the delegates meant that the “Resolution” embodied only a schedule for payments by Virginia to Pollock. Assuming that the resolution quoted below is an accurate copy of the enclosure by the delegates and that they had faithfully reproduced the copy received by them from Governor Harrison, the latter varies occasionally in phraseology, as well as in abbreviations, punctuation, and capitalization, but not in meaning, from the resolution entered in the journal of the House of Delegates (JHDV, Oct. 1782, pp. 83–84; Papers of Madison, VI, 13; 15, n. 5; 474; 475, n. 5).<br />In the House of Delegates<br />The 27th Decem: 1782<br />Resolv’d, that the Accounts of Oliver Pollock be liquidated agreeable to the recommendation of the Executive upon the Settlement made by their Commissioners, Sampson Mathews and Merriwether Smith Esqrs. and paid in Manner following. ten Thousand Dollars immediately, and Certificates passed for the remainder of his Accounts bearing Interest at the rate of six pCent per annum to wit, ten Thousand dollars payable the first day of January, One thousand seven Hundred & eighty four, Ten thousand Dollars the first day of January, One Thousand seven Hundred and Eighty five and the Ballance in Certificates with the like Interest payable in four years from the date thereof Provided that the Issuing of Certificates for one half the Amount of the said Accounts be postponed untill the said Oliver Pollock finds such security as may be approved of by the delegates representing this State in Congress for the Indemnification of the state from any demand for the bills drawn by him on Penette, Dacosta, Freres & Coy.<br />Test<br />John Beckly C H D<br />1782 Decem: 28th<br />Agreed to by the Senate<br />Will. Drew Ck. a Copy<br />Test<br />For the commissioners on western accounts, including Matthews and Smith, see Papers of Madison, II, 40, n. 2; III, 329, n. 3; 345, n. 5; IV, 378, n. 5; V, 263; 265, n. 9; JCSV, III, 188. The stipulation about paying Pollock “ten thousand Dollars immediately” was delusive, for he discovered by calling upon Jacquelin Ambler, the treasurer, that “I could not get as much as paid my expenses to Virginia” (Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 77–78). The editorial note above explains why the resolution closed with a proviso. See also n. 3. For John Beckley and William Drew, the clerks, respectively, of the House of Delegates and the Senate of the Virginia General Assembly, see Papers of Madison, II, 318, n. 2.<br />The delegates gave their letter and its enclosure to Pollock for delivery, upon his return to New Orleans or Havana, to Gálvez. Two days before the date of the letter. Congress resolved that “as soon as the situation of the finances will permit,” Pollock should be paid as much of his claim as had already been authenticated, except the $74,087 loaned him by Governor Gálvez from the Spanish treasury at New Orleans (ed. note). At the same time, Congress instructed Robert Morris to ascertain from New Orleans whether Gálvez had advanced that money to enable Pollock to provide military supplies for the United States or for Virginia (JCC, XXIV, 323). On 8 May Congress agreed to hang on the wall of its meeting room Pollock’s gift of a portrait of Gálvez, “an early and zealous friend of the U. S.” (NA: PCC, No. 50, fol. 289; JCC, XXIV, 333, and n. 2). Although refusing on 22 April, in spite of the unanimous vote of the delegates of Virginia and five other states, to pay Pollock $10,000 for his five years’ labors as commercial agent at New Orleans, Congress eight days later rewarded him with half that sum for his “extra-ordinary services.” On 30 May without a recorded vote, Congress appointed him to be the unsalaried American commercial agent “at the port of Havannah” (JCC, XXIV, 266, 318, 372, 376–77).<br />Pollock delayed his departure from the United States until early in August. By then he almost certainly knew that on 25 June the Virginia General Assembly had instructed the treasurer “until further orders” to cash none of the warrants which had been issued to him. Ill fortune pursued him to Cuba. Upon arriving there in mid-August, he found not only that Gálvez was in Spain but that he could expect few commissions as commercial agent because the port of Havana was closed to all foreign shipping. On 18 August Pollock wrote to Governor Miró at New Orleans, enclosing what apparently is the present copy of the Virginia delegates’ letter and its enclosure. In his acknowledgment of 18 October 1783 Miró blamed Pollock for not recognizing while in the United States that one of his “principal and most sacred obligations” had been to assure the repayment of those “generous citizens” of New Orleans who, by lending money on the security of bills of exchange drawn on the Penet Company, “have suffered enough by bearing with you for the long time of four years.” Miró apparently did not realize that the promises to pay, which were almost all that Pollock had been able to gain in