Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Jack Jouett's Ride

 In my investigations of Virginia genealogy during the American Revolution, I come across the story of Jack Jouett's Ride.  The southern equivalent of Paul Revere's Ride.

Silhouette of Jack Jouett by his son.

His story, from Wikipedia.

Background: the British plan

 On June 1, 1781, British General Cornwallis, moving his troops From Petersburg to Goochland learned from a captured dispatch that Governor Thomas Jefferson and Virginia's legislature had fled from Richmond to Charlottesville, Virginia,   the location of Jefferson's home, Monticello. Members of Virginia's government had escaped to Charlottesville after Benedict Arnold, who had defected to the British, attacked Virginia's capital, Richmond. Cornwallis also learned the rebel colonists had stockpiled military supplies at the Old Albemarle Courthouse in Scott's Landing, then a settlement featuring a ferry across the James River (although superseded as the Albemarle County seat in favor of Charlottesville about a decade earlier).   Cornwallis ordered Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton to ride to Charlottesville and capture Governor Jefferson and the members of the legislature, and Colonel John Graves Simcoe to destroy the colonists' military supplies at Point of Fork and Scotts Landing. Legislators targeted for capture included Patrick HenryRichard Henry LeeThomas Nelson Jr., and Benjamin Harrison V.  

On June 3, Tarleton left Cornwallis's camp on the North Anna River  with 180 cavalrymen and 70 mounted infantry of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Tarleton marched his force covertly and planned to cover the last 70 miles to Charlottesville in 24 hours, a fast maneuver intended to catch the politicians completely unaware.  His orders from Cornwallis, however, were to first destroy the military supplies at Scott's Landing before General Lafayette and his men, marching from Baltimore, Maryland, could interfere.

Ride begins

Jouett, twenty-seven years old, lay asleep on the lawn of the Cuckoo Tavern (although an account by Thomas Jefferson says Jouett was at his father's house) in Louisa County, Virginia, on the night of June 3, 1781.  During the night, he heard the sound of approaching cavalry and spotted the "White Coats," Col. Tarleton's British cavalry. 

Jouett suspected that the cavalry was marching to Charlottesville to capture the members of Virginia's government. Jouett knew that the legislature was completely undefended. Very little fighting had taken place on Virginia soil from 1776 to 1780, so most of Virginia's forces were deployed elsewhere. The British had only recently begun significant campaigns in Virginia, so few forces were in the state except local militia. Jefferson and the legislators needed advance warning to escape. Jouett quickly mounted his horse and, at about 10 pm, began the 40-mile ride from Louisa to Charlottesville. With the British cavalry on the main highway, Jouett had to take the rough backwoods trails to the overgrown Old Mountain Road, likely traveling only with the light of the full moon. He needed to ride fast enough to outrun the British.  

Click the link for the rest of the story. 


History

Eruption of Vesuvius by Johan Christian Dahl

Eruption of Vesuvius by Johan Christian Dahl

Click to enlarge.

Offbeat Humor

An insight

Data Talks

I see wonderful things

 

To me, it's very disappointing.

 Ann Althouse, former constitutional law professor, has as her tag line, "cruel neutrality."  She claims to look at things dispassionately.  And by-and-large, she does.  She definitely has an academic's view of the world, but it is not a virulently radical view.  She is pretty solidly of the center.  

Her most recent post is "Ask yourself: do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?", an analysis of the content of Joe Biden's speech in Pittsburg.  

Joe Biden went to Pittsburg today, where he read a speech indoors. Here's the video. I can't tell if he has an audience. There's no engagement with any questioners. I don't really know how this is different from speaking from his own home, but it was presented in the press as an important occasion. The NYT says: "Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Monday issued a forceful rebuttal to President Trump’s misleading charges that he would preside over a country wracked by disorder and lawlessness...." I watched the first minute of the video, but it was too tedious. I was distracted by the metal grid behind him.

 So she goes to the text.  To the words.  Her specialty - words, language, structure, logic.

Viewed through those lenses, there is an awful lot of cruel neutrality applied to Biden's easy target speech.

