Free Republic

"The Hessians – some still in their underwear, and nearly all with hangovers from too much Christmas Day celebrating . . ."

The Hessians were Calvinists, complete with chaplains graduated form the University of Marburg. They held prayer services on Wednesdays and Sundays. They did not celebrate Christmas with drinking, if they even celebrated Christmas at all!!!

I challenge anyone to find me an example of ovservant Calvinists in the eighteenth century who celbrated Christmas in such a manner.

" – were attempting to form ranks, but were quickly overrun."

Wrong. The three battalions in Trenton DID form up at pre-appointed rallying points. Rall's intention was to march out and meet the enemy, so he made no provision for defending the houses themselves. He lost because he decided to attack INTO the town again to recover the brigade's baggage. Had he cut his lossses, acknowledged defeat, and retreated, Washington would have captured nothing more than the brigade's cannons and supplies.

"Many fled in a panic. Hundreds surrendered."

One company of Knyphausen's battalion cut its way clear and escaped towards Bordentown. Hardly fleeing in panic. Another battalion, I think it was Lossberg's, was on the verge of making its escape as well, but was informed by a courier that the brigade was instructed to lay down its arms.

It continues to amaze me that the writers of "popular history" insist on perpetuating stories that actually DIMINISH Washington's achievement, by describing a victory over a diorderly band of drunkards. Eyewitness accounts from the Continental officers themselves tell a quite different story.

"Eighth, I ask you: Do you, especially you women, want the government to do all it can to encourage American women to put their full strength at work to support the war effort, and to release men for the front whenever possible. [Is that what you want?]"

Unemployment also helps "to release men for the front." So does unrestricted immigration from Mexico. One good thing about these guest workers is that they are coming here voluntarily at their own expense, rather than being conscripted from recently liberated nations.

The reduction of America's industrial base, therefore, and the government's refusal to halt the flow of illegals from Mexico are part of a comprehensive strategy for the War on Terror.

The outsourcing of software jobs to India etc. and corporate downsizing assure a higher quality of unemployed professionals and middle management will be included in the pool of potential recruits. Now that they have been relieved of their responsibilities in the private sector, they will be excellent raw material for replenishing the officer corps.

Obviously the Bush administration has thought out this whole campaign in the most minute detail.

I'm not sure I'd say that I am actually "left on FR." I really have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with these people.

Invincible ignorance really is -- well -- invincible.

There were also Africans in the British and French armies.

And even more obscure . . .
http://www.schistory.org/schm/bhessians.html

These are the major events planned for 2006. Some have links; some don't.

225th Anniversary of the Battle of Guilford Court House, Greensboro, SC, March 18-19
Http://www.march1781.org/

Washington-Rochambeau Weekend, Platt Farm, Southbury, CT, June 16-18

225th Anniversary of the Battle of Green Spring Williamsburg, VA, July 15-16
Http://www.battleofgreenspring.org/

225th Anniversary of the "Grand Forage", Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, NY, July 22-23

225th Anniversary of the Siege of Yorktown, Yorktown, VA., October 19-22
Http://siegeofyorktown.org/

The Southbury and Ward Pound Ridge events should be rather large (by AWI re-enacting standards) even though no battles were actually fought on these sites.

The official name for the annual commemoration is "Battle Road". The schedule for this year's event can be seen at
http://www.battleroad.org/events.html

And, yes, you are correct about the French muskets. They arrived only after the war had already started. It is possible, however, that there may have been a couple of old pieces that had been captured during the French and Indian War.

There are several re-enactments of the 1781 battles this year, including Guilford Court House and Yorktown. If you wish, I can provide links.

"Trenton's 1,400 Hessian defenders were groggy from the previous evening's festivities."

The Hessians were strictly observant German Reformed (i.e., Calvinists), who would customarily sing psalms and chorales on the march and in battle. Each battalion has its own chaplain, and prayer services were held on Wednesdays and Sundays. They were not a band of drunken pirates.

As Calvinists, they did not celebrate Christmas in the same way that American propagandists have described. Some of the more extreme Calvinists (e.g. Oliver Cromwell) even considered such celebrations blasphemous, and a residue of Popish paganism.

Trenton was an exposed salient, lacking any close support from other posts, with the men of the garrison exhausted and on constant alert. While Colonel Rall may have been drunk or hung over, the men and other officers assuredly were not.

The major reason for Rall's defeat was that he did not make any provision for using the houses of Trenton as defensive positions, but rather established a routine whereby the three battalions were to form up at pre-arranged places des armes. This routine was based on the flawed assumption that the brigade would then move OUT of Trenton to encounter the enemy. Rall, relying exclusively on the competence of his outposts, made no provision for defending the town itself.

So when the alarm was sounded, the battalions attempted to assemble according to plan. But this was hampered by cannister from well-sited American battalion pieces.

And as if this were not bad enough, after the battalions were formed, Rall decided to try and RETAKE the town, rather than cut his losses, break out of the encirclement, and fall back on von Donop who had the rest of the grenadier brigade at Bordentown.

About one third of the total command DID break out of the encirclement, and another third might have been able to had they not received the pre-emptive command to surrender after Rall was mortally wounded.

Grogginess had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And it astounds me that "historians" continue to belittle Washington's military prowess by ignoring what he actually DID do (a successful atttack by converging columns under extremely adverse conditions) and replacing it with the myth of Hessian drunkenness.

