Showing posts with label 1775. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1775. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Sunday, March 5, 1775. The Boston Massacre.

In Boston, a young wigmaker's apprentice began a pestering British sentry about an allegedly unpaid barber bill, although the bill was paid in fact and the officer produced a receipt. Applying a universal rule about harassing people with guns being a bad idea, sort of like at Kent State many years later, a British soldier tired of the event and butted the kid was his musket.

A crowed soon gathered, somebody yelled "Fire", perhaps because Church Bells were ringing which was a fire alarm, and the troops fired their muskets, killing five.  This is also reminiscent of Kent State.

The troops went on to be defended in a trial by John Adams.

Last edition: 

Friday, March 3, 1775. A British ship.

Monday, March 3, 2025

Friday, March 3, 1775. A British ship.

The Virginia Gazette alerted the citizens of James City County, Virginia that an armed British ship was at the ferry landing at Kingsmill.

And, by the way, Lent had already started in 1775, so those few Catholics in the country, and those Anglicans observing Lent, were in the Lenten season.

Last edition:

Thursday, March 2, 1775. Raising a stench.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Sunday, February 26, 1775 Salem Gunpowder Raid


The 64th British Regiment of the Line landed at Marblehead from Castle William in Boston Harbor and marched to Salem to search for military stores that where held there.  A standoff ensued and they withdrew upon agreement that nothing was found.

Last edition:

Wednesday, February 22, 1775. The Augusta Resolves.

Saturday, February 22, 2025

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Wednesday, February 15, 1775. Crowning of Pope Pius VI.

Count Angelo Onofrio Melchiorre Natale Giovanni Antonio was crowned Pope Pius VI.

He clashed with Napoleon, whose troops had invaded Italy, over his temporal power and was imprisoned by the French in France, where he died in 1799.  His body was effectively held hostage and he was not given a funeral, in Rome, until 1802.

The temporal powers of popes is something we don't think about much anymore, certainly Catholics don't.  About the only ones who do are Protestant cranks who are bothered by the fact that there were Papal States.  Pope Pius VI does provide an example to the modern world, however, of somebody who refused to go along with and is well remembered for it.  Napoleon, of course, is well remembered by some as well, but more accurately remembered as a bloody megalomaniac by most.

Last edition:

Thursday, February 9, 1775. Privileged shortsightedness, then and now.

Sunday, February 9, 2025

Thursday, February 9, 1775. Privileged shortsightedness, then and now.

A joint resolution of Parliament declared:

We find, that a part of your Majesty's subjects in the province of the Massachusetts Bay have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by your Majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects resident within the kingdom of Great Britain, and the rest of your Majesty's dominions

February must be the month for deliberative bodies declaring dumbass things. Goodness knows that the Wyoming Legislature's SJ 2 does. Ironically, those making aristocratic decisions either believe themselves, or in some cases pretend themselves, to be heirs to the American Revolutionaries, when in fact, in some instances at least, they're heirs to the British landed aristocracy. But, in reality, at least some of those voting for SJ2 are much like the House of Lords.  Landed gentry benefiting from the good fortune of their forbearers believing in their own superiority, or that they somehow worked for their position. 

Up the Revolution!

La tierra es de quien la trabaja.  Some of you ought to remember that. . . 

Related threads:

Wyoming Senate demands Congress hand over federal land, including Grand Teton


Saturday, February 4, 1775. Logan's Lament published by the Virginia Gazette.

Last edition:

Saturday, February 4, 1775. Logan's Lament published by the Virginia Gazette.

Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Saturday, February 4, 1775. Logan's Lament published by the Virginia Gazette.

I appeal to any white man to say, if ever he entered Logan's cabin hungry, and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked, and he clothed him not. During the course of the last long and bloody war, Logan remained idle in his cabin, an advocate for peace. Such was my love for the whites, that my countrymen pointed as they passed, and said, Logan is the friend of the white men. I have even thought to live with you but for the injuries of one man. Col. Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood, and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature. This has called on me for revenge. I have sought it: I have killed many: I have fully glutted my vengeance. For my country, I rejoice at the beams of peace. But do not harbor a thought that mine is the joy of fear. Logan never felt fear. He will not turn on his heel to save his life. Who is there to mourn for Logan? Not one.

Tachnechtoris, or John Logan, or Logan the Orator, after Lord Dunmore's War.

