American Revolution & Founding Era

John Tyler's Grandchildren Still Alive

2012-01-26T01:01:00.000-05:00

I realize John Tyler is a little beyond the founding era that this blog is focused around, but this article I read is too good to pass up. I'm sure some of my readers would be interested....

Former President John Tyler's Grandchildren Still Alive
by Eric Pfeiffer

Former President John Tyler, born 221 years ago, still has two living grandchildren. The one-term president isn't a well-known historical figure; he's probably best remembered for helping to push through the annexation of Texas in 1845, shortly before leaving office.

So, how is it possible that a former president who died 150 years ago would still have direct descendents alive today? As it turns out, the Tyler men were known for fathering children late in life. And that math is pretty outstanding when added up...

To continue reading this article, click here.

Thomas Jefferson and his Hair: Can Jefferson's Hair Unlock Some of History's Mysteries?

2011-12-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

Thomas Jefferson died in 1826, yet it's possible that some of his hair survives to the present day. Those who claim to own hair from Thomas Jefferson include the Library of Congress, the Academy of Natural Sciences, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello. If the hair owned by these organizations is indeed Jefferson's, then we have access to the actual DNA of Thomas Jefferson himself. Could that mean we may unravel some of history's mysteries surrounding our nation's third President, including solving the paternal question of Eston Hemings (Sally Hemings's son) once and for all?

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation claims to have “15 samples of hair purported to be Thomas Jefferson’s, from various family provenances." The Foundation, however, cautions that "it is impossible for us to know if these are what they purport to be.” Likewise, the Jefferson hair at the Academy of Natural Sciences comes from 19th century lawyer and hair collector Peter Arvell Browne. Some question whether it's really Jefferson's hair, but Browne apparently collected samples from the first 12 Presidents (all of which are now held by the Academy. Perhaps the strongest claim lies with the Library of Congress, which has three cuttings. These cuttings were received in the early 19th century from none other than Martha Randolph, who wrote on the envelope: "My dear father Thomas Jefferson."

Even if the Jefferson hair samples are authentic and even if the owners give them over for scientific research, genealogy expert Dick Eastman says we shouldn't get our hopes up. Says Eastman: "If we assume the hair is really that of former president Thomas Jefferson, any Y-chromosome DNA extracted would be identical to the DNA samples already obtained from Jefferson's other close male relatives." In other words, says Eastman, the hair samples give us "absolutely no new information." (See "Could Jefferson Hair Sample Provide New DNA Information?" by Dick Eastman)

Regardless of whether the DNA information can bring us new, groundbreaking information, it's still cool (at least to this history buff) that we have ready and literal access to a piece of our third President, a man who helped fashion and shape the United States of America.

The Truth About George Washington's False Teeth

2011-12-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

A subject that has long fascinated Americans of every age is that of George Washington and his false teeth. Standing at over six feet tall with a lean, muscular body, George Washington embodied physical toughness and rugged strength. He successfully fought off many illnesses in his life, but one area of his physique that showed serious wear and vulnerability was his mouth. Washington had terrible dental health.

Tooth decay was, of course, a serious problem prior to modern era advances in dentistry. Not surprisingly, Washington fell victim to this malady. Unfortunately for Washington, it was a particularly painful and debilitating struggle. In his magisterial biography Washington, Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Ron Chernow writes that Washington's problems were "so severe as to be incapacitating and affected his life in numberless ways."

Over the years, Washington lost one tooth after another. By the time he became President of the United States, he had a single tooth of his own remaining. To compensate for this, Washington required dentures. Contrary to popular belief, Washington's false teeth were not wooden. According to Chernow, Washington's dentures consisted of "natural teeth, inserted into a framework of hippopotamus ivory and anchored on Washington's one surviving tooth." Chernow says that the myth of Washington's false teeth being made of wood stems from the "gradual staining of hairline fractures in the ivory that made it resemble a wood grain."

Washington's dentures painfully distorted his mouth and facial features. The need to so often set his jaws a certain way and tightly close his mouth probably enhanced his tendency to keep a tight rein on his words and emotions. That he lived with pain and discomfort every day undoubtedly bolstered his work ethic, sense of discipline, and dogged persistence. I will leave it to psychologists to more fully explore the ramifications and consequences of George Washington's false teeth, but it's safe to say that they did have an impact on him and thus, at least indirectly, on our nation as well.

Christmas in Colonial America

2011-12-21T05:00:00.000-05:00

Many Americans today are uncomfortable with overt religious themes associated with Christmas, often preferring "holiday parties" or rather vacuous greetings like "Have a Happy Holiday." As awkward as Christmas may be today, it was perhaps even more offensive in the 17th and 18th centuries, for reasons explained by early history blogger Rebekah Brooks in an excellent article on the subject...

"When Christmas Was Banned in Boston"
by Rebekah Brooks

When the Puritans came to the New World in 1620, they brought with them their strict ways, their religious views and their distaste for Christmas. Although Christmas was widely celebrated in Europe as a Christian holiday marking the birth of Jesus Christ, Puritans saw it as a false holiday with stronger ties to Paganism than Christianity. Known for being pious and reserved, Puritans also took a dislike to the drinking and dancing associated with the holiday.

To continue reading, click on "When Christmas Was Banned in Boston" to be taken over to Rebekah Brooks' excellent blog on "The History of Massachusetts."

Is Barack Obama the Fourth Best President? Obama Says His Accomplishments Rank Higher Than Those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson

2011-12-20T13:01:00.000-05:00

In what many analysts are calling a stunning display of hubris, President Barack Obama says he would put his record up against any President with the "possible exception" of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. In an interview with 60 Minutes, the President said: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."

Obama's boast is understandably drawing scorn from the blogosphere. After all, the current President of the United States is ranking his accomplishments as greater than those of Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and just about every other President. Obama allows for the "possible exception" of Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ.

Since this blog is focused on the American Revolution and Founding Era, I will withhold commentary on how Obama ranks against Ronald Reagan (who led the USA to victory in the Cold War), Dwight Eisenhower (who gave us the Interstate Highway System), and Teddy Roosevelt (Panama Canal, Great White Fleet, helping end the Russo-Japanese War, etc.). Instead, I will briefly comment on Obama's claim that his accomplishments rank higher than those of our founding era Presidents, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.

Ranking the Presidents

First of all, most presidential historians agree that it takes 20 years of separation and reflection before one can even begin to accurately assess a President's place in history. That means it's way too early for us to fully grasp George W. Bush's legacy in American history as well as Bill Clinton's. And it's naturally way, way too early to talk about Obama's legacy. Of course, with some Presidents, a comparison is easy. I have no problem with Obama saying he's accomplished more than James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, or Franklin Pierce. Such comparisons are easy. But to place himself, at this stage of his presidency, against Madison, Jefferson, Washington, or even John Adams is a bit presumptuous, to say the least.

Comparing Obama With Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison

President Obama led the nation through a massive overhaul of its health care system, ordered the assassination of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, and ended America's troop presence in Iraq. Additionally, Obama has pushed through several social policy changes popular with his progressive base, such as ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) in the armed forces. Most of Obama's record is still hotly debated and much of the changes he's pushed through could be reversed or significantly modified in the next several years.

By contrast, the United States stands pretty solidly on the accomplishments of our founding era Presidents. Madison led the nation successfully (albeit painfully) through the War of 1812. Jefferson gave us the Louisiana Purchase and the first President Adams avoided war with France during a very fragile time for the United States. And then there's George Washington, who basically fleshed out the U.S. government that had been but a blueprint on parchment. While Obama may not be impressed with Washington's accomplishments, the first President created the Cabinet, supported the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton which solidified the nation's financial health, kept the nation at peace with Great Britain, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, steered the nation toward neutrality in foreign affairs (thus preserving America's identity as a separate power), and established the two-term precedent for American Presidents.

Of course, I've only scratched the surface with our founding era Presidents. In fact, I barely even got into the accomplishments of Madison and Jefferson. For Obama to essentially dismiss them, along with George Washington, shows incredible hubris. And it may show something else that's even more troubling. For a sitting U.S. President to show such little regard for the American founding era and its iconic heroes like Washington calls into serious question his grasp of the fundamentals of American government and the very heart of our nation's heritage. Forgive me for being political, but I simply can't vote for such a President.

Newt Gingrich's Favorite Founding Father

2011-12-13T19:04:00.001-05:00

In this video clip, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shares his favorite Founding Father. Gingrich is of course seeking the 2012 Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. By suggesting this video, I am not endorsing Mr. Gingrich. If someone has a clip from any other presidential candidate, including incumbent President Barack Obama, discussing his or her favorite Founding Father, I will gladly post that as well. Mr. Gingrich's favorite Founder is...

The Legend of Lydia Darragh in the American Revolution

2011-11-16T14:25:00.000-05:00

Who is Lydia Darragh? Like Betsy Ross, the story of Lydia Darragh (also spelled 'Darrah' and Darrach') is wrapped in legend, and some of the facts are difficult to differentiate from the myths. One thing we do know is that Lydia Darragh, an Irish immigrant to America, would become a popular symbol of heroism and courage in America's War for Independence.

Born in 1729 in Dublin, the future war hero married William Darragh, a son of an Irish clergyman and tutor to Lydia's family. Several years after their marriage, the Darraghs immigrated to America, taking up residence in Philadelphia. Lydia Darragh became a widwife, helping other women through childbirth and giving birth to nine of her own (four of whom died in infancy).

