Tumgik
#1794
ltwilliammowett · 17 days
Text
Tumblr media
Battle of the Glorious 1st June 1794, by William Griffin, 19th century
109 notes · View notes
jeannepompadour · 22 days
Text
Tumblr media
Portrait of a young woman in the grounds of the Villa Borghese, Rome by Augusto Nicodermo, 1794
75 notes · View notes
todaysdocument · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
An Act Making an Alteration in the Flag of the United States
Record Group 11: General Records of the United States GovernmentSeries: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of CongressFile Unit: Public Law, 3rd Congress, 1st Session: Alteration in the Flag of the United States, January 13, 1794
Third Congress of the United States AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Philadelphia, IN THE State of Pennsylvania, ON Monday THE SECOND OF December ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-THREE. An Act making an alteration in the Flag of United States. Be IT ENACTED BY THE Senate AND House OF Representatives OF THE United States of America, IN Congress ASSEMBLED, [handwritten] That from and after the first day of May Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and ninety five the Flag of the United States, be fifteen Stripes alternate red and blue. That the Union be fifteen Stars white in a blue field. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Adams [start bracket] Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. [end bracket] Approved January the thirteenth 1794 Go. Washington. President of the United States.
28 notes · View notes
digitalfashionmuseum · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
Oil painting, 1794, American.
Portraying Matilda Stoughton de Jaudenes in a white dress with gold details.
Painted by Gilbert Stuart.
Met Museum.
39 notes · View notes
artschoolglasses · 9 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Deux jeunes femmes s’embrassant, Louis-Leopold Boilly, 1790-94
139 notes · View notes
josefavomjaaga · 4 months
Text
Murat and Bessières at school
Still looking for something for @flowwochair, I came across this very brief remark in the memoirs of general Jean Sarrazin (more about him below):
When I was seven, my father took me to the college in Cahors, the capital of the Lot department. My father chose this college in preference to the one in Agen, on the advice of the Comte de Fumel, whose tenant he was. [...] I was raised with Murat, Bessières and Andral, with whom I was friends. Bessières was well-behaved, a little Cato. Murat was a scatterbrain, boisterous and concerned only with his own pleasures. He was a true Paris brat (gamin de Paris).
Now, I assume this author is a highly suspicious source. Not only because he, obviously, is yet another Gascon, but mostly because he, after having served in the Revolutionary and Imperial army, defected to the British in 1810, and supplied them with plenty of information on Napoleon’s plans and the most prominent leaders of his army. As a matter of fact, in 1811 he had a book published with descriptions of several prominent figures in France, called "The Philosopher", the first chapter of which is dedicated to Marshal Soult, who was probably the most interesting to the British due to him being their main opponent in Spain, and who in this book receives much more praise than is due to him. While much of it may be plain wrong or at least cannot be verified, I feel like it’s an interesting insight into what people in the army at the time thought about these folks.
Among other things, Sarrazin gives a long description of the battle of Fleurus, with some interesting twists. Mostly he claims that Lefebvre owed his reputation as a great general only to Soult, who at the time was his chief-of-staff, and even has general Marceau exclaim that Soult had won the battle of Fleurus for them. This is completely opposite to Soult’s own memoirs, where Soult has nothing but praise for Lefebvre’s actions during the battle of Fleurus, and barely mentions his own. However, there seems to be some truth to Soult coming to the aid of one rather desperate general Marceau, as Soult mentions this, too, though in a very different context.
The demand to detach some troops at a very inopportune moment is made in Soult’s memoirs as well – but not by Marceau, but by Saint-Just. And it’s not Lefebvre and Soult who refuse, but Jourdan (whom Soult praises a lot for having had the courage to stand up to what he calls "Saint-Just's presumptuous ignorance"). I am not sure in how far these memoirs are influenced by Soult’s own long life and his own political situation, but he clearly despises Saint-Just. According to his memoirs, the whole officers’ corps was shaking with fear while the politicians were with them, literally scared to death. In front of Charleroi, one artillery capitaine allegedly was executed for having failed to meet the schedule Saint-Just had set for him.
Again, I have no clue what this is based on. But I thought it worth mentioning, maybe somebody from the Frev community can shed some light onto this incident.
(Personally, I feel like Soult may be projecting here a little of "Joseph's presumptuous ignorance" onto another episode of his life 😋)
36 notes · View notes
michel-feuilly · 1 year
Text
Hi Max
Tumblr media Tumblr media
81 notes · View notes
nuclearbummer · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Goya was stricken with temporary madness in 1792, two years before he did this painting.
186 notes · View notes
soitamulle · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
happy new year!!
i almost missed the deadline for IWTV holiday card exchange but ✨didn't✨
this one is for suika <3
i had this screenshot saved on my phone for quite a while and couldn't locate the original tweet now, anyway happy to finally use this reference!