Last edition:

Wednesday, February 1, 1775. Memorandum on Chatham’s Plan of Conciliation, [on or after 1 February 1775]

Monday, January 20, 2025

Friday, January 20, 1775. The Fincastle Resolutions.


The Fincastle Resolutions were adopted by the fifteen elected representatives of Fincastle County, Virginia, which was on the frontier at that time.

Fincastle, Jan. 20, 1775

In obedience to the resolves of the Continental Congress, a meeting of the freeholders of this county was held this day, who, after approving of the association framed by that august body in behalf of all the colonies, and subscribing thereto, proceeded to the election of a committee, to see the same carried punctually into execution, when the following Gentlemen were nominated: Reverend Charles Cummings, Colonel William Preston, Colonel William Christian, Captain Stephen Trigg, Major Arthur Camp-bell, Major William Inglis, Captain Walter Crockett, Captain John Mont-gomery, Captain James McGavock, Captain William Campbell, Captain Thomas Madison, Captain Daniel Smith, Captain William Russell, Cap-tain Evan Shelby and Lieutenant William Edmondson. After the election the committee made choice of Colonel WILLIAM CHRISTIAN for their chairman, and appointed Mr. David Campbell to be clerk. The following address was then unanimously agreed to by the people of the county, and is as follows.

To the Honorable Peyton Randolph, Esq; Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, junior, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton, Esquires, the Delegates from this colony who at-tended the Continental Congress held at Philadelphia: Gentlemen, Had it not been for our remote situation, and the Indian war which we were lately engaged in, to chastise those cruel and savage people for the many murders and depredations they have committed against us (now happily terminated, under the auspices of our present worthy Governour, his Excellency the Right Honourable the Earl of Dunmore) we should before this time have made known to you our thankfulness for the very important services you have rendered to your country, in conjunction with the worthy Delegates from the other provinces. Your noble efforts for reconciling the Mother Country and the Colonies, on rational and constitutional principles, and your pacifick, steady, and uniform conduct in that arduous work, entitle you to the esteem of all British America, and will immortalize you in the annals of your country. We heartily concur in your resolutions, and shall, in every instance, strictly and invariably adhere thereto.

We assure you, Gentlemen, and all our countrymen, that we are a people whose hearts overflow with love and duty to our lawful sovereign George III, whose illustrious house, for several successive reigns, have been the guardians of the civil and religious rights and liberties of British sub-jects, as settled at the glorious Revolution; that we are willing to risk our lives in the service of his Majesty, for the support of the Protestant religion, and the rights and liberties of his subjects, as they have been established by the compact, law, and ancient charters.

We are heartily grieved at the differences which now subsist between the parent state and the colonies, and most ardently wish to see harmony restored, on an equitable basis, and by the most lenient measures that can be devised by the heart of man.

Many of us, and our forefathers, left our native land, considering it as a kingdom subjected to inordinate power, and greatly abridged of its liberties. We crossed the Atlantick, and explored this then uncultivated wilderness, bordering on many nations of savages, and surrounded by mountains almost inaccessible to any but those very savages, who have incessantly been committing barbarities and depredations on us since our first seating the country. These fatigue and dangers we patiently encountered, supported by the pleasing hope of enjoying those rights and liberties which had been granted to Virginians and were denied us in our native country, and of transmitting them inviolate to our posterity. But even to these remote regions the hand of unlimited and unconstitutional power hath pursued us, to strip us of that liberty and property with which God, nature, and the rights of humanity, have vested us. We are ready and willing to contribute all in our power for the support of his Majesty's government, if applied to constitutionally, and when the grants are made by our own representatives; but cannot think of submitting our liberty or property to the power of a venal British parliament, or to the will of a corrupt Ministry.

We by no means desire to shake off our duty or allegiance to our lawful sovereign, but on the contrary shall ever glory in being loyal subjects of a Protestant prince, descended from such illustrious progenitors, so long as we can enjoy the free exercise of our religion, as Protestants, and our liberties and properties, as British subjects.

But if no pacifick measures shall be proposed or adopted by Great Britain, and our enemies will attempt to dragoon us out of these inestimable privileges which we are entitled to as subjects, and to reduce us to a state of slavery, we declare, that we are deliberately and resolutely determined never to surrender them to any power upon earth, but at the expense of our lives.

These are our real, though unpolished sentiments, of liberty and loyalty, and in them we are resolved to live and die.

We are, Gentlemen, with the most perfect esteem and regard, your most obedient servant.

The resolutions interestingly expressed love for the Crown, while obviously drafted in the spirt of defiance against it.