Philadelphia and Richmond, applied to his creditors in New Orleans as well as to himself. The Virginia General Assembly had agreed to honor the bills on Penet as soon as their holders presented them in person or through their authorized agent. See ed. note above; also, Harrison to Speaker of the House of Delegates, 5 May 1783, in Executive Letter Book, 1783–1786, pp. 110–11, MS in Va. State Library; JHDV, May 1783, pp. 83, 85; Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 77–78, 87–88, 91–92; James A. James, Oliver Pollock, pp. 280–92, 297, and n. 1, 306, n. 16, 335–37, and nn., 346. From 9 January to 10 November 1783, inclusive, Virginia paid to Pollock £3,608 9s. 10d. (Treasurer’s Book or Account of Payments Made Publick Creditors by the Treasurer, Jany. 1783 to Decr. 1785, unpaginated MS in Va. State Library).",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1182897151690649600",
"published": "2020-12-08T04:10:56+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Virginia Delegates to Bernardo de Gálvez, 4 May 1783\n\nCopy (Sección Cuba 2370, Archivo General de Indias, Seville).\n\nAddressed to “His Excellency don Bernardo de Galvez, Governor of the Havana.”\nThis copy, including the signatures and the enclosure, appears to have been made by a clerk. For a suggested explanation of the copy’s origin, see n. 3.\n\nEditorial note\nOliver Pollock, a merchant of New Orleans, had rendered important service to both Congress and Virginia as commercial agent. To pay for military supplies, Pollock had used his own money or loans secured by his notes from business acquaintances. By the spring of 1782 he desperately needed remuneration to satisfy his impatient creditors.\nAt the request of Governor Jefferson in 1779, Governor Gálvez, who was a friend of the American cause and of Pollock, had advanced him $74,087 from the Spanish provincial treasury. In the same year Jefferson authorized Pollock to draw bills for nearly $66,000 on Penet, d’Acosta Frères et Cie, the commercial agent of Virginia at Nantes, France. Unknown to Pollock, J. Pierre Penet by 1782 was bankrupt, partly at least because Virginia had been unable to furnish him with the cargoes of tobacco promised in return for his shipments of military matériel. In the meantime Pollock had drawn bills on the Penet Company and used them as security for the repayment of additional loans.\nThreatened with suits by his creditors who were holding his worthless bills of exchange drawn on Penet, Pollock late in April 1782 was granted permission by Don Estavan Miró, who was acting as governor in Gálvez’ absence, to go to Richmond and Philadelphia to seek payment by the Virginia General Assembly and by Congress. Both bodies already had acknowledged their heavy indebtedness to Pollock, but neither they nor he knew the exact sums owed. Some of his vouchers had been lost; some of his consignments evidently had been priced in specie, others in paper currency; some goods shipped on the continental account had been diverted to the use of Virginia and vice versa; and some had been forwarded to military or civilian officials of Virginia in the Ohio country who had no legal authority to order them. Adding to the baffling complexity, some of the bills of exchange issued by Pollock had been purchased by Simon Nathan. These two men, being creditors of the bankrupt Penet Company, expected its debtor, Virginia, to cover their losses. See NA: PCC, No. 50, fols. 285, 331; Papers of Madison, I, 277, n. 7; III, 98; 99, n. 1; 256, n. 1; IV, 349, and n. 5; James Alton James, Oliver Pollock: The Life and Times of an Unknown Patriot (New York, 1937), pp. 74, 81, 270–72, 276; Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765–1794 (3 vols.; Washington, 1946–49), II, 8–12; John Walton Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez in Louisiana, 1776–1783 (Berkeley, Calif., 1934), pp. 85–93, 98.\nFrom August 1782, when he arrived in Philadelphia, until the date of the present letter, Pollock found that the controversial nature of many of his claims and the empty state of both the continental and Virginia treasuries combined to thwart him from gaining immediate cash payments. On 31 October 1782 President John Hanson wrote Miró that Congress was well disposed toward Pollock and would deal justly with him “as soon as possible.” About four months later President Elias Boudinot affirmed this promise by sending Miró a duplicate of Hanson’s letter. In Richmond, where Pollock tarried for almost three months, the legislature adjourned on 28 December 1782 after adopting the resolution, of which a copy was enclosed in the present letter, postponing further action upon his claim until the session of May 1783. By then the report of the commissioners on western accounts, including their judgment of the validity of many of Pollock’s bills, would probably have been submitted. Also the Virginia delegates in Congress were expected to gain from Pollock, who had returned to Philadelphia in February, adequate guarantees to assure Virginia against paying twice the sum covered by the protested bills of exchange which he had drawn on the Penet Company and given as security for loans from businessmen in New Orleans.