The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
27 votes

The Commander in Chief, 1775

This is (finally) and update to the January 26 post, "Who's the Commander?"

The Commander is none other than George Washington, Commander in Chief of the Continental Army.

Below is a diorama in the lobby of the Commander Hotel in titled "Washington Takes Command - July 3, 1775, Cambridge Massachusetts." The diorama depicts


Across the street in the Cambridge Common, where Washington took command, is this memorial:


It reads:

JULY 3, 1775.

In the Background behind the marker, you can see the Commander hotel. Just a few feet away, are the cannon left behind in Boston, after Washington chased the British out of town!


This one reads:

MARCH 17, 1776

There is so much more to see! Hopefully you can make it to Boston someday and see it all in person. Here. Where it all began. I am so fortunate that I see these markers as I go about my business every day in Boston and the surrounding area.

These are my postcards to you, so that you may share a little of my world and deepen your knowledge of history and appreciation of how our country came into being.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

History is like a DNA double helix

... our liberty rloveution requires new leaders with steel in their spines and with the discipline of our Founding Fathers.

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

- George Wasington

Whiskey Rebellion

What's your opinion of Washington's behavior here?

Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax.

It's strange to me how all these historical spots are just

little markers here and there. In Texas, we make everything a shrine and build huge monuments. These little markers in Boston look like the historical markers on the side of the road in Texas for small Indian skirmishes or an old flour mill. I find it depressing this is all MA will do for these great historical spots.

Awesome history lesson!

Thanks for sharing a little piece of real American history, I'll never forget the somber feeling I had the first time I visited Gettysburg, National Battlefield Memorial and Yorktown,VA, these places are hallowed ground and deserve our remembrance as we true patriots face the looming potential threat of future bloodshed in our great country. "...a republic if we can keep it".

I love these posts!

And have been following all of them....but dude, am I the only one that wants to see a picture of the tree?

Is the tree still there?

ytc's picture

Yes, I would also love to see how "this tree" looks like now!

I am unfamiliar with the branching pattern of the tree leaves of the tree right behind & above GW on the painting (pic #1). Did the painter morph the branch to look like palm leaves (for biblical nuance) right around GW? I wonder.

Michael N, please do continue to introduce us to more of Boston's relics from the past. We need to beef up our(i.e. DP's) revolutionary genealogy to claim our inheritance of freedom ;-)

Here is a photo of a walnut.

English colonists often planted Persian (english) walnuts for food.

The 9 leaflets and the big green husked nut are two giveaways.

Free includes debt-free!

ytc's picture

Thanks for the photo & info, Paul_S.

Wikipedia says that Alexander the Great introduced this "Persian nut" from Iran & Central Asia to Macedonian & Greek in the 4th century BC. And that English colonists brought it to the Americas in the 17th century. So the walnut tree, under which Washington first took command of the American Army in 1775, was still relatively new "novelty item" at the time.

Love History

I will have to check this out next time in Boston, thank you for posting.

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

There is no duration defined in the Oath

I'd like to know what Friends of Liberty think of this:

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray N. Rothbard

As this link was given to me on the DP and I had never before heard George Washington disparaged,the informataion often still causes me to wonder.

Michael Nystrom's picture

That's Rothbard for you

He had some pretty strange ideas.

Here's another:

But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.

Is woman sovereign or not?

If she is not then that State may interfere by demanding or financing abortion.

But many a sovereign state reserves the right to execute its citizens and others with or without due process.

Walter Block accepts the argument but adds that the mother can evict but cannot kill.

A sheriff may evict a squatter but not kill them in the process.

The US evicted over two million from Iraqis and aborted near a million more.

The criminal in the room is the regime that has no rights that the people do not possess. IMO.

Free includes debt-free!

Or is the child a laboratory animal? "Likewise, Block proposes that medical experimenters can treat the embryos they have in their possession as laboratory "animals", as is their desire, contingent on only one stipulation: that no one else wishes to raise these very young infants on their own. If there are adoptive parents who wish to homestead the right to care for the children, their rights trump those of the ceators of the fertalized egg since the former wishes to protect the child from harm, while the latter does not."

That almost sounds like a horror movie from the 50's/60's. I can hardly believe that a man named Block thinks it is ok to treat human life like a laboratory animal with the stipulation that no one else wishes to raise the very young infants.

With that logic you might as well say, if no one else wishes to protect Iraq then the US can do as it pleasess/sarc

Apparently no one wishes to protect Iraq.

But the question remains. is a woman sovereign?