Last edition:

Tuesday, January 17, 1775. Diligent attention in the use of arms.

Friday, January 17, 2025

Tuesday, January 17, 1775. Diligent attention in the use of arms.

The South Carolina Provincial Congress resolved; "that the inhabitants be diligently attentive in learning the use of arms; and that their officers be requested to train and exercise them at least once a fortnight." 

Last edition:

Friday, January 13, 1775. Governor Franklin urges New Jersey to remain loyal.

Monday, January 13, 2025

Friday, January 13, 1775. Governor Franklin urges New Jersey to remain loyal.

Royal Governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, appeared in front of the New Jersey Legislature and urged the body to remain loyal to the Crown.

Governor Franklin was the acknowledged illegitimate son of Benjamin Franklin.  It is not clear who his mother was, and he was raised by his father and his father's "common law wife" Deborah Read.  He'd remain loyal to the Crown for the remainder of his life.

Last edition:

Thursday, January 12, 1775. Sliding towards and preparing for war.



Sunday, January 12, 2025

Thursday, January 12, 1775. Sliding towards and preparing for war.

Concord Massachusetts militia, i.e., Minute Men, signed their muster rolls as an organized militia for the first time.

This is deceptive, we'd note, in that a militia obligation dated back to the founding of Massachusetts Bay Colony and was imposed on all men from ages 16 to 60 (meaning I'd now be beyond my militia duty).  Rapid deployment units were formed first in 1645 and the term "minute men" had existed for quite some time as an official inter militia designation.

Darien Georgia adopted the following resolution.

In the Darien Committee, Thursday, January 12, 1775.

When the most valuable privileges of a people are invaded, not only by open violence, but by every kind of fraud, sophistry, and cunning, it behoves every individual to be upon his guard, and every member of society, like beacons in a country surrounded by enemies, to give the alarm, not only when their liberties in general are attacked, but separately, least a precedent in one may affect the whole; and to enable the collective wisdom of such people to judge of its consequence, and how far their respective grievances concerns all, or should be opposed to preserve their necessary union. Every laudable attempt of this kind by the good people of this Colony, in a constitutional manner, hath been hitherto frustrated, by the influence and authority of men in office, and their numerous dependants, and in every other natural and just way, by the various arts they have put in practice. We, therefore, the Representatives of the extensive District of Darien, in the Colony of Georgia, being now assembled in Congress, by the authority and free choice of the inhabitants of the said District, now feed from their fetters, do Resolve,

1st. That the unparalleled moderation, the decent, but firm and manly conduct of the loyal and brave people of Boston and Massachusetts Bay, to preserve their liberty, deserves not only the applause and thanks of all America, but also, the imitation of all mankind. But, to avoid needless repetitions, we acquiesce and join in all the Resolutions passed by the Grand American Congress in Philadelphia last October. We thank them for their sage counsel and advice, and most heartily and cheerfully accede to the Association entered into by them, as the wisest and most moderate measure that could be adopted in our present circumstances to reconcile and firmly unite Great Britain and the Colonies, so indispensably necessary to each other, by the surest and best basis — mutual interest. But as the wisest Councils upon earth are liable to the errours of humanity, and notwithstanding our reverence and partiality for that august Assembly, we beg leave to differ in opinion from them, in charging the unjust measures of the present and preceding Ministry, to a person qualified rather for a private than a publick station; and as the resentment of his countrymen, on a former occasion, was raised by the illiberal and unjust abuse of them, indiscriminately, for the faults of that man, we humbly presume the renewing it at this time, on so little foundation, at least impolitick; being confident that every Member of that late, wise, patriotick, and truly honourable Congress, from a principle of candour and justice, will rather commend than blame our honest and well meant freedom.

2d. That in shutting up the Land Offices, with the intention of raising our quit-rents, and setting up our Lands at publick sale representations of the Crown tract have not been duly considered (and attended to) in all its consequences to this vast continent: That it is a principal part of the unjust system of politicks adopted by the present Ministry, to subject and enslave us, and evidently proceeds from an ungenerous jealousy of the Colonies, to prevent as much as possible the population of America, and the relief of the poor and distressed in Britain and elsewhere, for whom a kind Providence has opened a new world from their merciless oppressor, when the old is overrun with such monsters: That monopolizing our Lands into few hands, is forming and encouraging petty tyrants to lord it over us, or reside in any other part of the world in extravagance, luxury, and folly, by the fruit of our labour and industry — such oppressions, neither we nor our fathers were able to bear, and it drove us to the wilderness: And that all encouragement should be given to the poor of every Nation by every generous American.