When General William Howe's British army occupied Philadelphia in late September 1777, Philadelphia residents loyal to the American cause, such as Lydia Darragh, resorted to clandestine means to frustrate the British war effort. Even though Darragh and her family were Quakers, their eldest son served with the 2nd Pennsylvania Regiment. The American cause and the Continental Army clearly had their sympathies. During the British occupation, Lydia Darragh reportedly eavesdropped on British officer conversations in and around her home, and then sent coded information through British lines to the Americans as best she could. The details of Darragh's activities are difficult to pin down, as the main source of information is Ann Darragh, Lydia's daughter, who told the stories years after the events. Unfortunately, some of Ann's accounts don't jibe with other records from the Revolutionary War period, calling many of them into question.

The stage for Lydia Darragh's most famous alleged exploit was when General Howe personally occupied the home of her neighbor, John Cadwalader, making it his residence. The British then asked the Darraghs to vacate their home, making it available for British officer meetings. Lydia Darragh protested, saying that she'd already sent two of her children away and that there was nowhere for them to go. In her appeals to General Howe, she encountered a second cousin from Ireland, Captain Barrington, who served with the British army. Barrington's intervention is what apparently allowed the Darraghs to remain in their home, provided they set aside space for officer meetings and accommodate officer requests (such as retiring early when sensitive meetings were to take place). According to her daughter, Ann, Lydia Darragh used this arrangement as an opportunity to provide General Washington with much needed intelligence.

On December 2, 1777, Lydia received a request that she and her family retire by 8 o'clock, to make way for an important meeting. She pretended to go to sleep, but instead listened to the soldiers through the door, learning that the British planned to make a surprise attack on the Continental Army camped at Whitemarsh on December 4. As the meeting wrapped up, Lydia returned to her bedroom and feigned sleep as a British officer by the name of Major John Andre knocked three times. On the third knock, she answered and Major Andre informed her that the meeting was over and they were leaving her home.

The next morning, Darragh was granted permission to leave the city to buy flour. Her real plan, however, was to get the intelligence she gathered into American hands. According to Ann Darragh, Lydia gave the information to an American cavalry officer. According to Elias Boudinot, the Continental Commisary of Prisoners, Lydia found him while he was dining at the Rising Sun Tavern and gave him a "dirty old needle book" which contained hidden a "piece of paper rolled into the form of a pipe shank." That piece of paper, says Boudinot, contained the information of British plans to attack Washington's army on December 4.

Whatever the specifics, it does seem evident that Lydia Darragh played a key role in the American Revolution in December 1777 by warning General Washington (somehow) of a surprise British attack, allowing him to be fully prepared for it. For this reason, it is fair to regard Lydia Darragh is indeed a hero of the American Revolution.

The Foundation for Writing Great Essays on the American Revolution

2011-11-14T22:09:00.001-05:00

Those who want to make writing American history essays, including Revolutionary War essays, a painless exercise need the right mindset, focus, and tools. With these things in place, you have the makings of a great history essay. Writing history essays can, in fact, be a breeze. Here are three things, I believe, will insure you have the right foundation in place. Do these three things and your essay on the American Revolution will be off to a great start.

Understand the "Big Picture" of the American Revolution

You've heard the saying: "Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees." That applies to essay writing. Your essay will probably be focused on a particular aspect, personality, battle, or event in the Revolutionary War. But in order for you to properly address that aspect, you must understand the Big Picture. George Washington was not the greatest battle tactician (he actually lost more battles than he won), but he had an amazingly thorough grasp of the overarching, strategic challenges facing both the British and the thirteen colonies. It was this "Big Picture" perspective that enabled him to lead the ill-equipped, under-fed, poorly clothed, (at first) inadequately trained American Continental Army to eventual victory over the most efficient and best trained army of the world. By understanding the basics of the Revolutionary War, you'll be able to address the issues within your essay in the proper context, giving them their due attention and weight.

How do you do this? Set aside 30 minutes to one hour. And in that time, read through Wikipedia's overview of the American Revolution, along with about 3-5 websites or articles that address the timeline of the American Revolution. Get a handle on the key figures of the Revolutionary War, the major events, and the general chronological order of the conflict.

If you want to take this to the next level (time-wise), then head to your local library or over to Amazon and check out The Complete Idiot's Guide to the American Revolution by Alan Axelrod or US History for Dummies by Steve Wiegand (and read the American Revolution section).

Clarify Your Teacher's or Professor's Expectations

Years ago, I had an employer that impressed upon me the critical importance of understanding the "conditions of satisfaction" when taking on a work project. If you are given an assignment (whether in school or on the job), it's imperative that you understand what the person giving the assignment expects of you. To put this in blunt, academic terms: What specifically will it take for you to get an 'A'?

The best way to find this out is to ask. Set an appointment with your teacher/professor and ask: "What specifically are you looking for in this essay? What do I need to do in order to get an A?" Chances are that you'll hear something about research, argumentation, sentence construction, etc., etc. Write all that down. Ask as many questions as you need until you understand exactly what's expected of your essay on the American Revolution.

It's also a good idea to document this meeting with your professor or teacher. That way, if there's a problem later with your grade, you can go back to the professor/teacher with your notes. And, in the worst case scenario, you have notes from that meeting that you can take to the principal, dean, administrator, or whomever. Hopefully, that won't be necessary and you shouldn't expect that. But it's always good to have documentation.

Identify the Grader's Personality and/or "Hot Buttons"

Don't kiss up or be insincere. I want to make that clear from the outset. But it's always a good idea to know something of the person who will be grading your paper, presumably your teacher/professor. What do you know of his/her personality, interests, style, tastes, etc.?

Remember that essays are different from math worksheets or multiple-choice tests. With the latter, there's little wiggle room. The standards are clear. With essays, there is a degree of subjectivity. While most professors and teachers have some kind of rubric to make their grading as objective as possible, there will always be a level of judgment and discretion that seeps into the grader's mind. It's inevitable.

Your task is to find out what the grader is looking for. If your teacher/professor is a "get down to business" type, then don't waste a lot of space in your essay with ramblings and such. If he or she is looking for stories, anecdotes, illustrations, and such rather than tedious statistics or boring academic prose, that's good to know too. If your teacher/professor has a low opinion of Thomas Jefferson, and you decide to write an essay singing his praises as the greatest American in U.S. history, then you had better make your essay persuasive and (preferably) as non-offensive as possible to the one grading it.

These three things will give you the right foundation for a great essay on the American Revolution. The rest is up to you. Future posts will address some more intermediate and advanced tips for writing great Revolutionary War essays.

Experience the Wonder of the First Permanent English Settlement in Jamestown

2011-11-01T22:05:00.000-04:00

Think history is boring? Take a trip to Jamestown. Anyone who visits the Jamestown settlement with an open mind and makes an honest effort to understand what those English settlers faced in 1607 will come away with a new appreciation for history. And that's why a trip to Jamestown may be just what your school or family needs.

History teachers and parents who want their kids to better appreciate history have to compete today with iPods, cell phones, television, and Facebook. Yet a person, no matter her age, can't help but be impressed with the adventure our ancestors endured at the Jamestown 1607 settlement. This is what makes a trip to the Jamestown settlement such a potential life-changing event. I remember the first time I went with my grandfather many years ago. I was a young child, absolutely enthralled by the ships and the fort and all that was there. And while I can't remember all the details of that distant memory, I remember how it helped shape my love for history from that day forward.

Those who visit Jamestown can likewise experience the story of America's beginnings, for it was at Jamestown that England established its first permanent colony in the New World. Sponsored by the Virginia Company, a group of 104 men and boys began the Jamestown settlement in 1607 on the banks of Virginia's James River.

Those who visit Jamestown today can take in the various exhibition galleries and learn about life in the 17th and 18th centuries. The community suffered terrible hardships in its early years, but survived, thanks in part to the leadership of John Smith. Their endurance made them the first permanent English settlement in the New World, which could not be said of the two previous ill-fated attempts in Roanoke.

Today at Jamestown Settlement, the story of these survivors is told through gallery exhibits, film, and costumed historical interpreters who describe and demonstrate daily life in the early 17th century. Visitors can board replicas of the three ships that sailed from England to Virginia in 1607. It's these ships that I remember the most from my youthful trip. You can also explore life-size re-creations of the colonists' fort and a Powhatan village.

If you're looking for a place to visit where history can truly come alive, Jamestown is one of the best places to experience.

George Washington vs. Napoleon Bonaparte: Who is the Deadliest Warrior?

2011-08-22T15:31:00.004-04:00

One of my favorite TV shows is "The Deadliest Warrior," a documentary series aired on Spike TV. Now in its third season, "Deadliest Warrior" stages match-ups between elite soldiers and/or great military leaders to see who would be "the deadliest." In one of the most recent episodes, the "Deadliest Warrior" team analyzed a hypothetical contest between two of history's most famous generals: George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte.

"Deadliest Warrior" was originally created by Michael Scebknlz and produced by Morningstar Entertainment. Production responsibilities now rest with 44 Blue. It has aired since 2009. Thus far, the show has staged match-ups consisting of pirates, ninjas, samurai, Spartans, knights, Roman gladiators, Green Berets, Navy SEALS, and more. They've also zeroed in on specific individuals, such as Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, Saddam Hussein, Joan of Arc, and more.

To determine whether the ruthless master of warfare, Napoleon Bonaparte, could overwhelm the persistent and innovative Washington, the "Deadliest Warrior" production team interviewed experts, staged weapons demonstrations, and put together intense and highly complex mathematical simulations. To compensate for the fact that virtually anything can happen in one battle, "Deadliest Warrior" usually runs 1000 simulations for each contest. In the case of Washington and Napoleon, they ran it 5000 times. And the results were very close. In fact, they were the closest thus far in any match-up. To see who won....

Deadliest Warrior: George Washington vs. Napoleon Bonaparte

For whatever it's worth, I have to agree with the outcome. What do YOU think?