So I'm just going to read the transcript and react to it for you as I read:

In recent days, we’ve had a lot of talk about who’s going where and how I’ve decided to come to Pittsburgh to talk a little bit about what’s going on right now....

So vague. Such a weak beginning. You'd think he'd specify what the talk was. Trump's going to Lake Charles, Louisiana and Kenosha, Wisconsin? If he'd specified, we'd know Trump's decisions were based on the hurricane and the Jacob Blake incident. But there's no reason for choosing Pittsburgh. It's just: Here I am in Pittsburgh, talking a little bit. There's a lack of drive and purpose.

It is pretty distinctly downhill from there.  A pedestrian speech written by a barely able speech-writer, weak on clarity, logic, argument, evidence, or inspiration.   Which she details.

As she proceeds, you realize, at least in this instance, reading with cruel neutrality is tantamount to reading brutally.  That is not a slap at Althouse.  It is a reflection of the quality of speech which she is reading.

She ends with an understatement.

So that's what the NYT called a "forceful rebuttal" to Trump. To me, it's very disappointing.

 

NPR reports, without evidence, that there is no evidence

 Back in May, I commented in Journalists broadcasting their reports without evidence on a new NPR tic.  Whenever reporting a claim by Trump, they now report his claim and then "without evidence."  It is a childish, annoying, and epistemically unsound tic.  He might be interpreting the evidence differently or he might be ignoring counter-evidence but rarely do people espouse something without some foundation for their belief.

All NPR was doing was signaling that they did not agree with his interpretation of the evidence.  But instead of providing counter-evidence, they were content to name call.  Dangerous for a company in the business of disseminating news and with the tag line "Stand With The Facts." They have become highly adverse to facts and are now reduced to the childlike taunt "back at you" instead of using their words and making an actual argument based on evidence, logic and reason.  

And as I suggested, it has become reflexive.  Nothing he says is quoted without the useless appendage "without evidence."  An unthinking framing.  

Which is just about the only explanation for: 

Click to follow the thread. 

Ignore the fact that NPR is asking for the President to take a stand on a legal case which has not been investigated or adjudicated yet (as if NPR did not understand that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.)  And ignore the fact that the three rioters (not protesters) were shot during a riot with mass looting and property destruction.  Protesting police brutality was not a factor in any of the event.

They just had to robotically report that the President refused to express an opinion on a state level legal case while "claiming, without evidence, that it appeared the gunman was acting in self-defense."

For a news company, NPR doesn't seem to be following the news.

There are multiple videos for Pete's sake.  You can see the movie you want to see.  NPR can interpret the video of the victim of mob violence fleeing his attackers and eventually shooting them as the aggressor.  But they cannot claim there is no evidence.  There is a surfeit of evidence.

The very next day, the New York Times, the private sector equivalent of NPR, did a frame by frame analysis of multiple videos in Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings.  Using their own formulation, does NPR believe that the New York Times is reporting without evidence.

I suppose NPRs review of the NYT might read something like:

The New York Times claims, without evidence, that "Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away."

The New York Times claims, without evidence, that "Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head."

The New York Times claims, without evidence, that "As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him." 

This is childish, petulant and reflexively misleading "reporting" by NPR.  We have a bombastic President who dramatically over-claims on many things.  We of course do need independent media to fact check him (and most politicians.)

But this puerile bad habit of claiming there is no evidence when there is in fact lots of evidence, is explosively bad for NPRs credibility.  The fact that the evidence is pretty compelling that the facts are different from what NPR wants to report is even more destructive.

What the video fairly clearly shows is a violent mob chasing a seventeen year-old, throwing things at him and assaulting him with a skateboard.  Might evidence emerge that he did something that warranted such pursuit?  Possibly.  But for the time being we have a lot of evidence and that evidence is highly suggestive that an innocent man defended himself from a violent mob.  And apparently NPR is desperate to deny that evidence.

The dose makes the poison

Paracelsus, writing in 1538, 


All things are poison and nothing is without poisononly the dose causes something not to be a poison.


(Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.)