3d. That Ministerial Mandates, under the name of Instructions, preventing the legal Representatives of the people to enact laws suiting their own respective situation and circumstances, are a general grievance, and more especially in this young Colony, where our internal police is not yet well settled; and as a proof of the intention of these restrictions, when time and opportunity offers, we point out particularly, amongst many others of like nature, the not suffering us to limit the term of our Assembly, or passing a quit-rent law, to ascertain and fix the most valuable part of our property.

4th. That an over proportion of Officers, for the number of inhabitants, and paying their salaries from Britain, so much cast up to us by Court parasites, and for which we are so often charged with ingratitude, are in truth real and great grievances, rendering them insolent, and regardless of their conduct, being independent of the people who should support them according to their usefulness and behaviour, and for whose benefit and conveniency alone they were originally intended. That besides these exorbitant salaries, which enables them all to act by Deputies, whilst they wallow in luxury themselves, their combining to raise their exorbitant and illegal fees and perquisites, by various arts upon the subject, to an alarming height, are more dangerous to our liberties than a regular Army; having the means of corruption so much in their power, the danger of which is imminently exemplified in the present unhappy state of our brethren and fellow-subjects in Britain, and even in the late conduct of this Colony. To prevent therefore as much as in us lies these direful effects, we do resolve never to choose any person in publick office, his Deputy, Deputy' s Deputy, or any expectant, to represent us in Assembly, or any other publick place, in our election, hoping the example will be followed throughout this Colony, and all America.

5. To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, but a general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery in America, (however the uncultivated state of our country, or other specious arguments may plead for it,) a practice founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties, (as well as lives,) debasing part of our fellow-creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest; and is laying the basis of that liberty we content for (and which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity) upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve, at all times to use our utmost endeavours for the manumission of our Slaves in this Colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing for the masters and themselves.

6th. That we do hereby choose Messrs˙ ******* to represent us for this District, in the Provincial Congress at Savannah, the 18th instant, or at any other time and place appointed hereafter, for the space of one year from this day, and that a copy of these our Resolutions be given them as expressing the sense of this District of publick grievances, which will serve for their direction and instructions; and it is further our desire, that our said Deputies shall use their endeavours to send two Delegates from this Colony to the General Continental Congress, to be held at Philadelphia next May.

Last edition:

Wednesday, January 11, 1775. Francis Salvador takes his seat.

Saturday, January 11, 2025

Wednesday, January 11, 1775. Francis Salvador takes his seat.

Francis Salvador, a Sephardic Jew born into that community in London, and an emigrant to South Carolina, took his seat in that colonies Provincial Congress, making him the first Jewish elected official in North America.


Coat of arms of Francis Salvador.

He was killed in action in the American Revolution in 1776.

Interestingly, Salvador means "savior" or "salvation" in Catalan, Spanish, and Portuguese and is associated with Catholicism.

Last edition:

Thursday, December 22, 1724. The Greenwich Tea Party


Friday, December 23, 2022

“Zelenskyy was all rumpled and not wearing a suit, very disrespectful.”

George Washington as Commander of the Continental Army, in the same style of uniform as he wore at the Second Continental Congress in 1775.  Shocking.

Eh?

Did I hear that right?

Are Americans suddenly criticizing the dress of somebody appearing at a public function?

Oh yes, they are, and some are truly verklempt, or appearing to be.  Consider Newsmax's Benny Johnson:

This ungrateful piece of sh*t does not have the decency to wear a suit to the White House -- no respect the country that is funding his survival.

Track suit wearing eastern european con-man mafia.

Our leaders fell for it. They have disgraced us all. What an incredible insult.

Oh my. An American criticizing somebody for how they dress.  It's almost impossible to imagine.

I'm stunned.

I've commented on the decline on the dressing standard here quite a few times.  And I do generally think that appearing in front of Congress, and being at Congress, should require formal dress.  

And not just there, I'd note.

I don't know that I think that required of a man whose living under siege and who is a wartime leader of a country whose capital is within rocket range of what was thought, up until a few months ago, to potentially have the first or second most powerful military on earth.

Indeed, any rational observer of American dress has to know that Americans, generally, dress like slobs.  Quite a few dress like children all the time.  People toddle around in public markets dressed like their mothers just got them up for an early morning trip to the store in their pj's.  People board planes in jammies.  Some men wear knee pants all the time, even during the winter, choosing to affect a dashing infantile presentation in the worst weather.