For example, can government demand a woman abort a fetus.

Roe vs Wade concluded that woman was sovereign. Government could neither enforce or finance abortions.

If one Sovereign can write laws affecting woman, then woman is not sovereign.

But, it is beyond our ability to evict without applying deadly force.

Free includes debt-free!

So am I not understanding Block?

If an eviction results in death, then eviction is not allowable?

I admit, I can be slow to understand :)

That's what I heard. Ilistened a couple times to see if I agree.

"If an eviction results in death, then eviction is not allowable?"

But, that is my current opinion, also.

I also stand for woman as sovereign.

Personally, pregnancy is not an issue in my jurisdiction.

Free includes debt-free!

You know, so much of this stuff is new to me.

I suppose if Rothbard had been running for president I would not have looked twice. This is what won me to Ron Paul:

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

I suppose you would call it a litmus test of sorts. I suppose we all have our own. I suppose also that republicans use that litmus test to garner political power.

The plight and exploitation of the unborn and their mothers...used for political gain and profit. What a shame.

I have never known what to really think about that Rothbard piece on Washington. I think this phrase:

"above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

is what has bothered me the most. Who in their right mind would want to whip someone 500 times? Could someone even live through that kind of punishment? Why not just shoot them in the head and be done with it? It seems a lot more human than 500 lashes. But what do I know of the 18th century? Not much.

I have always felt George Washington to be the Beloved Father of My Country, so that piece bothers me.

Now I wonder about Rothbard. Thanks, Michael, for the info. I know it is there for the reading. There is just so much to know about.


Thank you for another

Thank you for another informative link!

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry

Denise B's picture

I didn't fully

Read the entire link, but it became obvious fairly early on that it was definitely a "hit piece" designed to cast Gen. Washington in a very nagative light. Is what he is saying true and unbiased? Very hard to know because the author does not source many of his statements of facts and the truth does remain that Washingon was a much loved, admired and revered person by those who knew him as well as by the American public of his time period...I'll take this one with a grain of salt.... ;)


I don't know what to think, that is why I threw it out here on this Washington Post hoping someone might have additional explanation. This article is completely outside of my comfort zone, but so is the fact that the Republicans and the Democrates have been 2 sides of the same coin and that it is most likely that all my years of voting for president have been in the dark...except last year when I wrote in Ron Paul knowing full well who I was voting for since his voting record spoke volumes.

There is also information here about the Constitution: , which I was unable to stomach since I had never before read any words like them. It seems also that Hamilton wanted a national bank and that is why he pushed the constitution. So I don't really know what to think anymore and sometimes I rather not know.


Tree depicted in diorama appears to be a walnut 100 years old

A three hundred year old specimen would be magnificent.

The branches in the photo are similar to the two I see out my window.

Thanks Michael.

Free includes debt-free!

Michael Nystrom's picture

I have a picture of the tree, too

I don't think it is the same tree. It seems too small, so I didn't post it. Maybe I'll put it up later.

Thanks Michael

These photos give me goose bumps.

LL on Twitter:
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Denise B's picture

Thanks again

Michael for posting these necessary reminders of where we came from as a nation and the people who made it happen. I have such a bitter-sweet feeling when I see and visit monuments such as these. I always experience such a deep sense of gratitude and admiration of the brave patriots who fought and gave their lives to birth this great nation, and at the same time also experience an overwelming sense of loss and sorrow to see what this nation has become. I truly do pray that it is not too late to get back what we have lost.

My dog,

wanted to say hi to your dog! :)

Denise B's picture


Aawww! What a cutie!! Casey says hello! :)

The Diamond Dog would like to say hello as well


The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Denise B's picture


Hello there ;)

Really cool stuff Michael!

Great job.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Thanks Michael!

I'm always amazed when I see stuff like this how 'fast' events happened back then.

Serious gun confiscation began in April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord.

By July 3rd, an Army was raised and Washington takes command of it.

By March 17th, the British had fled Boston.

It took 3 months without modern communications technology to rally enough support for approval of an Army to stand against the King and to form it.

8 months later, the most formidable Army and Navy on the planet had been sent packing in retreat. (for that part of the war at least)

And what makes this even more impressive, is that save for a few early battles, this protracted siege consisted of only sporadic sniper fire and minor skirmishes.

It was the move by Washington to secure heavy artillery to cut off the water supply route that forced the British to evacuate.

I'm comforted when studying this war against the claims of fear from those of today that American patriots would not "stand a snowball's chance" against our own armed forces.

If we did it before, we can do it again if we are left no other choice.