\nIn their letter of 29 April 1783, the delegates informed Governor Harrison, “Mr. Pollock has declined offering any security for the present, as he expects the returned Bills themselves, which he says will be the best Vouchers in his power to give.” In other words Virginia obviously would not assume for payment the amount of the bills of exchange unless they were surrendered to her treasury. Only Pollock’s creditors in New Orleans, who held these bills, could submit them. Virginia, therefore, was amply protected against any claim by him in their regard. See Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 55, 63–64, 71, 75–76; Papers of Madison, III, 345, n. 5; V, 208, n. 5; 287, n. 19; 455, n. 10; VI, 474; 475, nn. 3–5; 476, n. 6; 478, n. 3; 502; JCC, XXIV, 149, n. 1, 234–38; James A. James, Oliver Pollock, pp. 276, n. 9, 280, 282, 288; John W. Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez, pp. 99–100.\n\nPhilada. May 4th. 1783\nSir\nWe have the honor of Enclosing to your Excellency1 a Resolution of the General Assembly of our State, by which your Excellency will see that the Accounts of Mr. Oliver Pollock, are Liquadated, and the balance put into a due Course of payment.2\nWe think it proper to give your Excellency this Information for the benefit of such of the subjects of the King of Spain as are in Possession of the Bills drawn by the said Mr Pollock on Penette, Dacosta, Freres & Co[.] these Bills will be paid agreeable to the Inclosed Resolve, upon thier being presented at the Treasury of Virginia.\nWe beg leave to recommend Mr Pollock to your Excellency’s protection, as one who has suffer’d much and who has discharged his duty both to the Publick & to his Creditors with Zeal & Integrity\nWe have the honor to be with sentiment of the highest respect Your Excellencys Most Obedient and Humble Servts.\n(Copy) Sign’d { Arthur Lee\nJ. Madison Jur.\nTheod. Bland Jr\nJohn F. Mercer\ndelegates in Congress from the\nState of Virginia3\n\nWhen the present letter was written, the positions held by Don Bernardo de Gálvez (ca. 1746–1786) were far more impressive than merely “Governor of the Havana.” Ever since early in 1777, after military service in Europe, Africa, and against the Indians in Louisiana, he had been the governor of that province. On 12 November 1781, in recognition of his success in capturing Pensacola from the British and driving them from the rest of West Florida, Charles III of Spain issued him a patent of nobility, promoted him to the rank of lieutenant general, and added West Florida to the vast area of which he was governor. In May 1782, although the decisive naval victory of Sir George Brydges Rodney on 9–12 April in the Battle of the Saints had effectively ruined Gálvez’ plan to mount an expedition against the British in Jamaica, he brought the Bahama Islands under the flag of Spain.\nAt the time of the Virginia delegates’ letter to Gálvez, he had sailed, or was about to sail, for Spain. When he finally reached Havana again on 4 February 1784, he was captain general of Cuba as well as the governor of Louisiana and West Florida. Early the next year he became viceroy of New Spain with his seat of authority in Mexico City. His residence in Mexico began with his arrival at Vera Cruz on 21 May 1785 and closed with his death from fever on 30 November 1786 (John W. Caughey, Bernardo de Gálvez, pp. 61–68, 210–11, 214, 244–46, 251, 252, and n. 36, 253, 257; Papers of Madison, I, 218, n. 6; II, 39 and n. 1; 110, n. 2; III, 83, n. 1; 183, n. 21; IV, 36, n. 16; 113, n. 6; 239, n. 14).\nBy “Liquadated,” the delegates meant that the “Resolution” embodied only a schedule for payments by Virginia to Pollock. Assuming that the resolution quoted below is an accurate copy of the enclosure by the delegates and that they had faithfully reproduced the copy received by them from Governor Harrison, the latter varies occasionally in phraseology, as well as in abbreviations, punctuation, and capitalization, but not in meaning, from the resolution entered in the journal of the House of Delegates (JHDV, Oct. 1782, pp. 83–84; Papers of Madison, VI, 13; 15, n. 5; 474; 475, n. 5).\nIn the House of Delegates\nThe 27th Decem: 1782\nResolv’d, that the Accounts of Oliver Pollock be liquidated agreeable to the recommendation of the Executive upon the Settlement made by their Commissioners, Sampson Mathews and Merriwether Smith Esqrs. and paid in Manner following. ten Thousand Dollars immediately, and Certificates passed for the remainder of his Accounts bearing Interest at the rate of six pCent per annum to wit, ten Thousand dollars payable the first day of January, One thousand seven Hundred & eighty four, Ten thousand Dollars the first day of January, One Thousand seven Hundred and Eighty five and the Ballance in Certificates with the like Interest payable in four years from the date thereof Provided that the Issuing of Certificates for one half the Amount of the said Accounts be postponed untill the said Oliver Pollock finds such security as may be approved of by the delegates representing this State in Congress for the Indemnification of the state from any demand for the bills drawn by him on Penette, Dacosta, Freres & Coy.