Tumblr media
(i too know nothing about this movie)
two more holiday cards are on their way in the mail, maybe i'll post photos of them once they've safely reached their destinations. i had previously thought i'd be home with absolutely nothing to do so i deemed it wise to promise 3 cards. HOWEVER i ended up traveling for 2 weeks and so cards were made hastily at the last possible moments. but i'm relieved i got them done in the end anyway :') i've also received some LOVELY holiday card art (both feat. armand & daniel !!!!!!) on twitter and it's made me so happy! this was such a sweet initiative & i'm thankful to the organizers <3 happy holidays!
11 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
▪︎ Cither viol.
Maker/Artists: Perry & Wilkinson (Irish, active 1787–ca. 1839)
Date: 1794
Place of origin: Dublin, Ireland
Medium: Maple, spruce, ivory, brass
68 notes · View notes
rightous-int · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
Bartosz Głogowski as Käärijä because of of them are the Best boys
Tumblr media Tumblr media
22 notes · View notes
ltwilliammowett · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Admiral of the Fleet Lord Howe's "Glorious First of June", gilt Anchor reward badge, 1794
Prior to the general award of naval medals, anchor badges are known to have been worn in commemoration of important naval victories. In his book ‘British Naval Medals’, Admiral Milford Haven states anchor badges ‘were originally made from captured bronze guns by order of Lord Howe, who distributed them amongst men who had distinguished themselves in the battle’. The present gilt example is presumed a model for wear by an officer of junior rank.
60 notes · View notes
inkotinko · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
old fanart from may i forgot to post
7 notes · View notes
nordleuchten · 11 months
Note
Hey there! :) Curious if you can share some information about the dishonor that Major Tousard speaks about in his letter to Georges de La Fayette / the situation surrounding that particular letter.
Dear @ouiouixmonami,
I happily will do that. You have to apologize that my answer is somewhat delayed – your question got, in the truest sense of the word, lost in translation. I translated the term “brother-in-law” wrong in my head while pounding your question and that in turn let me to search for a person that never existed – but now I am back on track. :-)
For everybody who does not know the context, the question was asked in relation to this letter from a Major Lewis/Louis de Tousard to Georges de La Fayette.
Major Lewis/Louis de Tousard had married Anna Maria in 1795. Geddes had a brother, Simon Geddes. Geddes (died 1807) entered the military and on July 31, 1794, George Washington wrote in a letter to the Senate of the United States:
I nominate the following persons as Company Officers and Surgeon and Surgeons Mates in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers.
“From George Washington to the United States Senate, 31 May 1794,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-16-02-0138. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 16, 1 May–30 September 1794, ed. David R. Hoth and Carol S. Ebel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011, pp. 165–166.] (05/10/2023)
Simon Geddes of Delaware was one of the names on the list and he was thus made a lieutenant in June of 1794. Geddes next appears in the records in February of 1795 when he confirms Captain Bruff’s representation of the character of William B. Smith. They all served in the same corps.
Simon Geddes was found guilty and was dismissed from service during a court-martial held on May 12, 1796 (the sentence was not pronounced until the 16th of May). The records are sadly lost so we do not what his misconducts were. Regardless of that, Geddes applied to James McHenry, then Secretary of War, on June 8, 1796 for a re-trial based on a procedural error. James McHenry explained the matter in a letter to George Washington on June 14, 1796:
It is declared, in the articles of war, vz. Art. 1. for the administration of justice, that, “General courts-martial may consist of any number of commissioned officers from five to thirteen, inclusively; but they shall not consist of less than thirteen where that number can be convened without manifest injury to the service.”
This article discovers great solicitude that general courts-martial should consist of the highest number of members it prescribes; and implies very strongly, that every number inclusively between five and thirteen, is to be sought for, and prefered to that of five. It does more. It expresly precludes five members from being considered as a constitutional general court-martial, whenever thirteen can be convened, without manifest injury to the service.
A general court martial therefore, which should consist of five members only, could not be held to be legal, unless it should be evident that more members could not have been added, so as to approach it to thirteen without manifest injury to the service.
Viewing the question in this aspect, it might be proper, that the fact should be ascertained, whether the situation of the garrison or corps at West-Point, (at the time when the court tried Lt Geddis) was such, as to render a limitation of its members to five an indispensible measure. (…) I would submit therefore the propriety of returning the proceedings to the commandant of the corps at West Point, with instructions to make the necessary investigation, and grant a new trial, if it should appear to him, that a greater number of members than five might have been convened at that time, “without manifest injury to the service.