And more than that, people appear at official functions poorly dressed all the time.

When I was first practicing law, as I noted here before, I didn't really have to tell witnesses how to dress in court.  A while later, however, I'd get asked, and when asked I'd use the Protestant term "Sunday Best", even though I'm not a Protestant, as everyone knew what that meant.  Later, however, I found that was no longer the case and I started to get lucky if people had a clean shirt.

The summer before last I tried a case in Denver in which a downtown Denver jury came in extremely informal clothing.  Shorts, t-shirts, etc.  Only the lawyers, the court staff, and the judge dressed up to the old standard.  A couple of decades ago, this would not have occurred.

Just recently I attended a multiple day contested case hearing in which the lawyers were no longer wearing ties, something that would be a defacto breach of the old official standard that applied to us when we were first practicing.  And I mean the latter.  Ties were part of the official rules for male lawyers up until the time I started practicing, and they basically remain that for courtroom attire.

No, not me, I wore jacket and tie every day.

The panel hearing the matter wore formal clothes, however.  Most of the lawyers, most of the time, did not.  Not that they'd gone full informal, they were still wearing dress shirts and jackets, but no ties.

This is becoming increasingly common.

During the recent January 6 hearings, many of the witnesses fell well below what we would have regarded as the old standard.  Not so low as the rioters, however, who were largely dressed down to the American standard.

I'd include in that dressing down, I'd note, the MAGA trucker's hat.  

I'm not a trucker's cap fan, for the most part, anyhow, with some exceptions.  I will wear real baseball caps from real baseball teams.  Baseball caps, however, are actually not baseball caps, which have longer bills, but an evolution of them that has looked bad from day one.  Thanks to the MAGA cap, now you see guys wearing sports coats and MAGA caps, which looks dumb.

Okay, I suppose we might ask if this is unprecedented?  I truly don't know.

What I can say is that Zelenskyy is a wartime leader. When he was a peacetime leader, he favored dark suits, and was clean-shaven.  Starting with the Russian invasion of his country, and the fighting in his own capital, he began to dress in a quasi military fashion.

He's not the first leader of a democratic country to do that.  I'll omit non-democratic ones, as their leaders affecting military style dress is extremely common.

The best example is Winston Churchill who dressed eclectically frequently.  We like to remember him dressed to the English standard, suit and bowler, but in actuality as he grew older he favored jumpsuits.  In his visits to see FDR he wore them quite frequently, and was photographed by the press wearing them due to their uniqueness.

Churchill, who had started off his professional life as a career British Army officer, but who had official roles with the Admiralty later on, really like to dress in quasi Naval attire, even while Prime Minister, including in official meetings with the heads of foreign states.


Indeed, he truly did.


George Bush, George Bush II, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have all appeared at various times wearing various types of flight jackets, an unmistakenly military item. No, they didn't wear them in Congress, but they wore them.  The two Bush's had both seen military service, as pilots, but President Obama and President Trump never did.

And let's not forget George Washington.

Washington famously appeared in Congress, as a member of the Continental Congress, that assembled to take up the problems with the Mother Country, dressed in the blue uniform of the American Continental militia officers.  

We might regard that as formal wear, but that was the combat uniform of the time.  Our failure to appreciate that is probably due to our inability to read the clothing of the time, but in context, quite frankly, it's shocking.

And it is pretty much what Zalenskyy did earlier this week, save for the fact that he's the besieged president of an embattled country, whereas Washington was implying that maybe the colonies ought to rebel against their established sovereign.

Oh well. The standard is reestablished.  Trumpites, your call is clear.  Off to Brooks Brothers to suit up, literally.

Sunday, February 28, 2021

The Military and Alcohol. U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946

Patrons of a bar and grill in Washington D.C. in 1943.  The man on the left is drinking a glass of beer, and it appears the woman is as well.  Also, fwiw, the man on the left is a Technician with a Corporal's grade, which during World War Two was an E3 grade, as opposed to Specialist and Corporals today, which hold an E4 grade.  The man on the right is an officer, so this is frankly likely a posed photograph.  All three people are smoking cigarettes.

Alcohol and the United States Army would make for an interesting small book  in no small part because the United States itself has had a love/hate relationship with alcohol.