\nTest\nJohn Beckly C H D\n1782 Decem: 28th\nAgreed to by the Senate\nWill. Drew Ck. a Copy\nTest\nFor the commissioners on western accounts, including Matthews and Smith, see Papers of Madison, II, 40, n. 2; III, 329, n. 3; 345, n. 5; IV, 378, n. 5; V, 263; 265, n. 9; JCSV, III, 188. The stipulation about paying Pollock “ten thousand Dollars immediately” was delusive, for he discovered by calling upon Jacquelin Ambler, the treasurer, that “I could not get as much as paid my expenses to Virginia” (Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 77–78). The editorial note above explains why the resolution closed with a proviso. See also n. 3. For John Beckley and William Drew, the clerks, respectively, of the House of Delegates and the Senate of the Virginia General Assembly, see Papers of Madison, II, 318, n. 2.\nThe delegates gave their letter and its enclosure to Pollock for delivery, upon his return to New Orleans or Havana, to Gálvez. Two days before the date of the letter. Congress resolved that “as soon as the situation of the finances will permit,” Pollock should be paid as much of his claim as had already been authenticated, except the $74,087 loaned him by Governor Gálvez from the Spanish treasury at New Orleans (ed. note). At the same time, Congress instructed Robert Morris to ascertain from New Orleans whether Gálvez had advanced that money to enable Pollock to provide military supplies for the United States or for Virginia (JCC, XXIV, 323). On 8 May Congress agreed to hang on the wall of its meeting room Pollock’s gift of a portrait of Gálvez, “an early and zealous friend of the U. S.” (NA: PCC, No. 50, fol. 289; JCC, XXIV, 333, and n. 2). Although refusing on 22 April, in spite of the unanimous vote of the delegates of Virginia and five other states, to pay Pollock $10,000 for his five years’ labors as commercial agent at New Orleans, Congress eight days later rewarded him with half that sum for his “extra-ordinary services.” On 30 May without a recorded vote, Congress appointed him to be the unsalaried American commercial agent “at the port of Havannah” (JCC, XXIV, 266, 318, 372, 376–77).\nPollock delayed his departure from the United States until early in August. By then he almost certainly knew that on 25 June the Virginia General Assembly had instructed the treasurer “until further orders” to cash none of the warrants which had been issued to him. Ill fortune pursued him to Cuba. Upon arriving there in mid-August, he found not only that Gálvez was in Spain but that he could expect few commissions as commercial agent because the port of Havana was closed to all foreign shipping. On 18 August Pollock wrote to Governor Miró at New Orleans, enclosing what apparently is the present copy of the Virginia delegates’ letter and its enclosure. In his acknowledgment of 18 October 1783 Miró blamed Pollock for not recognizing while in the United States that one of his “principal and most sacred obligations” had been to assure the repayment of those “generous citizens” of New Orleans who, by lending money on the security of bills of exchange drawn on the Penet Company, “have suffered enough by bearing with you for the long time of four years.” Miró apparently did not realize that the promises to pay, which were almost all that Pollock had been able to gain in Philadelphia and Richmond, applied to his creditors in New Orleans as well as to himself. The Virginia General Assembly had agreed to honor the bills on Penet as soon as their holders presented them in person or through their authorized agent. See ed. note above; also, Harrison to Speaker of the House of Delegates, 5 May 1783, in Executive Letter Book, 1783–1786, pp. 110–11, MS in Va. State Library; JHDV, May 1783, pp. 83, 85; Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., Spain in the Mississippi Valley, II, 77–78, 87–88, 91–92; James A. James, Oliver Pollock, pp. 280–92, 297, and n. 1, 306, n. 16, 335–37, and nn., 346. From 9 January to 10 November 1783, inclusive, Virginia paid to Pollock £3,608 9s. 10d. (Treasurer’s Book or Account of Payments Made Publick Creditors by the Treasurer, Jany. 1783 to Decr. 1785, unpaginated MS in Va. State Library).",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182897151690649600/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182892811080937472",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "Recovered Memories: Spain, New Orleans and Support for the American Revolution Opening",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1182892811080937472",
