Recently I read an article about the Continental Army in 1783 being bivouacked in Newburgh, New York. It had by that time almost defeated the British and was waiting there for back pay, promised pensions, etc.
The location struck me since I spent two years outside Newburgh, attending the Oblate Junior College. The years were from after my graduation from high school in 1947 till June of 1949. The college was a preparatory school for aspiring priests. I had at that time thought of following my brothers in becoming a priest. But after two years I decided it was not for me and went back to finish college in Philadelphia.
Newburgh is located on the Hudson River. Our school was above the city and below us on the Hudson the Franklin Delano Roosevelt family, I believe, owned some land. Below that was the West Point Military Academy. Across the river was another place we had visited, years before, Poughkeepsie. The visit was made when my brother Dick was studying there as a Jesuit seminarian.
The army bivouacked there was enraged. A letter circulated suggesting that they attack the Congress in Philadelphia for its failure to take care of back pay and pensions due. It was apparently written or fostered by General Gates. Washington learned of it and suggested a meeting about it with Gates being the one to run the meeting. However as the meeting began Washington surprised them and came. He asked them for permission to speak. He understood their grievance and would press them. He said many congressmen supported their claims, but that Congress moved slowly. And he warned that to follow the letter writer would serve the British cause. He then opened a letter he said was from a Congressman and tried to read it. Then he pulled out a pair of glasses! No one had ever seen him do that before. He said, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me, for I have grown not only gray but blind in the service of my country.” The officers were stunned. Many openly wept. Their mutinous mood gave way immediately to affection for their commander.
A committee was formed to carry out Washington’s wishes. True to his word Washington pursued the Army’s grievances before Congress and he won lump sum pension payments for them and disbanded the force.
The historian who wrote the article, John R. Miller, then goes on to expand the effect of this incident on the Congress and the forthcoming Constitution. He says, “Civilian control of the military soon became a central priority in the formation of the young Republic. The author notes “..six years later the new country adopted a Constitution that implicitly recognized civilian control. In the United States, it was the story of Newburgh and Washington’s iconic status in our early years that so firmly established a tradition of civilian control in the minds of both our military and civilians. That tradition continues as a testament to our first, finest, and most political general.”
That Civilian control is found in Art.II-Sec.2 in which the President is named the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and in Art.1-Sec.8 which reads: “Congress shall have the power to…provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States..to declare war…make rules concerning captures in land and water…to raise and support armies…to provide and maintain a Navy..to provide rules for calling for the military..”
What this has resulted is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel an invasion or counter an attack, without formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President. These two distinct roles that of the Congress and the President, bring up the interesting and important question: Can the United States be at war without a formal declaration of war? If we can then what is the point of a declaration? If not then what do we call hostilities without a formal declaration?
Since the Constitution was approved in 1787 we have seen many military actions. Unfortunately the civilian control has been spent more in the President as Commander in Chief or Commandant. It started with Thomas Jefferson sending the Navy to attack Pirate ships in the Mediterranean that had been attacking American merchant ships. It has continued recently with President Bush sending troops to Iraq to destroy terrorist and secure weapons of mass destruction that allegedly were being created in Iraq. In his State of the Union message in 2003 President Bush said to Congress, an “axis of evil consisting of Iran, North Korea and Iraq”. Moreover, Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraq government, because of the alleged threat of its “weapons of mass destruction.” Bush claimed, “The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade… Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.” Saddam Hussein claimed that he falsely led the world to believe Iraq possessed nuclear weapons in order to appear strong against Iran. As I recall General Colin Powell, who was then I believe Secretary of State, learned from the United Nations security council that the charges of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was not true. His communication of the same to President had no effect and probably caused his removal as Secretary of State.
In March of 2003 Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and the troops have been there since. None of the alleged reasons for the invasion proved to be true.
An interesting story of use of the title “Commander in Chief” is that while Roosevelt was commander in chief of the Armed Forces during WWII he attempted to get a discount on his real estate taxes since such was offered to Active Duty service men in those days. He was a refused! So for some the title Commander in Chief or Chief of the Armed Forces carried the weight of a “title” only!
April being “Tax Month” reminded me of an adage that I saw sometime ago, it is: “Most of us don’t realize how much we have to be thankful for until we have to pay taxes on it!’
My good friend, Sheldon Peterson, and leader of the Bible class I’ve attended over the last 10 plus years refers to me on occasion as a “Philadelphia Lawyer”. Today most lawyers don’t consider that as compliment but the title arose in 1735 with the acts of Andrew Hamilton, a Philadelphia lawyer. He voluntarily and without fee went to New York to represent Peter Zenger a publisher who had published remarks about how the Governor ignored the rights of many. The Governor’s name by the way was Cosby, but no relation to the comedian we know. He had judges arbitrarily displaced; new courts were erected, without consent of the Legislature, by which trials by jury were taken away when the governor was so disposed. Zenger publicized these acts of the Governor and he was charged with Libel. Hamilton created a new law in that he argued that the truths of the matters alleged as libel are not so when the person charged holds a Public Office. Truth is a defense. He was not permitted to prove that the alleged statements were true but the jury nevertheless acquitted Zenger and it established a new principle in the Law of Libel. As a result of his victory the idea of getting a “Philadelphia Lawyer” when you needed a good defender spread throughout the Colonies. His argument also became a principle in the Common Law i.e. that truth is a defense to a charge of libel when the person charged holds a Public Office.
Happily the weather continues to be Floridan and Spring-like. We hope it continues. Until next time, Pax Tecum!