Compared to what has passed for Church music sinice V-2, yes, Verdi is conservative.

I did a quick search to see if there might be any recordings of music by Georg Ratzinger. Unfortunately, I did not find any. I did, however, locate several recordings where he conducts the Regensburger choir.

The choice of pieces is decidedly conservative.

I generally only visit if summoned to one of the royalist threads.

Russia started to lose its lofty principles when the Russian ambassador was permitted to stand at a playing of la Marseillaise. I am fairly certain that this was in the very late nineteenth century.

After that, it's a small step to supporting Serbian regicides.

But history plays tricks. So the French monarchy was bankrupted by its support for the American rebels, only to be toppled later by its own rebels, with the ungrateful Yankees cheering on the executioners of their former beneficiary.

Sort of like the Americans supporting the mujahadeen against the Russians in Afganistan, only to have them turn on us.

"Recall though that it was the Germans who shipped Lenin at al on a sealed train into Russia."

The war started because the Tsar's government supported Serbian regicides. While I do not approve of the deal with Lenin in the least, it has a sort of tragic poetic justice to it.

Of course, the Pope is correct in his assessment of rock-n-roll. It is the result of, and cause of, mental disorder.

In 1996, Cardinal Stickler celebrated the Tridentine Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The church was filled to overflowing, with people standing in the aisles. An article describing the event appeared on the front page of the Metro section of the New York Times.

So there's this little country, and it sponsors terrorists. But because it has big tough friends, it figures that it can get away with this.

Seems I've heard this story somewhere before . . .

How does Serbia's support and protection of the Black Hand differ qualitatively from Afganistan's support for al Qaeda?

Didn't a recent American president launch missiles against a sovereign state (without a declaration of war) because of its ALLEGED involvement in a plot to assassinate one of our ex-presidents.

How about that whole U.S.S. Maine deal?

And why is Pershing's incursion into (or invasion of) Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa justified?

Or is it that one set of laws applies to the U.S. and another set to Austria-Hungary?

You cannot make sense of the American legal system. It is complete sophistry. Words do not mean what we laymen think they mean. Rulings are inconsistent and depend predominantly on the disposition, philosophy, or ideology of the presiding judge.

Because of this, it is almost impossible to really "know" where you stand on any given legal issue.

The Sciavo affair seems to me (but, hey, what does a mere layman know?) to be a very straitforward issue of violation of contract -- specifically, the marriage contract. Michael had an adulterous affair, which would be grounds in any court in the country for a divorce. But Terri was physically incapable of launching such a civil suit.

Nevertheless, this evil, evil man was permitted to exercise jurisdiction over his wife as part of that very same marriage contract, and effectively order her execution! Now substantial evidence that suggests he physically abused her prior to the onset of her terminal disability.

So all you have to do in order to violate a contract with impunity is disable the other contracting party to the point where he or she is incapable of starting a civil suit.

But this is just one example of how the law has become essentially meaningless. People are arguing this issue from the perspectives of right to life vs. right to die. That's not the issue at all.

It's about contracts, and it demonstrates that agreements are unenforceable unless you have sufficient financial resources to shepherd a case through the entire appeals process. Basically, it's rich man's justice. The only exception to this is when you become an "enemy of the state", such as Martha Stewart.

In this, at least, socialist critics of the American "legal" system are right. If there is ever justice for "the little guy" this usually occurs only because it is in the interests of the state to do so.

The essential legal problem with Lincoln's view of the Union is that it is an hereditary contract that binds third parties (non-signatories) and cannot be broken even in the event of non-compliance by one of the contracting parties (i.e. the federal government). The other word for such a contractual arrangement is slavery.

I agree entirely about George III.

The sovereigns who had been deposed were generally the most morally upright of their respective lines -- Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II -- thus proving that nice guys finish last.

Nobody ever messed with Vlad the Impaler.

" . . . are not the United States of America still the rightful property of the British Crown?"

While I would have supported the Loyalist cause (as all good New Jerseyans did, including our governor William Franklin), the Treaty of Paris did legally grant independence to the colonies. It's ironic, but accurate, to claim that the legitimacy of the United States was guaranteed by the King of England.

If there is any usurping that was done, it was in the triumph of Lincoln's central government over the Confederates States. Thereafter, the federal government has been like a black hole, absorbing our rights one after another.

"The Spanish Civil War . . . is often described as the last purely idealistic cause of the twentieth century."

I agree

Viva Don Francisco Franco, General de los heroicos ejercitos y Caudillo de España por la gracia de Dios.

Certainly in Austria there is, just as there was in Jacobin France.

It is instructive to note that the same nation that had no objection to an ex-SS officer being president continued to uphold the prohibition against the Habsburgs returning to their homeland. At least we know whom the current illegitimate goverment's REAL enemies are.

Did you know that the current national anthem of the "Republic of Austria" is one of Mozart's masonic songs? Utterly deplorable.

The modern Austrian government fears the Habsburgs because it understands rightly that it is illegitimate two times over. Now if the FPÖ were to be in charge, perhaps that would be another matter.

In any event, The wording of the article suggests that the claim was presented under the wrong jurisdiction, rather than that it is denied without recourse. Perhaps the claims should be pursued through EU administrative channels.

If Jewish emigrants can make claims against Germany and Austria on the basis of being "Holocaust Survivors" then certainly the Habsburgs have a right to make a claim for restitution on the same basis.

Unless, that is, there is one law for Jews and another for Gentiles.