"published": "2020-12-08T03:53:42+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Recovered Memories: Spain, New Orleans and Support for the American Revolution Opening",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1182892811080937472/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1177324205240242176",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "Battle<br /><br />The enemy fleet was approaching. As dawn rose over the blue waters of the Caribbean, the captain could see the long lines of ships getting closer, their sails billowing. For months the fleet had sought a decisive battle. They had been tracking the enemy for days, pursuing them northward. Now the French had turned. The captain gave the order to beat to colors, and in a moment the deck was a bedlam of activity. Gun ports sprang open. Experienced hands wheeled heavy guns into position, while crewmen set cannonballs and casks of powder in place. Marines scrambled up into the rigging, taking positions high in the swaying masts to pick off officers and men on the opposing ships as they came in range. Men began pouring buckets of sand across decks that would soon be slippery and red with blood. It was 7:00 AM, April 12, 1782. The Battle of the Saintes had begun.<br />Origins<br /><br />Five times in the hundred years before the Battle of the Saintes, England and France had gone to war with each other, striving for command of the sea, and control of the trade that rode upon it. They had fought each other by land and sea from the sugar islands of the Caribbean to the distant ports of India and the icy waters of Hudson Bay. This time the British Empire stood divided. The English colonists in America had revolted, defying the British crown. In this war, a new nation would be born, the seeds of revolution would be planted in France and in Latin America, and the government of England itself would be forever transformed. For most of the war, the decisive theater of battle was the not the Thirteen Colonies, but the sunlit waters of the Caribbean. How did a war that began on Lexington Common spread to the shores of the Antilles and beyond? And how did the decisions of two men, gentlemen and admirals, shape the destiny of all the nations involved? These are questions this article will try to answer.<br /><br />Americans tend to forget that the Thirteen Colonies were but a part of a vast empire that stretched from the gray shores of Newfoundland to the jungles of Nicaragua and Guyana and the spice entrepots of India. The islands of the Caribbean, first revealed to European eyes by Columbus, were a vital part of that empire. The islands of the West Indies were rich in tobacco, coffee, and above all, sugar, and the nation that could garner the greatest share of this trade would have wealth beyond comparison.<br /><br />The American Revolution grew out of the long struggles between the British and the French that began in 1689. In the Seven Years War (1756-63), known in America as the French and Indian War, Britain inflicted a crushing defeat on the French. The English drove the French entirely off the North American continent. They broke the back of French power in India. Soon a new, British raj would spread across the subcontinent. The French had likewise been vanquished in the Caribbean, keeping only the sugar islands of Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Lucia, in the Lesser Antilles. Her Spanish Bourbon allies lost Florida to the British, albeit being compensated somewhat in the Peace of Paris by gaining the former French holdings in what would later be known as the Louisiana Territory, west of the Mississippi.<br /><br />The French almost got to keep Canada in the Treaty of Paris, in exchange for handing over the tiny island of Guadeloupe. It took the British parliament three weeks of earnest debate to decide that they would rather have Canada, with its fur trade. That the British chose to keep Canada was a triumph for the West Indian planters’ lobby. The planters had a monopoly on providing Britain and her colonies with sugar. The twenty or so members of Parliament who owed their seats to plantation money, the so-called Creolians, did not want Guadeloupe. Britain already held Jamaica, the most important sugar island. Further acquisitions would have glutted the British domestic market and made sugar prices fall.