How John Adams Believed America Should Celebrate Independence Day

2011-07-04T12:45:00.000-04:00

John Adams believed America's birthday should properly be set at July 2. He had a point, as that was the day Congress voted for independence. Instead, America's birthday will forever be associated with July 4, the day Congress approved Thomas Jefferson's eloquent masterpiece (albeit with some "mutilations" as Jefferson described it). Putting all that aside, however, it is worth noting on this Fourth of July how John Adams said we should celebrate Independence Day.

In a now famous letter to his wife, Abigail, the future second President of the United States wrote of Independence Day...

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

George Whitefield's Influence on the American Revolution

2011-07-03T20:59:00.000-04:00

Rev. David R. Stokes, a minister, columnist, and author of The Shooting Salvationist: J. Frank Norris and the Murder Trial that Captivated America, explores the legacy of George Whitefield and the influence he and other Great Awakening evangelists had on the American Revolution....

"The American Revolution and the DNA of Faith"
by David R. Stokes

Many of the Continental Army volunteers who were listening to the sermon in Newbury, Massachusetts’s Old South Church couldn’t help but focus on the pulpit itself. It was September 1775, and the church had recently gained fame because the bell in its clock tower was cast by Paul Revere, who had just months before made a name for himself on horseback. But some of the citizen-soldiers listening...[continue article]

Vacation Planning for Lovers of History

2011-06-20T17:39:00.000-04:00

The summer has arrived, which means history lovers can start thinking about vacation planning. There are many wonderful places to visit that have plenty of appeal for those of us who enjoy early American history. These places include Colonial Williamsburg, Yorktown, Jamestown, Historic Mount Vernon, Boston, Philadelphia, and so much more. For those of you planning a summer vacation with history in mind, I offer the following article for your enjoyment...

*********

How To Enjoy A Unique Vacation That Is Filled With History
By Jack Bulker

Looking for a different idea for your vacation this year? Trying to figure out where a good place would be to go and you feel like you are running out of fun and different ideas? Then why not consider taking your holidays to a place of historical value? Even if you have children vacations to where there are historical sites to visit can be a lot fun and filled with a lot more action than one might imagine.

On top of that they are also very educational. Believe it or not, if you have children they will truly enjoy trying to imagine the scene of a battle or watching an actual reenactment of a battle or some other historical moment in history. Going somewhere that has a lot of history brings history to life and it's far better than reading about it in history books.

When you start planning for this, sit down with your family members and figure out what time in history, within limits, that you and your family might be interested in experiencing. Do they prefer the Civil War era over the Revolutionary era. Do they prefer all of American history over World history. Would they prefer the times of World War II or the wild west? All of this is important so take note. It will make deciding on a location a lot easier.

After you have done this try and choose one or even two of the different eras that they showed the most interest in and then do some research on different places to go that have things that are associated with these time periods. For instance if the Revolutionary War is of great interest then consider a place like Philadelphia. For those that love the Civil War consider Wilmington Delaware or Gettysburg or Washington DC that has tons of historical museums that should please everyone.

Find out when there will be different events in the locations you are interested in visiting so that you all can experience living history through reenactments, festivals or other types of demonstrations that have historical basis.

Get in touch with different historical societies to find out more about the area and how you can enjoy the history and get involved with it. Make sure to ask when are the months that have less tourists but they still offer the same historical events. This way, you will be able to ask more of your own questions of any guides there might be on tours you mike take. With less people you will be able to receive more personal attention.

Make sure that whatever you plan to see that you find your lodging close to where the historical sites are. You might even want to see if they have campgrounds near the area so that you can get a better feel for what it was like living in the area back in the day.

Another good thing to do is to book yourselves a room at a historical bed and breakfast at your destination. These will not only great places to stay with great service but generally will be decorated in the style of the period and who knows, maybe the room you book will be one that good old George Washington slept in on one of his many journeys.

For more free Travel Information download Jack's Free Travel & Holiday Information Pack at http://www.free-travel-info.com and join thousands of other people planning and booking their next holiday!

For other free information on a variety of issues please visit http://www.free-info-site.com

Article Source: How To Enjoy A Unique Vacation That Is Filled With History

Sarah Palin on Paul Revere: Did Paul Revere Warn the British?

2011-06-06T17:14:00.004-04:00

Americans love a good laugh. And picking on public figures is often a source of great laughs. Not surprisingly, when a public figure serves up a delicious gaffe, we are all too eager to pounce on it. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin provided such an opportunity for amusement when she said recently that Paul Revere "warned the British" and implied that he rang some bells as part of his warning. Here is a video excerpt of Palin's gaffe...

First, let's all agree that Palin's off-the-cuff remarks demonstrated she had only a vague understanding of the events surrounding Boston in April of 1775. She had only a very shallow understanding of Paul Revere and what he did. Then again, this could be said of the vast majority of Americans today. It can also be said of the vast majority of American politicians today. I shudder to think how many of our elected officials (be they at the national or state level) would pass a basic American history test.

With that in mind, let's get some perspective on this. All politicians say dumb things from time to time. Unfortunately, certain public figures have been branded in the media and, as a result, the public consciousness as especially dim-witted and their misstatements tend to get the most press. Sarah Palin is in this category. As is former Vice-President Dan Quayle and, to some extent, former President George W. Bush. (That all three of these individuals are Republicans should give the reader a hint as to the bias of the mainstream news media. Obviously, Fox News stands as a huge exception to that bias). In reality, virtually all public figures (Republicans and Democrats) have verbally blundered in the course of their time in the limelight. Here are three examples from Barack Obama....

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." –President Obama at a Health Care Roundtable, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009
"I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go." -Then Senator Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential campaign trail
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." -Then Senator Obama at a Memorial Day campaign stop in 2008

I don't share that list to pick on Obama. My point is that Obama has largely escaped public ridicule for these gaffes. It's hard to imagine the media being nearly as generous with Palin, had she made statements along these lines. So, let's agree on two things...1) All public figures make gaffes, and 2) Certain public figures, such as Palin, get unfairly disproportionate news coverage for their gaffes.

That being said, Palin's comments on Revere were indeed a blunder. And she has only compounded the mistake by trying to defend it...

Joel Miller, author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere, probably sums up this entire episode best by saying Palin "should have been humble and admitted she got the story wrong." She truly has only herself to blame for the ridicule she is now receiving. Yet Miller's assessment also holds the mirror up to our own culture. That we invest so much time and pleasure in the mistakes of others is not something for which we should be proud. According to Miller, it's "unattractive" and "prideful" that we engage in such typical "high-vaulting and jumping down [the] throats" of those who make mistakes. Yet such is the culture we have become. And we have only ourselves to blame. And there aren't many Paul Reveres out there today to warn us of the consequences coming down the road.

The Vision of America's Founders

2011-05-31T21:32:00.001-04:00

Say what you will about America's Founders, the men had incredible vision. It's no small thing to start a new nation. Yet, that's precisely what they did. Critics of the Founders allege that that these men more or less stumbled into a war for independence, driven primarily (some of the more extreme critics say "solely") by their selfish, economic interests. Contrary to what these critics argue, the heart of the American Revolution was not greed, but rather a vision for freedom and liberty.

I'm not so naive as to suggest that personal interests had no bearing on the American Revolution. Personal interests have played a role in all of history's conflicts and great movements. The Founding Fathers were quite realistic about the nature of human beings. George Washington once observed: "Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder." And James Madison explained that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." Human beings are, by nature, flawed and self-centered. The Bible, a book that all of America's Founders were familiar with, teaches that we are all sinners fallen short of a holy God (Romans 3:23).

The genius of the United States of America is not that our nation is free of sin, greed, or corruption. No nation is free of those things. The genius of our Founders and the greatness of our nation rests on the fact that it carefully "checks" and "balances" the selfish and competing interests of its people, while challenging us to aspire to noble ideals and principles.

There is no nation in the world quite like the United States. Flawed? Definitely. Perfect? Far from it. But it is a nation whose underpinnings and institutions encourage the very best in its people and constantly call its citizens to greatness. There is much we can learn from the vision of those who built America and shaped it for a great destiny.

What Were The Real Causes of The American Revolution?

2011-03-08T13:07:00.002-05:00

When people consider the causes of the American Revolution, the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" comes to mind. And so does the Boston Tea Party (1773), the Stamp Act (1765), and those "Sons of Liberty" tarring and feathering British officials in the streets. For many people, the American Revolution is seen as the byproduct of colonial unrest over unfair taxation. This is a very shallow understanding of the War for Independence. British efforts to restrict trade, control the colonial economy, arrest expansionism, restrain colonial dissent and protest, and station troops in North America all contributed to a rising tide of discontent that led to war. What was at stake ultimately wasn't how much in taxes colonists were willing to pay, but rather the fundamental issues of freedom and self-determination.

"No Taxation Without Representation"

The most famous slogan of the colonies leading up to the American Revolution was "No Taxation Without Representation." The fact that this slogan endures today shows the power of good public relations. Words - coined effectively and succinctly - have staying power! The power of slogans notwithstanding, when people conclude that the War for Independence was about taxes, they forget these simple facts:

The most burdensome and controversial tax levied on the colonies was the Stamp Act of 1765, which was repealed in 1766 (nine years before military hostilities broke out and ten years before independence was declared)
The last major tax which preceded the war itself was the Tea Act of 1773, which represented a paltry tax on British tea in North America -- so paltry, in fact, that British tea (taxed as it was) was still cheaper than smuggled Dutch tea
When the Second Continental Congress enumerated the specific grievances in the Declaration of Independence, they listed "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" as Number Seventeen!

Clearly, if taxes were the main cause of the American Revolution, the war would have started sooner than it did, and the Founding Fathers would've thought to list it higher up in the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

So, if not taxes, what then?