Beer can, perhaps, be regarded as the American alcoholic beverage of choice, reflecting both the climate and geography of the nation, as well as the English founding of the country.  While not to put too fine of point on it, the English were armed Germanic immigrants in the 5th Century and some cultural things go way back.  Everywhere north of some line in modern France, if you consider Western Europe, beer is the alcoholic beverage.  South of that, it's wine.  All the Mediterranean people of the ancient world drank wine and in those areas of that region which are not now Islamic, they still do.  North of that line, at some point, they drank beer, although you can easily find beers going back to the ancient Egypt as well, although frankly the Egyptian climate was somewhat different at the time.

In the Medieval world, north of the beer line, beer was a staple.  South of it, wine was.  This isn't necessarily good, but basically the ills associated with any sort of alcohol were lower than those associated with plain water.  I'm not going to go into that, as its a bit more complicated than it might seem, but that's the case.

Before I move on. . . yes, there's hard alcohol and every region of the globe seems to produce some.  Whiskey is a Celtic thing and it goes way back in its own right.  But there are few people and were few people who simply drink hard alcohol routinely in the Western world, and in those regions were it is routinely consumed, it's destructive.  So, with that, we'll move on.

In the early Colonial era there was no big temperance movement of a wide societal basis.  Indeed, one of the oddities of history is that religious denominations that today argue against alcohol and which trace their origin to the Puritans, and not all make that trace, don't reflect back what the Puritans believed at all.  The Puritans were against a lot of things, to be sure, but they were fans of beer (and [marital] sex), so people remember them inaccurately.  But one did start to arise in North America by the mid 1700s in the form of Native American groups who urged it given the devastation that alcohol was causing in their cultures.  Indeed, they'd organized a temperance organization as early as 1737.  Coupled with this the popularity of gin in the early Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom, which was a gross booze which could be manufactured cheaply, caused the movement to come about there as well.  

The early United States, however, was simply awash with alcohol and this, over time, gave force to the temperance movement, and by the mid 19th Century it was growing strong.

Issuing an alcohol ration is a strong military tradition in many armies, but reflecting the unique history of alcohol in the US, the tradition is much weaker in the U.S.  The American Navy, following the tradition of the Royal Navy, issued a Rum Ration, with Rum simply being any available hard alcohol, but in 1862 it abolished it.  In 1914, during the era in which Prohibition was coming on strong, the Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels completely banned alcohol in ships, meaning that the U.S. Navy went into World War One escort duties dry.  

The Army had an alcohol ration very early on.  Starting in 1775 Congress authorized soldiers an alcohol ration, and the ration was whiskey, in part reflecting a disruption of alcohol constituents that had been imported.  The is ration continued until 1832.  There was a separate spirts ration for military surveyors that continued on until the 1840s, but then it was also discontinued.

Since that time I don't know that there's ever been an alcohol ration in any branch of the military.  Indeed, the British discontinued their famous naval rum ration in the 1970s, so its likely disappeared or much less what it was everywhere.  The problem of obtaining clean water isn't what it once was, and its never been as big of problem in North America.  From the 1830s on soldiers could buy beer at post suttlers stores, but they were restricted in the amount they could buy.  I can't recall the restriction, but it was far below the amount you could drink and get drunk, which no doubt was the goal.  Of course, off base you could buy as much of anything as you might wish to, which is partially why saloons were a feature of every location with a frontier post.  Indeed, it was noted in the 19th Century that one of the problems of not having something like an Enlisted Man's Club, such as was later done, is that off post saloons were real dens of vice of all sorts.  Apparently this wasn't enough to motivate a change, but it was noted.  No alcohol ration was provided at any point through Prohibition.

This brings us to World War Two and this interesting item below, by Gary Gillman, a Toronto based beer blogger with an excellent blog entitled Beer, Et Seq.

U.S. Army Beer 1943-1946 (Part I)


I frankly don't know what was done beer wise from our point of entering the Second World War up through the end of the Vietnam War.  What is clear is that beer seems to have been provided on at least an ad hoc basis and therefore was a type of ration, even if on a somewhat informal basis.  Cigarettes had become one too, which had not been the case in World War One. The though likely was that you simply couldn't have that many people in uniform and not address such things, least they be addressed by the men themselves, which of course they also did.  Beer seems to have been provided on some basis in the Korean War and the Vietnam War as well, but not since then.  Indeed, recent wars in Islamic countries have been "dry", so to speak.

Anyhow, and interesting look at the US actually undertaking to brew beer during World War Two for servicemen's consumption.