<br /><br />For the English colonists in America, the main result of the Seven Years War was that their traditional enemies, the French, were now removed from the scene. The colonists also gained a new level of cohesion and self confidence during the long war. Colonial leaders in the legislature and the militia learned to plan and coordinate large scale operations. They learned to cooperate with their counterparts in other colonies, and with the British military. Under the able leadership of William Pitt the Elder, the British government had accepted the colonial leaders as junior partners in the war, and had gotten results. But despite the final victory, the long war had been nearly ruinous for the British government. By 1763, England had spent £82 million to fight the war, leaving it with a crushing national debt of over £122 million. The British also estimated that it would cost another £300,000 a year to guard all their newly won possessions. George III’s advisors came to a simple, and to them, natural conclusion: the war had been fought to protect the British colonies in North America. As the colonies were the prime beneficiaries from the war it was only natural that they should pay their fair share of the tax burden to pay off the war debt. But from the time they were established in the early 17th century the colonies had for the most part governed themselves. Colonists elected their own colonial legislatures, staffed the militia, and checked the power of royal governors by controlling the purse strings. Now, when the British began instituting new taxes, on sugar, on molasses, on printed materials, tea, etc., the colonial leadership saw it as an assault on their traditional autonomy.<br /><br />Almost as bad, from the colonist’s point of view, the British began enforcing the mercantilist Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts had been on the books since the Dutch Wars of the 1650s. They required the colonies to trade solely with the mother country and other British dependencies. But for years they had been only sporadically enforced, and the New England colonies in particular did a thriving trade with the French, Dutch and Spanish colonies in the West Indies. Now the British began to enforce the rules with vigor.<br /><br />Here we see just how closely tied together the economies of the American and West Indian colonies were. Most of the smuggling was in three commodities: molasses, rum, and sugar. For years the French subsidized the slave trade with their colonies in the West Indies. This allowed the French sugar plantation owners to undercut British prices. If the Americans were free to do so they would naturally buy from the French. Molasses was used in distilling rum, which was a huge business in Boston, Newport, Philadelphia and elsewhere. British sugar planters couldn’t provide enough molasses to keep the distilleries running. Rhode Island distillers alone had to smuggle in two thirds of their molasses from French or Spanish sources. To cap it off, for years the French domestic brandy producers had used their political influence at the French court to keep distillers from importing rum into France. So French planters responded logically – they dumped their molasses on the market at a hefty markdown, making it even more attractive to American buyers. In short, the entire situation was a government regulated nightmare. It is no coincidence that Adam Smith came out with The Wealth of Nations , his watershed work advocating an end to these kinds of government monopolies, in 1776.<br /><br />But this didn’t help the American colonists. The colonists paid for products brought over from Britain by selling their own goods. The colonists had long been net exporters to England. But from around 1755 on, English manufactures tipped the balance of trade in Britain’s favor. Distilling allowed the American colonies to restore the balance of trade somewhat in their favor, by giving Americans a product they could sell to buy the goods they needed from England. Now British mercantile laws were strangling a significant portion of the colonial economy. It is not a coincidence that John Hancock and the other most vocal leaders of the Sons of Liberty were smugglers.<br /><br />The British now strove to impose their writ on the colonies, and stationed permanent garrisons there to make this happen. The hitherto autonomous colonials were outraged, and responded with riots and boycotts. In April of 1775 this escalated into armed resistance. The rebels, who proudly named themselves Patriots, were determined, organized, and fairly well led. British control collapsed with remarkable speed once the fighting began, with the main British garrison, in Boston, retreating to Canada by sea in March of 1776. Once it came to a fight rebel sentiment hardened. In July of 1776 the rebel colonists confirmed their defiance of the crown, proclaiming their independence from Britain as the United States of America.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1177324205240242176",