Self-Government: The Real Issue Behind the War for Independence

With the conclusion of the French and Indian War and the ascension of King George III to the throne, the British government shifted its economic policy toward her North American colonies. Prior to the Seven Years War (or "French and Indian War" as it was called in North America), the British were content to allow the colonies to more or less govern themselves. After the French and Indian War, things changed.

The British extended their mercantilistic policies of trade restrictions and economic control, and began to directly tax the American colonists for the first time. In response to domestic tensions, they stationed more troops, undermined the authority of colonial assemblies, and ultimately imposed martial law in New England (and threatened to do so elsewhere). By the 1770s, it was clear that the British no longer respected the tradition of American self-governance.

The cause of the American Revolution was best summed up by militia volunteer Levi Preston. Interviewed over 50 years after the events of the Revolution, Preston gave the following explanation for the American Revolution: "What we meant in going for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should."

Recommended Reading

For more on this important subject, read the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, and a previous blog post "What Led to the American Revolution?"

Five Diorama Ideas: Possible Historical Diorama Projects for Students, Hobbyists, or History Buffs in General

2011-03-05T12:38:00.002-05:00

This is a slightly revised version of an article I wrote for Suite101 a couple years back. The diorama ideas cover American history in general, not simply the American Revolutionary period, but I thought my readers here might be interested nonetheless.

****

Five Diorama Ideas: Possible Historical Diorama Projects for Students, Hobbyists, and History Buffs in General

American history is an exciting subject, especially for those able to put themselves into history. Those who dislike history have never captured the ability to immerse themselves in it, instead seeing the past as a frustrating array of names and dates. Getting past that misconception is one of the important keys in capturing a love for history (or getting one's child to love history), and dioramas are a great tool in achieving this.

A diorama is a miniature scene, depicting an episode or setting from the past. It's kind of like an artificial, three-dimensional "snapshot" of the past, and it can be a compelling way for someone to connect with history.

To make a diorama, you will need:

cardboard box or sturdy container of some kind
dollhouse dolls or miniature figures
miniature trees, rocks, and other outdoor objects
dollhouse furniture (depending on your diorama)
modeling clays
miniature animals
paints

You should also check out this great diorama starter kit from Amazon and ask a local hobby store employee for anything else you might need.

What follows are five suggestions for exciting dioramas depicting events and settings of American history. Whether you are a history buff, hobbyist, or history student, these suggestions for dioramas should get your creative juices flowing. They are:

1) The Drafting of the Declaration of Independence

Your diorama will feature the committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress to draft the Declaration of Independence. There were five delegates on the committee -- three of which are household names (Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson). This scene can be depicted with a wooden or plastic surface, painted and/or 'treated' to resemble a colonial hardwood floor. You will then need a colonial desk and at least two chairs. Sitting should be Thomas Jefferson, pen in hand preferably, and also the elder statesman Benjamin Franklin. John Adams can be standing, peering over Mr. Jefferson's work.

2) Lewis & Clark

For this scene, you need two principal explorers (Lewis and Clark obviously) and perhaps a couple individuals accompanying them (Sacajawea perhaps). Have them standing on a rock cliff overlooking a valley, peering through a telescope into the distance. Backgrounds are key here. Attention to detail in the painting will be critical. You will need to use a combination of miniature trees, rocks, cliff-like facades, and paints to create the effect.

3) GIs Around a Sherman Tank

Show a squad of US infantry gathered around a Sherman tank in World War II, taking a brief respite from the action of the day. Have three or four sitting on the tank, with several others leaning against it or sitting around the perimeter. You'll need grass, dirt, stone, and good painting for the backgrounds. To add to the effect, you could have a smoldering German Panzer in the background. Put some dead bodies around as well.

4) World War I Trench Warfare

This will take some elaborate planning, but it's one that will look absolutely awesome when you're done - provided it is of course done right. Not only that, but it will showcase one of the most interesting and significant aspects of the Great War -- life in the trenches. Your diorama should feature soldiers living along a trench line, in various modes from sleeping, watching through the periscope, eating, and so forth. The rest of the diorama (working our way forward from the trench) will be "No Man's Land" with barbed wire, dead bodies, shell holes, debris, etc.

5) USS Monitor v. CSS Virginia

How about a diorama featuring the most important naval battle in US history - the Civil War fight that signaled the end of wooden ships and the rise of the modern navies? This was the fight that pitted the CSS Virginia (the raised and retrofitted USS Merrimack) against the "cheesebox on a raft" (otherwise known as the USS Monitor), the first warship with a movable turret.

Dioramas are time-consuming and can be very tedious. For more information on how to do them effectively, you should check out Sheperd Paine's How to Build a Diorama. The reward of dioramas, however, makes them worth it - provided, of course, they are done right. Good luck.

Revolutionary War Genealogy: A Case Study in Research Using Free Resources

2011-03-03T16:59:00.000-05:00

So far, I've been able to trace my paternal ancestral line back to the early 1800s, with a general idea about my relatives during the Revolutionary War. Given that I'd like to find out more, I've taken a particular interest of late in genealogical research. I came across this case study over at EzineArticles.com, which I thought might be of interest to my readers.

******

Genealogy Research Using Free Internet Resources - A Case Study

By Linda Altman

Using free genealogy resources available on the internet, we will determine that the Abraham Labar married to Ann Marie Lange is not the same individual as Col. Abraham Labar of Revolutionary War fame.

Previous Genealogy Research Performed

The following information has already been determined by prior research. Abraham Labar was born in 1752 and died on 24 January 1814. He was married to Anne Marie Lange and they resided in Upper Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Using this information as Abraham Labar's unique identifiers, we can separate him from other men with the same name in the same location.

The Quest:

According to the information provided, Abraham Labar is the correct age to have been able to serve in the Revolutionary War. In this case study, we did not use any for fee websites. Instead we resorted to online research techniques that include the use of search engines, free genealogy websites that offer transcriptions of records, and websites from state archives.

The first place we looked for Abraham Labar, is in the US census. 1790 is the year we will start searching. This is the first federal census taken in the US. You can expect to find the names of the head of household and a listing of other residents, by gender and age. Our quest for Abraham Labar shows the following 2 records located in 1790 US census, Upper Bethel Township, Northampton County:

Abraham Labar household: 3 males aged 16 and over, and 7 females.
Margaret Labar household: 3 males aged 16 and older, 3 females. Margaret is probably a widow.

We continue our search to the 1800 census. This census contained the same information as the 1790 census, however the age categories are expanded. We found 1 entry of interest:

Located in 1800 US census, Upper Bethel Township, Northampton County, Abraham Labar, aged 45 or older, 1 female aged 45 or older.

This is most likely the same Abraham Labar listed above; at 48 years of age his information fits.

There are other places to look for genealogical records other than the US census. We expanded our search to the Pennsylvania State Archives. Their ARIAS database reveals 5 records of interest:

Abrm. Labar, Lieutenancy: Northampton, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Company, Captain Henry Allhouse, 4th Class, 16 May 1780, inactive duty militia.
Col. Abraham Labar, 5th Battalion, PA Militia, September 1776 to May 1777.
Abraham Labar, no rank specified, 5th Battalion, 4th Company, Captain John Long, 1 May 1782.
Col. Abraham Labar, 5th Battalion, 1777-1780.
Col. Abraham Labar, accounted for £ 310.10.0, entrusted to him September 1776 for recruiting the flying camp. [Flying camps were a special battalion of PA line troops].

These records show that there are 2 different Abraham Labars, serving from the same area of Pennsylvania. Which one is the man we are looking for?

Our last stop in our research is DAR online lookups. The DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) has a record for Col. Abraham Labar that is of great importance.

Col. Abraham Labar, born in Delaware before 1750, Colonel from PA, no pension, Died in PA after 1777. His wife is Margaret Gordon.

This Col. Abraham Labar, contained in the DAR records, is most likely the spouse of Margaret Labar, listed in the 1790 census above. In addition this rules out that the Col. Abraham Labar, is not the ancestor of my client. Here is why:

Abraham Labar (1752-1814), married to Anne Maria Lange, would only have been about 24 at the onset of the American Revolution. This is very young to have obtained the rank of Colonel by 1776. Abraham Labar, the subject of our research, is married to Anne Marie Lange, not Margaret Gordon.

There is no way to determine if Lt. Abraham Labar from above is the man we are looking for, however, we can rule out that he is NOT the same individual as Col. Abraham Labar, because he could not serve in 2 separate units, with 2 separate ranks at the time.

These records clearly indicate that there were 2 men named Abraham Labar from Upper Bethel Township. In depth research will completely identify the Abraham Labar of our research as a separate and distinct individual from the Col. Abraham Labar listed in the records above.

© 2008 Linda Altman and Southern Genealogy. All rights reserved.

Linda Altman is a writer and researcher with 10 years of genealogy research experience. Her company Southern Genealogy, http://www.southerngenealogy.com specializes in Census research, and families of the southeastern US, in particular, North Carolina families. Other areas of expertise include passenger lists, Native American research, and New England family research. This article may be reprinted as long as this entire box and copyright are included with it.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Linda_Altman

Old Letter From Martha Washington Turns Up....in Kansas

2011-02-27T00:14:00.000-05:00

The people of Concordia, Kansas have something rather extraordinary to talk about. It seems a letter penned by the First Lady, as in the very first First Lady, has turned up in their small, little town of 5,700 people. The letter was written by Martha Washington in 1793, during her husband's presidency, and somehow made its way over the years to rural Kansas.

To read more about this very interesting story, click on the following link...

