George Washington Revolutionary War letter up for sale on Presidents' Day
The letter, acquired by the Raab Collection, was written during the Revolutionary War, when the British took the war to Danbury, Conn., and raided the supply depot and burned military stores and equipment.
The British encountered little resistance when they got to the town, but the local colonists formed 'a hastily assembled, self-armed form of militia,' and gathered in the surrounding towns to prepare for a counterattack.
When the British tried to withdraw, they faced a two-hour battle before the British were able to advance.
The British claimed victory, but Washington — in his 1777 letter — said he saw in the colonists' resistance a spirit of a new nation willing to take up arms against its oppressor. He suggested the British might take greater caution before making similar decisions in the future.
'I am inclined to believe they [the British] will pursue such measures with a great degree of caution,' Washington wrote in the letter. 'For tho' they afforded themselves the stores at Danbury, yet it was with considerable loss and they are convinced whenever they make an impression, the Country will recur to arms.'
A press release from the Raab Collection, located outside of Philadelphia, described the letter as one 'that goes to the heart of the American Revolution and the spirit of the colonists to take up their own arms to fight off the oppressors.'
'This is a powerful expression of the spirit of the American uprising from the mind of its Commander in Chief and future first President, a truly remarkable find and an evocative piece of our national history,' said Nathan Raab, president of The Raab Collection said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it's so challenging for Trump to fire Powell
A firing of Jerome Powell by President Trump would likely open up a legal war never before seen in the US, without any guarantee of a courtroom victory for the White House. That may be why Trump hasn't done so. Yet. Powell has made his intentions clear. He said earlier this year that he wouldn't leave if Trump tried to fire him and that his removal is 'not permitted by law.' Fed officials privately have been preparing for a legal battle as far back as Trump's first term, when the president also toyed with removing the chair, according to the Wall Street Journal. The strength of Powell's case is based on some protections of Fed autonomy already embedded in US statute. The Federal Reserve Act, which created the central bank in 1913 and was amended in 1935, states that each member of the Fed board shall hold office for 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President." The intention of the "for cause" condition was to enhance the Fed's independence by making it more difficult for a president to fire its board members, who are appointed by the president. There are also signs that the Supreme Court would step in if Trump were to act, although the high court's views on the topic are unclear. In an ambiguous ruling earlier this year, Supreme Court justices allowed Trump to temporarily proceed with the firings of board members at two other independent agencies. In granting the administration's request, the court said that in its judgment, the government "is likely to show" that the fired board members exercised "considerable executive power," a view that suggests the president possesses broader power to remove the officials at will. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Legal challenges from those board members are still playing out at an appeals court. But Powell got a good sign Thursday when a Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled that another Trump firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was illegal and that she should be reappointed. The judge cited a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits the power of the president to dismiss independent agency board members except in cases of neglect or malfeasance. That precedent offers Powell a layer of protection. It was set in a 1935 case titled Humphrey's Executor v. US that challenged President Franklin Roosevelt's termination of the US Federal Trade Commissioner. The court held that the president's authority to terminate agency officials at will was limited to purely executive officers, and not those leading independent agencies that engage in regulation and adjudication. Congress, the court said, had power to limit the president's removal power over those officials "for cause" — then described that term to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Trump is challenging whether that precedent applies across various independent agencies, but the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on whether it should stand. If the precedent falls and leaves no explicit protection for the central bank, a Powell firing could certainly be a lot easier to pull off. 'For cause' Powell does have one major vulnerability, however. That 'for cause' language embedded in the Federal Reserve Act hasn't really been defined or tested in court. The statute also doesn't have any language that specifically addresses the chair of the Board of Governors. And the White House has been using a new line of attack against Powell that could offer a path to a 'for cause' dismissal, as the president and his allies raise concerns about a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters. "I mean it's possible there's fraud involved with the $2.5 billion renovation," Trump told reporters on Wednesday, after saying earlier that the project "sort of is" a fireable offense. He said he wasn't planning to fire Powell but also left the door open, saying, "I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.' National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett — one of Powell's potential successors — said last Sunday on ABC News's "This Week" that whether the president has the legal authority to fire Powell before his term is up next May "is being looked into" and that "certainly, if there's cause, he does." But he also acknowledged it was a 'highly uncertain legal matter.' Politico reported that outside lawyers told the White House counsel's office it would likely lose a legal fight with Powell if Trump removed Powell solely over accusations that he mishandled renovations and that White House officials were also unsure whether it would work. Politico quoted one official who said, 'Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know. But is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah.' The White House is certainly showing no signs of letting up on its pressure. They are seeking a site visit to see the Fed's renovations in person. Powell has asked the Fed's inspector general to review the costs involved. He also sent White House budget director Russ Vought a letter Thursday offering a point-by-point rebuttal of questions raised about the project and denying reports of a VIP elevator and VIP dining rooms. "We take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources," he said, and "we have taken great care to ensure the project is carefully overseen.' Case Western Reserve University business law professor Eric Chaffee said he thinks Powell would win any legal battle with the White House on the 'for cause' clause, but he doesn't think such a confrontation will come to pass given that Powell only has 10 months left as chair. "We're just so close to the end of the term that I think the Trump administration is very likely just to wait things out,' he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's 50-day Ukraine ultimatum is doomed to fail
President Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Ukraine war within 2 4 hours of returning to the White House. Now back in the White House, he finds himself hemmed in by the realities of great-power politics. Trump's self-confidence has collided with the entrenched dynamics of a grinding conflict. Frustrated, he has turned to familiar tools of coercion: threats, pressure tactics and a new flow of advanced weapons to Kyiv. Trump's latest initiative gives Moscow a 50-day deadline to end its war in Ukraine. He has threatened secondary sanctions on Russia's key trading partners and opened a fresh weapons pipeline to Kyiv, hoping this twin-pronged approach will force Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand. But like Trump's earlier attempts to employ brute pressure as a substitute for diplomacy, this initiative reflects impatience more than strategic clarity. Trump once believed that his personal rapport with Putin, coupled with a dealmaker's instinct, could bring about a ceasefire. But six months into his new term, his peace push lies in tatters. Russia continues to press its territorial ambitions, while Ukraine, bolstered by Western military support, shows little interest in making major concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump faces a deepening quagmire. The irony is unmistakable — the president who pledged to end America's entanglements in ' forever wars ' is now escalating U.S. involvement in one that is deflecting American attention away from more-pressing strategic challenges, including from China, which is seeking to supplant the U.S. as the world's foremost power. Trump's new Ukraine strategy bears an eerie resemblance to his Iran policy, when he tried to bomb Tehran into submission, only to end up entrenching animosities further and weakening U.S. leverage. There is no doubt that ending the war in Ukraine is in America's strategic interest. The conflict has absorbed vast U.S. resources, diverted diplomatic bandwidth and strained transatlantic cohesion. More importantly, the war has delayed Washington's ability to focus on the key Indo-Pacific region — the world's emerging economic and geopolitical nerve center. The pivot to the Indo-Pacific is not merely aspirational. A leaked memorandum titled 'Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance,' signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, identifies China as the Pentagon's 'sole pacing threat.' The Trump administration is seeking to reorient the U.S. military posture to prepare for a potential showdown in Asia over Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan. The war in Ukraine, by draining American attention, resources and capabilities, undermines this rebalancing. Seen from this angle, Trump is right to seek an end to the conflict. But his approach — escalating arms transfers while threatening punitive sanctions on countries that do business with Russia — is unlikely to yield peace. If anything, it risks prolonging the war by reinforcing the belief in Kyiv that Washington remains committed to a military solution. In fact, Trump's threat to impose harsh penalties on Russia's trading partners lacks credibility. Such sanctions would trigger a U.S. showdown with China, which trades nearly $250 billion annually with Russia, including major oil and gas imports. Sanctioning India could upend America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power. History offers little support for the notion that coercion alone can deliver durable peace. Military pressure may bring parties to the table, but diplomacy is what cements outcomes. The Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, and the Camp David Accords, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel, were both products of tough negotiations rather than deadlines and threats. Trump's maximalist tactics risk backfiring on multiple fronts. Sanctioning Russia's trading partners could alienate crucial 'swing' nations in the global contest with China. These states are already wary of U.S. unilateralism, and some of them could be pushed into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, punitive economic measures often fail to change state behavior, especially when national security interests are at stake, as is the case for Russia in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a flood of advanced new U.S. weapons to Ukraine may boost short-term battlefield performance but will do little to bridge the wider diplomatic impasse. Putin, faced with increased Western backing for Kyiv, is unlikely to scale back his goals. Instead, he may double down, calculating that time and attrition are on his side. The real path to peace in Ukraine lies not in deadlines or ultimatums, but in a forward-looking diplomatic initiative that recognizes the legitimate interests of all parties while seeking to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration made limited overtures in this direction, but Trump, who claims to be a great dealmaker, has an opportunity to go further. Instead of trying to impose peace through pressure alone, he must find ways to bring both sides to the table — with credible inducements and face-saving compromises. This will require working with international partners — not just NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and the United Arab Emirates that can serve as mediators. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. None of this is easy, but it is more likely to succeed than a strategy built on coercion and deadlines. Despite promising to end the war quickly, Trump now finds himself caught in the same bind as his predecessor. His failure to secure a ceasefire has deepened America's involvement in the war — the very entanglement he vowed to end. Unless he pivots toward a more diplomatic course, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will go the way of his 24-hour pledge: unmet and quietly shelved. Deadlines don't make peace. Diplomacy does.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Third Biden aide refuses to answer Oversight questions: Comer
A third aide who served former President Biden while he was in the White House has refused to testify before a congressional panel, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Friday. Comer in a post on X said it was 'unbelievable' that Annie Tomasini, who served as deputy director of Oval Office Operations, and others refused to answer 'basic questions about … Biden's fitness to serve.' 'It's apparent they would rather hide key information to protect themselves and Joe Biden than be truthful with the American people about this historic scandal,' Comer said. 'There needs to be transparency and accountability, and we will continue to pursue the truth and examine options to get the answers we need,' he added. Comer said Tomasini invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked if she was instructed to lie about Biden's health or the handling of classified documents found in his garage. She was also asked if the former president or anyone in the White House instructed her to conceal or destroy classified material found at Biden's home or office, and if she ever conspired with anyone in the White House to hide information regarding the Biden family's business dealings, the Republican lawmaker added. Earlier this week, Anthony Bernal, informally known as former first lady Jill Biden's 'work husband,' refused to testify before the Oversight panel as did Kevin O'Connor, Biden's former doctor, earlier this month. The White House and Comer allege that Biden staffers helped cover up the former president's cognitive decline at the end of his term in office. Both Biden and Bernal have rejected the accusations. 'Most recently, the Committee seeks Mr. Bernal's testimony based on a purported controversy regarding use of the autopen at the conclusion of President Biden's term. President Biden has already confirmed that he personally made all decisions concerning his grants of clemency,' Bernal said in a statement sent to The Hill. 'While the Committee only recently began its autopen investigation, the Chairman has already declared that this matter is ' the biggest scandal in Oval Office history,'' he added. The former president shared similar sentiments during an interview published Sunday by The New York Times. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he told the news outlet.