"published": "2020-11-22T19:06:02+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Battle\n\nThe enemy fleet was approaching. As dawn rose over the blue waters of the Caribbean, the captain could see the long lines of ships getting closer, their sails billowing. For months the fleet had sought a decisive battle. They had been tracking the enemy for days, pursuing them northward. Now the French had turned. The captain gave the order to beat to colors, and in a moment the deck was a bedlam of activity. Gun ports sprang open. Experienced hands wheeled heavy guns into position, while crewmen set cannonballs and casks of powder in place. Marines scrambled up into the rigging, taking positions high in the swaying masts to pick off officers and men on the opposing ships as they came in range. Men began pouring buckets of sand across decks that would soon be slippery and red with blood. It was 7:00 AM, April 12, 1782. The Battle of the Saintes had begun.\nOrigins\n\nFive times in the hundred years before the Battle of the Saintes, England and France had gone to war with each other, striving for command of the sea, and control of the trade that rode upon it. They had fought each other by land and sea from the sugar islands of the Caribbean to the distant ports of India and the icy waters of Hudson Bay. This time the British Empire stood divided. The English colonists in America had revolted, defying the British crown. In this war, a new nation would be born, the seeds of revolution would be planted in France and in Latin America, and the government of England itself would be forever transformed. For most of the war, the decisive theater of battle was the not the Thirteen Colonies, but the sunlit waters of the Caribbean. How did a war that began on Lexington Common spread to the shores of the Antilles and beyond? And how did the decisions of two men, gentlemen and admirals, shape the destiny of all the nations involved? These are questions this article will try to answer.\n\nAmericans tend to forget that the Thirteen Colonies were but a part of a vast empire that stretched from the gray shores of Newfoundland to the jungles of Nicaragua and Guyana and the spice entrepots of India. The islands of the Caribbean, first revealed to European eyes by Columbus, were a vital part of that empire. The islands of the West Indies were rich in tobacco, coffee, and above all, sugar, and the nation that could garner the greatest share of this trade would have wealth beyond comparison.\n\nThe American Revolution grew out of the long struggles between the British and the French that began in 1689. In the Seven Years War (1756-63), known in America as the French and Indian War, Britain inflicted a crushing defeat on the French. The English drove the French entirely off the North American continent. They broke the back of French power in India. Soon a new, British raj would spread across the subcontinent. The French had likewise been vanquished in the Caribbean, keeping only the sugar islands of Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Lucia, in the Lesser Antilles. Her Spanish Bourbon allies lost Florida to the British, albeit being compensated somewhat in the Peace of Paris by gaining the former French holdings in what would later be known as the Louisiana Territory, west of the Mississippi.\n\nThe French almost got to keep Canada in the Treaty of Paris, in exchange for handing over the tiny island of Guadeloupe. It took the British parliament three weeks of earnest debate to decide that they would rather have Canada, with its fur trade. That the British chose to keep Canada was a triumph for the West Indian planters’ lobby. The planters had a monopoly on providing Britain and her colonies with sugar. The twenty or so members of Parliament who owed their seats to plantation money, the so-called Creolians, did not want Guadeloupe. Britain already held Jamaica, the most important sugar island. Further acquisitions would have glutted the British domestic market and made sugar prices fall.\n\nFor the English colonists in America, the main result of the Seven Years War was that their traditional enemies, the French, were now removed from the scene. The colonists also gained a new level of cohesion and self confidence during the long war. Colonial leaders in the legislature and the militia learned to plan and coordinate large scale operations. They learned to cooperate with their counterparts in other colonies, and with the British military. Under the able leadership of William Pitt the Elder, the British government had accepted the colonial leaders as junior partners in the war, and had gotten results. But despite the final victory, the long war had been nearly ruinous for the British government. By 1763, England had spent £82 million to fight the war, leaving it with a crushing national debt of over £122 million. The British also estimated that it would cost another £300,000 a year to guard all their newly won possessions. George III’s advisors came to a simple, and to them, natural conclusion: the war had been fought to protect the British colonies in North America. As the colonies were the prime beneficiaries from the war it was only natural that they should pay their fair share of the tax burden to pay off the war debt. But from the time they were established in the early 17th century the colonies had for the most part governed themselves. Colonists elected their own colonial legislatures, staffed the militia, and checked the power of royal governors by controlling the purse strings. Now, when the British began instituting new taxes, on sugar, on molasses, on printed materials, tea, etc., the colonial leadership saw it as an assault on their traditional autonomy.