"Letter From Martha Washington Discovered in Small Kansas Town"

History Channel War of 1812 Documentary Waves The Flag

2011-02-25T20:59:00.004-05:00

THE HISTORY CHANNEL® PRESENTS: THE WAR OF 1812 is a must-have for anyone that's remotely interested in early American history. The DVD box set includes the following programs:

FIRST INVASION: THE WAR OF 1812, which portrays a young United States "on the brink of annihilation" just 30 years after its independence
SAVE OUR HISTORY: THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER, which takes viewers through a history of the American flag and the poem that became America's national anthem
THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, which covers General Andrew Jackson's lopsided and crucial victory over the British in 1815, weeks after the War of 1812 had officially concluded
Special Features, including a behind-the-scenes look at First Invasion and an episode from Extreme History on surviving in an 1812 battleship.

The real prize in this boxed set is the documentary First Invasion: The War of 1812. The documentary, which first aired on The History Channel in 2004, portrays a young United States of America "on the brink of annihilation" as it battles the largest and most powerful empire on earth. The clearly pro-American documentary chronicles primarily the final phase of the war, focusing almost exclusively on the British sacking of Washington, the assault on Fort McHenry, and the climactic encounter at New Orleans.

First Invasion tries to tie in the infamous "September 11" date by pointing out that British warships were descending on Baltimore and Fort McHenry, backed by an invading army, in the month of September 1814. To the Americans besieged in Baltimore and to a young attorney named Francis Scott Key, the assault on Ft. McHenry, coming on the heels of the capital being overwhelmed, was every bit the "September 11" of that generation.

Critics say First Invasion is far too pro-American, and that it ignores or downplays other elements of the War of 1812. Well, First Invasion is indeed guilty of "US spin" (as one critic called it). I'm not sure this is necessarily wrong, though. Michael Moore is famous for turning out documentaries that advocate a certain point of view and "spin" facts accordingly. While I'm not necessarily a Michael Moore fan, I don't have a problem with documentarians coming at their subject with a perspective or viewpoint. In this case, the makers of First Invasion clearly are Americans and they are patriotic. Or at least they are appealing to patriotic Americans. Not a problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Is it accurate? Yes, the documentary is very accurate. It points out that American looting and burning in Canada is what set the stage for the British torching public buildings in Washington. The film also acknowledges some of the expansionist greed that was behind some of the US politicians who supported the war. Nevertheless, the film very correctly points out that the United States was fighting for its viability as a free nation, if not its independence altogether. In many respects, the War of 1812 was a second war for independence with Great Britain. Losing the conflict would have been disastrous to the United States.

Of course, the United States was hardly prepared for the conflict. When war was declared, the U.S. had only 7,000 scattered soldiers under arms and roughly 16 warships. It could not strike directly at Great Britain, even though the Mother Country was distracted by Napoleon. So, the US had to invade Canada, which it did in 1812. And that didn't go too well. Before long, the US was rocked back on its heels, facing invasion from several fronts. And that's where First Invasion picks up.

If you haven't seen the film, I highly recommend you pick up a copy at your local bookstore, order it online from this link, or try to borrow it from your local library.

Jefferson Books Found

2011-02-24T10:56:00.000-05:00

It's a history scholar's dream come true! Dozens of Thomas Jefferson's books were found at Washington University in St. Louis. Some of the books include hand-written notes from the third President. You can read more about this news story at the following link...

"'Amazing Trove' of Jefferson Books Discovered"

Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the third President of the United States, and the founder of the University of Virginia.

Horatio Hornblower DVD Series Takes Viewer Back to the Age of Sail

2011-02-22T23:55:00.003-05:00

Many years ago, as an 8th grader, I was assigned to read a literary novel. When I asked my parents for a recommendation, my dad suggested C.S. Forester's classic Horatio Hornblower series. He knew I liked military history, and thought C.S. Forester's literary masterpiece would be perfect. He was right! The book I chose was Beat to Quarters, and I could hardly put it down. Shortly thereafter, my dad introduced me to the movie Captain Horatio Hornblower, starring Gregory Peck. I ended up watching that film more than a few times! And, over the next few years, I read more of C.S. Forester's novels as well as those of Alexander Kent.

You can imagine then my excitement, when A&E debuted the Horatio Hornblower television movies, featuring Ioan Gruffudd as the title character. At the time, Gruffudd was a relative newcomer to acting, but has since gone on to star in The Fantastic Four films. In addition to Gruffudd, the cast included Robert Lindsay, Jamie Bamber, and Paul Copley.

If you haven't yet seen the award-winning A&E Hornblower films, you should order the HORATIO HORNBLOWER COLLECTOR'S EDITION from Amazon without delay. The Collector's Edition features all eight movies, where you can watch Hornblower rise from midshipman to ship's commander. It's awesome swashbuckling naval adventure!

The Hornblower movies ran from the late 1990s to the early 2000s on A&E, and then, due to apparent budget issues, further production was set aside. In interviews, Gruffudd has said he's interested in bringing them back, but it appears that may be a long time coming, if at all. Until then, you need these movies in your collection.

The Collector's Edition comes with an exclusive interviews, filmmaker commentaries, bonus programs, interactive features, photo gallery, and more. Order now.

What if George Washington Had Never Been Born?

2011-02-19T17:51:00.001-05:00

What if George Washington had never been born? What if the "father of our country" was someone else? Would the French and Indian War have started? Would the Continental Army have defeated the British under someone else's leadership? Would someone else have successfully thwarted a military coup at Newburgh? Would a different general refused opportunities and requests for supreme authority? Would the Constitutional Convention been successful without his authoritative presence? And who would have been the first President of the United States?

George Washington and the French and Indian War

Would the American Revolution have taken place, absent the French and Indian War? Most historians would probably say "no," as the French and Indian War (aka "Seven Years' War") accelerated the cultural and political divide between the colonies and the Mother Country. Without the French and Indian War, Britain's treasury would've been in a much healthier position in the 1760s. Thus, it's unlikely Britain would've felt compelled to levy as many taxes on the colonies or station troops in North America.

Since George Washington was right in the thick of instigating the French and Indian War, it's tempting to conclude that the Seven Years' War might never have occurred. Thus, some might wonder if Washington was at least indirectly responsible for the Revolutionary War happening in the first place.

While the young, eager, and inexperienced Washington did indeed stumble his way into a skirmish that led to the French and Indian War, the nature in which that skirmish took place and the way in which tensions were already mounting between France and England leads one to believe that the French and Indian War was inevitable. It's going much too far to conclude that Washington was solely responsible for starting the war or that the war never would've happened without him. In the case of the French and Indian War, George Washington rode events more than he drove them.

George Washington and the American Revolution

As with the French and Indian War, George Washington was incidental to the American Revolution starting. Sure, he helped fuel tensions against the Mother Country from his estate in Virginia and seat in the House of Burgesses. Sure, he co-wrote The Fairfax Resolves. Sure, he was part of the First and (initially) the Second Continental Congress. But, as with the French and Indian War, he rode events more than driving them. The American Revolution would've happened, even if George Washington had never been born.

That's not to say, however, that the American Revolution would've been a victory for the Americans, had Washington not played his part in it. Yes, the Revolutionary War would've happened, but once it broke out, strong leadership was needed to see it through to a successful conclusion. And it's difficult to imagine who else could've provided that leadership other than George Washington.

Had Washington not been alive, the Continental Congress would've had to consider the likes of Artemas Ward (health issues), Israel Putnam (age and health concerns, a stroke in 1779 ended his career), Charles Lee (issues with competence, character, and loyalty), John Hancock (an impressive signature and trader, but an effective general only in his imagination), or Horatio Gates (an ambitious, conniving opportunist who showed his true colors at Camden). Their best choices would likely have been Philip Schuyler or Richard Montgomery, but neither of these men were optimal choices. Some of my readers may be thinking Benedict Arnold (who, aside from the whole treason thing, was an excellent leader), Nathanael Greene, or Henry Knox, but these men flourished under Washington's guidance and mentoring. The scenario we're considering is 1775, not later in the war, when either Knox or Greene would've been an able replacement to Washington.

Even though Washington's generalship in the Revolutionary War produced mixed results, he excelled in the areas that mattered most. His character was unimpeachable, thus he could be trusted with the army and the authority given him. He was brave, thus earning the just respect of his men and inspiring them to similar acts of courage. He was a superb strategist, in that he quickly grasped the nature of the "long game" and the need to keep his army in the field and not risk it in too many grandiose, stand-up engagements. He knew when he had to have a victory, such as a Trenton, and when to cut his losses, such as Germantown.

It's very difficult to imagine any other person leading the Continental Army to victory over the British Empire in the American Revolution.

George Washington and the Revolution's Aftermath

Washington's indispensable nature becomes truly evident in the closing years and immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War. After Yorktown, what little public sentiment there was to support the war effort began to quickly evaporate, leaving Washington's army in the field with poor supplies, inadequate pay, and broken promises. Washington didn't dare support the dissolution of his forces, because that would remove any pressure on the British to grant American independence in the peace negotiations he knew were taking place in France. Washington therefore had the dangerous and unenviable task of keeping an increasingly frustrated, desperate, and disillusioned army in the field.

Washington knew when to be harsh in his discipline and when to make concessions. And he knew when to risk his own reputation and possible safety. His performance at Newburgh is the stuff of legend. Can anyone possibly imagine someone else other than George Washington pulling that off?

What's more, when Washington was essentially offered the keys to the government and the ability to become a dictator, he refused. Would Horatio Gates have refused? Would Charles Lee have refused?

Without Washington's character, fortitude, and calming presence, the American Revolution would likely have degenerated into civil unrest and a military dictatorship. The dream of freedom and a republican form of government would've been stillborn.