“To George Washington from James McHenry, 14 June 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0199. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 287–289.] (05/10/2023)
In short, Geddes, who had been found guilty by a committee of only five men, argued that the situation at West-Point at the time was such, that more man could have taken part in his court-martial.
Washington replied to McHenry on June 22 and agreed with his assessment, the matter was to be returned to the commandant as West Point – but it only got more complicated from here on. On July 26, McHenry received a letter from the officers at West Point, requesting that Geddes was to be released and pardoned. James McHenry faithfully brought the matter before Washington on the same day and stated his opinion whether Washington was at all able to revoke the sentence passed by the court-martial since a new law had recently been passed:
I have also received this morning the inclosed letter, and representation from the officers at West-point, praying that Lt Geddis may be released from his arrest.
On this subject I would observe, That the act passed last session of Congress fixing the military establishment of the U.S. contains the following section.
Sect. 18. “And be it further enacted that the sentences of general courts-martial, in time of peace, extending to the loss of life, the dismission of a commissioned officer; or which shall, either in time of peace or war, respect a general officer, shall with the whole of the proceedings in such cases, respectively, be laid before the President of the U.S.; who is hereby authorised to direct the same to be carried into execution or otherwise as he shall judge proper.”
This clause was incorporated into the act in order to remove some doubts heretofore started respecting the power of the President to pardon certain military offences in time of peace.
For my own part, I have no doubt, that independent of this act, the President possesses the power to remit sentences of courts martial extending to the loss of life or dismission of a commissioned officer I consider that part of the act therefore as surplusage.
If however it was to serve as authority it would not apply to the present case; inasmuch as it has had no retroactive effect given to it. The sentence on Geddis was pronounced on the 16th of May; and the act in question passed on the 30th.
I look to a higher authority for the power of the President to remit sentences of courts-martial.
The constitution art. II. sect. 2. constitutes the President [“]commander in chief of the army and navy of the U.S.” and vests him with “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment.”
Congress cannot pass any regulations for the government of the land and naval forces which may intrench upon, invalidate or nullify this power to pardon offences against the United States.
If this is a true exposition of the constitution, the President may if he should think proper comply with the request in favour of Lt Geddis.
“To George Washington from James McHenry, 26 July 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0319. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 497–500.] (05/10/2023)
In his letter from August 1, Washington was in favour of both McHenry’s reasoning and Gedde’s acquittal. But even he was not completely sure how to best go about it and wanted to confer with the Attorney General. He wrote:
I have no objection to the releasement of Lieutt Geddis from his present arrest, at the request of those Officers who have asked it; But as the Attorney General will be at Philadelphia, I would have his opinion taken on the power of granting a pardon for the Offence of which he has been found guilty, and Cashiered; and the mode by which it may, with propriety, be accomplished: for it may be questioned, whether a remital of the Sentence of the Court, ought not to be preceeded by an act of approval, or rejection, as the foundation. At any rate some attention to the form (which I request may be given) will be necessary.
“From George Washington to James McHenry, 1 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0334. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 546–547.] (05/10/2023)
Charles Lee wrote on August 4 to James McHenry that:
The Attorney General is of opinion that the President of the United States has power to Pardon Lieutenant Geddes for the offence of which he has been found guilty, though the sentence of the court martial has neither been rejected or approved. The enclosed form may be used.
Notes of “To George Washington from James McHenry, 8 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0349. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 565–567.] (05/10/2023)
James McHenry transferred the Attorney General’s opinion and the filled-out form to Washington on August 8 and Geddes was pardoned on August 12, 1796 by Washington’s signature, based on the following:
in consideration of the youth and inexperience of Lieutenant Geddes and for divers other good causes
Notes of “To George Washington from James McHenry, 8 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0349. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 565–567.] (05/10/2023)
Geddes was ordered to return to his command. One should think that the story ends here and that Geddes, lucky to have escaped without any serious consequences, would stay clear of any trouble – well, no.
Tumblr media
Journal of the United States Artillery, Vol. 29, Artillery School Press, Virginia, 1908, p. 85.
After Geddes ultimate dismissal, Washington nominated a man named Robert Parkinson to replace Geddes and Parkinson did so on December 19, 1796.
With all that being said, I apologize for writing such a long post without really answering your question since I have no information on the original “dishounor” Tousard mentioned in his letter. But at least we know now that Simon Geddes managed to get himself in a whole lot of trouble.
I hope you have/had a beautiful day!
14 notes · View notes
digitalfashionmuseum · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
Oil Painting, 1794, French.
By Marie Thérèse Vincent de Montpetit.
Portraying Mademoiselle Lange, an actress, in a blue silk dress and red ribbon.
Robert Simon.
35 notes · View notes
artschoolglasses · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
The Actor Otani Oniji III as Yakko Edobei, Toshusai Sharaku, 1794
16 notes · View notes