\n\nAlmost as bad, from the colonist’s point of view, the British began enforcing the mercantilist Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts had been on the books since the Dutch Wars of the 1650s. They required the colonies to trade solely with the mother country and other British dependencies. But for years they had been only sporadically enforced, and the New England colonies in particular did a thriving trade with the French, Dutch and Spanish colonies in the West Indies. Now the British began to enforce the rules with vigor.\n\nHere we see just how closely tied together the economies of the American and West Indian colonies were. Most of the smuggling was in three commodities: molasses, rum, and sugar. For years the French subsidized the slave trade with their colonies in the West Indies. This allowed the French sugar plantation owners to undercut British prices. If the Americans were free to do so they would naturally buy from the French. Molasses was used in distilling rum, which was a huge business in Boston, Newport, Philadelphia and elsewhere. British sugar planters couldn’t provide enough molasses to keep the distilleries running. Rhode Island distillers alone had to smuggle in two thirds of their molasses from French or Spanish sources. To cap it off, for years the French domestic brandy producers had used their political influence at the French court to keep distillers from importing rum into France. So French planters responded logically – they dumped their molasses on the market at a hefty markdown, making it even more attractive to American buyers. In short, the entire situation was a government regulated nightmare. It is no coincidence that Adam Smith came out with The Wealth of Nations , his watershed work advocating an end to these kinds of government monopolies, in 1776.\n\nBut this didn’t help the American colonists. The colonists paid for products brought over from Britain by selling their own goods. The colonists had long been net exporters to England. But from around 1755 on, English manufactures tipped the balance of trade in Britain’s favor. Distilling allowed the American colonies to restore the balance of trade somewhat in their favor, by giving Americans a product they could sell to buy the goods they needed from England. Now British mercantile laws were strangling a significant portion of the colonial economy. It is not a coincidence that John Hancock and the other most vocal leaders of the Sons of Liberty were smugglers.\n\nThe British now strove to impose their writ on the colonies, and stationed permanent garrisons there to make this happen. The hitherto autonomous colonials were outraged, and responded with riots and boycotts. In April of 1775 this escalated into armed resistance. The rebels, who proudly named themselves Patriots, were determined, organized, and fairly well led. British control collapsed with remarkable speed once the fighting began, with the main British garrison, in Boston, retreating to Canada by sea in March of 1776. Once it came to a fight rebel sentiment hardened. In July of 1776 the rebel colonists confirmed their defiance of the crown, proclaiming their independence from Britain as the United States of America.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1177324205240242176/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1176985313975640064",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.brown.edu/Facilities/John_Carter_Brown_Library/exhibitions/florida/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3NKYqG4Chl7QkjYewF3sng8vNcA04Pp8K-H4J3HrocvGqO_WpxirEaSnA\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.brown.edu/Facilities/John_Carter_Brown_Library/exhibitions/florida/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3NKYqG4Chl7QkjYewF3sng8vNcA04Pp8K-H4J3HrocvGqO_WpxirEaSnA</a> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1176985313975640064",
"published": "2020-11-21T20:39:25+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.brown.edu/Facilities/John_Carter_Brown_Library/exhibitions/florida/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3NKYqG4Chl7QkjYewF3sng8vNcA04Pp8K-H4J3HrocvGqO_WpxirEaSnA ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1176985313975640064/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1176971045728440320",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1176971045728440320\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1176971045728440320</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1176971045728440320",
"published": "2020-11-21T19:42:43+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1176971045728440320",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/entities/urn:activity:1176971045728440320/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1172742536171626511/outboxoutbox"
}