George Washington and the Constitutional Convention

In terms of the actual content of the Constitution, Washington's participation at the Constitutional Convention was more symbolic than substantive. The members of the Convention understood Washington would likely be the first Chief Executive, so the way they hammered out the executive branch of government was likely influenced by this realization. In terms of actual discussion and debate, Washington said very little. It is certainly conceivable, though, that the Constitution would've been very close in content and composition to what it was, had Washington not been present.

Ratification of the new Constitution or the very fact that the Convention happened in the first place are different matters altogether. Washington was instrumental in laying the groundwork for Americans understanding that a stronger government, than the one provided for the Articles of Confederation, was necessary. And his attendance at the Constitutional Convention did much to allay fears and concerns that a monarchy or dictatorship was being erected in Philadelphia.

After the Constitution was signed, Washington lent his name and prestige to support ratification of the document. It's unlikely the Constitution would've been ratified, had Washington been absent from the Convention or had he declined to support it.

George Washington and the First Presidency

Ask the average American what George Washington did as President and you will get a smattering of answers, most of them sparse. There is the impression that George Washington was more a figurehead than a substantive leader, and that his contributions as President were minimal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

President Washington created the Cabinet, appointed the first Supreme Court, presided over the adoption of the Bill of Rights, kept us out of a renewed (and costly) war with Great Britain, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and supported the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton which were necessary to get the United States on a sound financial footing. He also supported moving the capital of the nation to its present location, and took an active part in its initial designs. Most historians rank Washington as at least our second or third greatest President, falling behind only Abraham Lincoln and sometimes Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Washington was Indispensable

When you consider all that George Washington did for the United States -- and didn't do (such as becoming dictator or king) -- one has to agree with the late Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner, who wrote that George Washington was "the indispensable man."

Remove George Washington from history and you remove quite possibly the very existence of the United States of America and most certainly its nature and identity as the world's leading superpower and the greatest republic the world has ever known.

******

For more on George Washington, check on the latest biography Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow.

What Would Francis Scott Key Think of Christina Aguilera?

2011-02-07T11:03:00.001-05:00

Multiple Grammy Award winning artist Christina Aguilera made a whopper of a mistake as she sang America's national anthem prior to the kickoff of Super Bowl XLV. Following along with Aguilera's song last night, I recall thinking, "That doesn't sound right." My wife caught it just as quickly, saying, "She screwed up."

Sure enough, Aguilera fumbled the line "O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming" by singing instead "What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last reaming." Backstage, Aguilera was reportedly "devastated" by the error.

She released a statement after the game saying, "I can only hope that everyone could feel my love for this country and that the true spirit of its anthem still came through."

I'll give Aguilera credit for her enthusiasm and heart, which certainly came through in her rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" last night. (Though I personally prefer a more traditional, straight-up singing of the national anthem). Nevertheless, when you're tapped to sing the nation's most famous song on the biggest sports night of the year, you'd think that a professional musician would study and rehearse enough in advance to give an error-free performance. As the Marines are fond of saying: "Proper prior planning prevents poor performance."

As to what Francis Scott Key would've thought, that's hard to say, but one can certainly imagine him in the stands last night, shaking his head and thinking: "That's not what I wrote."

Kevin Baker Offers a History Text For Visual Learners

2011-01-25T15:48:00.001-05:00

Novelist Kevin Baker brings his flair for storytelling as well as his renowned research skills to bear in America: The Story of Us, the companion book to the HISTORY series of the same name. (HISTORY is now the name, of course, of what was The History Channel). Baker, a longtime columnist for American Heritage magazine, gives readers a visually-driven journey through American history. While some tradition-minded folks may object to what they perceive as the superficiality of the work, Baker's efforts will probably draw more interest in American history than what other more traditionally-crafted history texts might.

The publisher was kind enough to send me a copy for review, and I found it to be an easy read. It's not the kind of text that a scholar or hardcore researcher would use, but it provides a good overview of our nation's history.

Baker paints a generally positive picture of the American nation, though he doesn't shy away from the darker aspects of its history. He places the birth of America in the desire of white immigrants to escape European feudalism and establish a "New World" that would allow them to "rise as high as their talents and tenacity might lift them." This noble enterprise, of course, was tragically marred by the, at times, brutal repression of Native Americans and the barbaric exploitation of African slaves. Yet, for all its weaknesses, flaws, and struggles over how to properly treat people of various races, both genders, and the like, the American Dream remains a cherished ideal. Baker approvingly quotes F. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote of "the last and greatest of all human dreams."

Baker's coverage of the American Revolutionary period is fair, albeit somewhat shallow. This is understandable for a survey of American history, yet America: The Story of Us still leaves readers with the popular (but mistaken) impression that the American Revolution was mostly about taxes. That is simply not the case.

America: The Story of Us does an excellent job of pointing out that the infamous Dred Scott decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roger Taney, was completely inconsistent with the vision and spirit of the Founding Fathers. In that decision, which Baker calls "the most disruptive decision in Supreme Court history," Taney wrote that people of African descent were "beings of an inferior order" who "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." This staggering decree was, as Baker correctly points out, a "willful misreading of history" on the part of Taney and the racist Supreme Court.

As Baker writes, free African Americans in the original United States "had the right to vote in ten of the 13 states, owned property, spoke in public meetings, and sued in court." This explains why Abraham Lincoln so forcefully (and correctly) declared that the Founding Fathers put slavery on "the course of ultimate extinction," never intending to endorse or preserve in the long term what they all regarded as evil.

For those interested in a broad overview of American history, Kevin Baker's America: The Story of Us is a good investment. If you're looking for something scholarly and in-depth, you may wish to look elsewhere.

Planning a Trip to Boston? Check out These Boston Attractions

2011-01-24T19:31:00.002-05:00

History buffs know that Boston, Massachusetts is one of the more significant locales in early American history. If you're planning to visit Boston sometime this year, either for business or pleasure, don't miss the opportunity to see some of Boston's significant historic sites.

Here's a great article I came across on some must-see sites in Boston...

****

"Boston - Top 10 Tourist Attractions"
By Leslie Reitman

A Boston vacation can mean different things to different travelers.

Whether you are visiting this city for the first time, the tenth time or if you are a local resident, there is always something to do.

A couple of factors to first consider are the time of year you are visiting, the weather, and the age of other travelers with you. Most activities listed are open year round. However, some of the activities that involve water may be closed for part of the winter, and if open may be a bit chilly for some.

Here are arguably the top 10 tourist attractions in Boston.

1. Duck Tour

This tour takes you around the city in a land and water vehicle. You will learn interesting facts about the city as your guide drives you around town. Then, you see Boston from an entirely different perspective as your vehicle floats into the Charles River.

2. New England Aquarium

Visit marine life in many forms at this great aquarium. There is lots to see and do for all ages here.

3. Whale Watching

There a few companies that offer whale watches (one is through the aquarium). Most all companies guarantee that you will see whales or they will give you a free ticket to come back for another try.

4. Walk the Freedom Trail

Take a step back in time and learn about the people and places that made Boston famous in the American Revolution. You can take a self guided tour with a Freedom Trail map or you can find many different, knowledgeable guides who will take you on a guided tour.

5. Visit Faneuil Hall

This old, historic marketplace was a gathering place for many politicians and colonists back in the day. Now, you can visit the marketplace and stroll around the surrounding stores. You will find many local street performers in and around the area. You will also find great food, fun and souvenirs here.

6. Eat in the North End

This area is one of Boston's biggest Italian neighborhoods. The restaurants and atmosphere are wonderful.

7. Ride The Swan Boats

These boats are found in Boston Common and grace the waters of the area. Anyone who has read Trumpet of the Swan will be familiar with these boats.

8. The Museum of Science

This museum has some incredible exhibits. Visitors of any age will enjoy learning something new about planets, gravity or electricity- to name a few- at this hands on museum. The museum also has an IMAX theater.

9. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

This museum boasts the art collection of Ms. Gardner. She was one of Boston's well to do residents in the 1800s and was friendly with John Singer Sargent, the painter. You will find some of his work as well as that of famous European artists there. The Italian architecture of both the courtyard and museum are beautiful

10. Visit Newbury Street

This area has some of the best Boston shopping. You can stroll throughout this street and some of the surrounding streets for great fashion, accessories and home accents.

Certainly, with the many things to do in this city, there is a Boston attraction or Boston event for everyone.

Visit the Lets go to Boston website for more information on these and many other activities.

Article Source: Boston - Top 10 Tourist Attractions

Christmas at Mount Vernon

2010-12-25T01:28:00.000-05:00

How did George and Martha Washington observe the Christmas season? Check out this informative video from the folks at Mount Vernon...

Christmas 2010 Gift Ideas: New Books on the American Revolution Period

2010-12-07T19:35:00.000-05:00

Do you have a history buff or two on your Christmas gift list? There are several new books on the American Revolution available for this Christmas season (or, for those politically correct..."holiday season"). While I have not been able to review all of these books, here are some that look very interesting...

Robert Morris: Financier of The American Revolution -- Would the American cause have been triumphant in the Revolutionary War, were it not for the innovative, financial machinations of Robert Morris? Though he is one of the "forgotten Founders" today, he was certainly not "forgotten" in his day. A close friend of George Washington, Morris made things happen money-wise for the Continental cause. This new biography by Charles Rappleye is the first comprehensive, full-length treatment of Morris, and looks very interesting. I have a copy myself and plan to read it over this Christmas season.

Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry And The Call to a New Nation -- The patriot leader who "smelt a rat" in Philadelphia and therefore refused to attend the Constitutional Convention has, in the years since 1787, slipped into the second tier of America's Founders. Though he's been overshadowed in the history books, Henry was larger than life during his time period. As biographer Harlow Giles Unger reminds us, Henry was among the first to call Americans to arms against Britain and also to call for a national bill of rights, when ratification of the new Constitution (and a strong central government) became increasingly inevitable.

Ratification: The People Debate The Constitution, 1787-88 -- Historian Pauline Maier examines not simply the Federalist Founders who crafted the Constitution and defended it in such well-studied tomes as The Federalist, but rather looks carefully at the ratification debates which ranged across the young United States. Maier looks at the battles which took place at the state and local level, and thus highlights one of the most important dramas in early American history.

Valley Forge: A Novel -- Historical novelists Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen tackle the most famous winter camp in U.S. history. In the spirit of Michael Shaara and his son, Jeff Shaara, Gingrich and Forstchen take readers into the middle of history, rather than just telling them about it. If this novelization is as good as To Try Men's Souls (their novelized, but factually accurate take on the Battle of Trenton), it's worth your time.

Happy Reading and Merry Christmas!

Why Did The American Revolution Happen?

2010-11-26T16:31:00.003-05:00

Ask the average American why the Revolutionary War happened in the first place and, if you don't get a "deer-in-the-headlights" blank stare, you'll likely hear something about taxes. Two hundred and thirty-four years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the myth that the American Revolution was essentially a tax revolt continues to persist. The reason behind this perpetual myth is likely threefold:

Anti-tax conservatives, including the current "Tea Party" movement, enjoy portraying their cause as being in association with the nation's Founding Fathers.
Critics of the Founders (and these critics are usually from the left side of the political spectrum, often the Far Left as is the case with the now late, though still sadly popular Howard Zinn) enjoy undermining the credibility and heroic stature of the Founders, with arguments that the Founders were motivated purely or primarily by greedy, monetary interests.
Sam Adams, the Sons of Liberty, and the Committees of Correspondence were extremely effective with their public relations campaigns of the 1760s. Let's face it. The Founders were so good at their protest against taxation without proper representation that it's helped shape and define the legacy of the Revolutionary War itself.

The truth is far more complicated and nuanced than simple slogans or sound bytes. Unfortunately, most Americans haven't the patience or attention span to fully appreciate the truths and facts within history. While I certainly don't pretend to have complete knowledge of the truth myself, I do hope, in this brief blog post, to encourage you to seek out the correct information from the best sources, when it comes to historical questions such as this one. And in the case of the causes of the American Revolution, the best sources are those who started and fought the Revolution!

Was The American Revolution About Taxes?

While one might argue that the social and political upheaval of the Revolutionary period extends from the French and Indian War of the 1760s through the middle of the 1800s, the actual war itself began April 19, 1775, when British troops clashed with armed colonists in the New England villages of Lexington and Concord.

The bloodshed surrounding Lexington and Concord (and the long, painful British march back to Boston) took place ten years after the most egregious and hated of the taxes imposed on the colonies. That tax was the Stamp Act of 1765. While it certainly resulted in riots and mob violence, there was no war. There certainly was no movement for independence. That would come much later, after many "injuries and usurpations."

The American Revolution was not about taxes. It was about the colonial assertion that they had a right, as British subjects, to govern themselves, as defined by the colonial charters and British constitutional tradition. The power to levy taxes was part of the overall debate over self-government. Only the duly elected assemblies within each colony (such as the Virginia House of Burgesses or the Massachusetts legislature) had the right to pass laws or levy taxes within each colony. That was the main issue at play, and all grievances stemmed from that.

What Were The Colonial Grievances?

Anyone looking for an explanation of the causes of the American Revolution, at least from the perspective of the North American colonies, need only look as far as the Declaration of Independence. Laid out for the entire world to see are all the grievances which the colonists had against Great Britain. Here is what the Declaration of Independence has to say:

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

And there you have it....the colonial grievances against King George III and the British Parliament. Were some of the reasons perhaps over stated? Maybe. But that's for another blog post. The point here is that the Second Continental Congress very clearly laid out the reasons for their war for independence. Taxation was simply one of them. It was not the only one, nor was it the most important. And taxation would not have been an issue at all, were it not for the overriding disagreement over self-government.

Daniel Day Lewis to Play Spielberg's Lincoln

2010-11-20T17:08:00.000-05:00

Oscar winner Daniel Day Lewis will pick up a stovepipe hat to play one of history's most iconic figures. Steven Spielberg's long-awaited, long-discussed biopic film about America's 16th President has finally been given the green light. And for the main character, Spielberg turned to Lewis, who won Academy Awards for My Left Foot and There Will be Blood. Fans of American history movies will likely remember Lewis for Last of the Mohicans.

Liam Neeson, the original choice to play Abraham Lincoln, left the project some time ago. Neeson would've brought a lot of gravitas to the role, and it's a shame he backed out of the project. But put a beard on Daniel Day Lewis and a stovepipe hat on his head, and there is an uncanny resemblance to the legendary President. What's more, Lewis is an extremely talented actor. He may very well pull off the kind of mesmerizing portrayal of Lincoln that Paul Giamatti came close to achieving for the title character in John Adams and Laura Linney nailed for Abigail Adams.

My biggest concern for this biopic film project is that it strikes me as a better miniseries than a movie. Ted Turner's Gettysburg, an adaptation of Michael Shaara's Pulitzer winning The Killer Angels, worked well as a movie, because it focused on one battle in the American Civil War. By contrast, Gods and Generals faltered badly, because its scope was just too wide and its characters too rich to be adequately contained in a single film. This is a lesson that was likely not lost on the makers of John Adams, who chose to go the route of a miniseries rather than a single film.

But who am I to tell Steven Spielberg what he should do? :-) If he wants to make a movie about Abraham Lincoln, I'll gladly buy my ticket, grab some popcorn and a soda, and enjoy it! Let's hope that this movie finally gets made.

And then let's hope it's wildly successful, so Hollywood will then turn its attention to the man who was truly America's greatest President and most indispensable figure....George Washington.

David McCullough Takes Readers on a Stirring Adventure in 1776

2010-11-08T15:43:00.001-05:00

The most important year in American history is 1776. Few can credibly dispute that statement, since 1776 is the year that the United States of America was officially created and the year its budding independence hung precariously in the balance. It was the year that the Second Continental Congress, driven by the able leadership of statesmen such as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, formally severed ties with the British Empire and, thanks to the eloquent pen of Thomas Jefferson, articulated the principles upon which the United States would be established. Yet this assertion of independence, with all its grandiloquent references to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could easily have been snuffed out, were it not for the courage and perseverance of George Washington and the sacrifice and dedication of the Continental Army.

McCullough's book opens by showing King George III's stubborn refusal to heed colonial grievances. McCullough doesn't portray King George III as a buffoon, for he was not that. But McCullough does show how the British leadership, embodied by George III and Lord North, had become inexcusably and tragically disconnected from their subjects across the Atlantic. McCullough's narrative encompasses the politics of the war, but he brings a special focus on the military situation, which looked quite dismal for the American side through most of 1776.

When we look back on 1776 from the twenty-first century, it is difficult for us to appreciate how close the nascent United States came to losing its War for Independence. David McCullough's 1776 helps readers overcome that difficulty. He grippingly transports the reader back to those tumultuous weeks and months of 1776. Thanks to McCullough's consummate research and gift with language, our minds can relate with at least some of the anxiety that confronted George Washington when he wrote that "few people understand the predicament we are in."

Though he is sometimes (and sadly) dismissed by some of the more snobby (often left-wing) "elites" of academia, David McCullough is one of the finest writers of our time. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize (once for Truman and another for John Adams) and the National Book Award, David McCullough is simply amazing with his Royal Standard typewriter, which he purchased secondhand in 1965 - and still uses today!

The main complaint against McCullough is that he emphasizes the "story" part of the word "history," and he's unapologetic in his patriotism and respect for heroes -- something that resonates throughout his work. Left-wing historians, who resent what they disparagingly call the "Great Man" approach to history, simply can't abide this, even if the patriotism and respect for heroes is justified, as is certainly the case, when dealing with people like George Washington.

Anyone with even the slightest interest in American history should pick up a copy of this book. Books like 1776 are what cause people to deepen their appreciation for history. I highly recommend it.

George Washington Gets the Chernow Treatment

2010-10-26T01:45:00.001-04:00

Ron Chernow, the award-winning biographer of John D. Rockefeller and Alexander Hamilton, turns his attention to the greatest, and in some ways, the most elusive, figure in American history: George Washington. With Washington: A Life, Chernow attempts to shatter the image of the "wooden, unemotional man" most Americans have in their minds when it comes to George Washington. In its place, Chernow paints America's preeminent Founding Father as a dynamic, vibrant, and at-the-time wildly popular leader who was (in every way) larger than life and truly indispensable to early American history.

George Washington is not an easy person to write about. He kept much of himself private, remaining aloof quite often. Martha destroyed much of their correspondence upon his death, thus adding another security layer to Washington's privacy. But Chernow had an advantage that many of Washington's previous biographers did not. Since the late 1960s, the University of Virginia began to publish a new edition of Washington's papers, based on 135,000 documents gathered from around the world. Chernow calls this collection a "veritable feast of scholarship," and it was a feast not available to Douglas Southall Freeman and other notable biographers of Washington.

That Washington has been such a difficult and elusive subject for biographers is something Chernow conveys masterfully in his prelude, when he points out that Washington was also not the easiest person to paint. I found the introductory story about Gilbert Stuart to be a great "lead in" to the biography, as it truly set the stage for the daunting challenge of trying to understand Washington.

George H.W. Bush, the nation's forty-first President, once famously remarked: "Don't put me on the couch!" It was a reference to the increasingly popular tendency of 1990s talk shows to thoroughly unmask and psycho-analyze public figures. A man of his time, Bush was clearly uncomfortable with such brightly illuminated, often highly subjective analysis - an analysis that respected few, if any boundaries, as it probed deep into one's private life, personal background, religious views, family upbringing, etc. In the Age of Oprah and Dr. Phil, this has become the norm, and it's a world most unwelcome by people like George H.W. Bush - and, were he alive today, George Washington.

In his day, Washington went to great lengths to preserve some semblance of decorum and privacy. To James Madison, Washington wrote that he wished to avoid "too free an intercourse and too much familiarity." This aspect of Washington is something Chernow explores in great detail in his biography, including how Washington, as President, cultivated a tightly scripted and highly effective persona. Yet even in this rigidly planned and enforced context, the personal side would occasionally come through. Chernow writes of Washington's fondness for female company and how he clearly relished the attention he received from women admirers.

Chernow also dissects Washington's personality. In fact, it was revelations concerning Washington's personality that led Chernow to take on this project. While working on his previous biography on Alexander Hamilton, Chernow came across letters by Hamilton describing Washington as "moody, irritable, and temperamental." It was a side of Washington that Chernow knew he had to explore more. And the result is this massively researched work.

Chernow sticks to the facts when dealing with his subject. In the case of Washington's religious faith, for instance, Chernow doesn't grind any axes or throw in with any particular camp to advance a personal or cultural agenda. He points out (correctly) that Washington was, in no way, the kind of Deist who sees God as a "watchmaker" who winds up the world and lets it run according to "natural laws" with little to no intervention. In Washington's mind, God was decisively interventionist, with (writes Chernow of Washington's view) "a keen interest in North American politics." One need only look to Washington's First Inaugural Address as evidence of this.

On the other hand, Chernow acknowledges that, while Washington was regarded by many of his peers as "a sincere believer in the Christian faith," the man himself did not "directly affirm the deity of Jesus Christ." Some historians, such as Peter Lillback, would dispute that last statement, arguing that Washington's affiliation with the Anglican (and later Episcopal) Church constituted an affirmation on his part of Jesus' deity. That may be true, but it's also true that Washington wrote and spoke often of Providence, and rarely did so of Jesus.

Chernow's portrait of Washington includes a detailed and comprehensive look at his relationship with his mother, his infatuation with Sally Fairfax, his exploits in the French and Indian War, his generalship in the Revolutionary War, critical presence at the Constitutional Convention (in which he was far more than the figurehead many Americans think of), and of course his presidency. In 817 pages, Chernow succeeds in bringing Washington to life.

Civilization 5: Play as George Washington and Lead Your Civilization to Greatness

2010-09-27T16:52:00.001-04:00

Sid Meier's Civilization V has hit the marketplace, and it's so popular that stores are having a tough time keeping copies in stock. Civilization V is literally flying off the shelves. And no one should be surprised. This fifth installment of what is perhaps the greatest PC strategy game franchise of all time is well worth the purchase price. And, yes, you can play as George Washington! (You could play as George Washington in Civilization IV as well, but the animations are even better in Civ V!)

As my readers know, I like to occasionally deviate from the serious stuff -- and just have some fun. PC and board games are a great way to have fun with history. My dad and I used to play tabletop wargames all the time, as I was growing up. Among our favorites were the classics Gettysburg and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. Unfortunately, Dad passed away in 1992, too soon to enjoy the wave of PC wargames that swept the marketplace in the 1990s and continue to be enormously popular today. Nevertheless, if Dad were alive today, I know he and I would be playing Age of Empires II, Age of Empires III, and now Civilization V quite a bit.

Those unfamiliar with Civilization may wonder why I'm blogging about it here. Well, as my readers know, I generally don't blog about things, unless the topics relate directly with early American history. And this is no exception. While the Civilization games encompass all of history, that history includes the colonial period. In fact, you might say that the transition between the Renaissance-era Middle Ages and the Industrial Age is the most significant point of the game. If you don't transition your civilization quickly and effectively from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Age, you will likely lose.

In fact, this period is so critical, that the Civilization franchise includes a standalone title called Civilization: Colonization. It plays similarly to Civilization IV, and features a great system of trade and economy as you settle a new continent and then try to break away from Europe. A word of warning...it's very tough to successfully declare independence from Europe. But I digress.

With Civilization 5 (as in the previous installments), you take over a fledgling, nomadic, and primitive people - and lead them through the span of history to (hopefully) become a powerful, dynamic civilization. And did I mention that you can play as George Washington? In fact, you can play as a very long-living George Washington! This immortal aspect to your character is why Civilization is often called a "god game." As a pastor, I'm of course uncomfortable looking at it that way. And, in fact, the only "divine" characteristic you possess in the game is an immortal lifespan. Still, however you want to accept (or not) that aspect of your game's character, Civilization is a fun franchise to tackle.

Every single installment of Civilization has been addictive and immersive. Civilization V ups the ante with expanded visuals, absorbing audio (though Leonard Nimoy's narration from Civilization IV is missed), and adjustments / improvements in game play. Two big changes from Civilization IV are the absence of religion and the shift to a hex-based map. The jury is still out on whether the former is a good change, but I definitely approve of the latter. Hexes make for a richer, more tactical experience than squares.

Civilization V gets a solid A+. 5 stars out of 5. Whatever grading system you want to use, Civilization V rocks the house. :-) It's well with your time. And, believe me, it will soak up LOTS of your time.

Congress Approves the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789

2010-09-25T15:55:00.003-04:00

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress approved twelve (12) amendments to the new Constitution of the United States. Upon congressional passage, those twelve amendments went to the states for ratification. The states ratified ten (10) of the amendments, forming what we now know as the Bill of Rights.

Origin of the Bill of Rights

Rights were critical to the Founders of the United States. Virtually all of them embraced Imago Dei (the Judeo-Christian principle that Man is created in the image of God) as well as the natural law theories of John Locke. Deeply influenced by English traditions of limited government and popular rights (traditions echoed in documents such as Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights), the Founders believed that the people derive their fundamental rights from the Creator, whereas government derives its authority from the governed.

These values were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the various state constitutions and bills of rights. One of the most notable expressions of these rights at the state level was penned by George Mason. The author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Mason was a staunch advocate of limited government and individual liberty.

When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to address the failures of the Articles of Confederation, there was great reluctance to give too much power to the national government and thus compromise the liberties of the American people and of the various states. George Mason was among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and he ultimately refused to sign the document for lack of a bill of rights. Returning to Virginia to join anti-Federalists (opponents of the Constitution) like Patrick Henry, Mason exerted his influence against this new form of government.

As a means of insuring ratification of the Constitution, James Madison agreed to introduce a bill of rights, once the new Constitution went into effect. When Madison was elected to the First Congress, he moved to honor his agreement. Writing to a friend, the Virginia patriot said the amendments are "limited to points which are important in the eyes of many and can be objectionable in those of none. The structure & stamina of Govt. are as little touched as possible.”

Congress Passes Twelve Amendments

On September 25, 1789, the First Federal Congress sent twelve amendments to the state legislatures for ratification. The first two amendments, dealing with numbers of constituents and congressional pay, initially failed to get the requisite number of states to agree to them. Consequently, amendments three (3) through twelve (12) were ratified, becoming the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment concerning the number of constituents remains dead and will likely never again see the light of day. The original second amendment, however, was resurrected nearly 200 years later. It dealt with congressional pay was finally ratified on May 7, 1992, long after Madison and his colleagues were dead.

The Bill of Rights

Upon ratification by the requisite number of states, the Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791. The first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America are as follows:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

For more information, visit the Library of Congress exhibit page on the Bill of Rights.

September 24 in History: The Judiciary Act of 1789

2010-09-24T16:30:00.001-04:00

On September 24, 1789, President George Washington signed into law the first Judiciary Act under the newly ratified Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 filled out the judicial branch of government, which had been established (but not composed) by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This first Judiciary Act established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general.

Upon signing the statute, President Washington nominated John Jay to be the first Chief Justice of the United States and named John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison, and James Wilson to be associate justices. Edmund Randolph became the nation's first attorney general.

For more on this important landmark in U.S. judicial history, visit the Library of Congress "Primary Documents of American History" section on the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Revolutionary War Costumes: This Halloween, Get Your History On!

2010-09-17T19:54:00.002-04:00

Listen up, history buffs! Halloween is right around the corner! If you're looking for Revolutionary War costumes this Halloween, you've come to the right place. Halloween isn't just about zombies, vampires, and all that. It's also a great time for history buffs to showcase their creative flair and love for the past. For Revolutionary War fans, it's a chance to highlight what is arguably the most important era in American history.

Halloween Costume Ideas For History Buffs

If you're a history buff looking to dress up in a Revolutionary War costume this Halloween, here are some ideas and suggestions as to where, when, and how to make that happen...

Attend or host/organize a historical costume party
Participate in a local "Trunk or Treat" (many churches do these)
Go trick-or-treating with your kids as a costumed chaperone
Organize a history event at a local hobby or miniature gaming store
Connect with a local reenactor / living history group for further possibilities
Does your office have a dress-up day? If so, there you go!

Revolutionary War Costumes

Get your history on with these great Halloween costume possibilities...

British Officer Uniform

Want to dress up as the Bad Guys...errr...I mean "British"? :-) Then grab this British Officer Uniform, which features red gabardine tail coat with white lining and blue collar, button lapel, and cuffs. The uniform has gold buttons down front, around the cuff, and yellow-gold braiding. Also includes white gabardine vest and knickers with elastic waist.

Colonial Woman

Dress up as a woman from the colonial American period. Check out this adult Colonial Woman costume, which includes dress and bonnet.

American Patriot (for Men)

This budget-conscious male Patriot costume features a blue jacket with attached gold vest, cuffs and accents, matching pants with attached black boot tops, white ascot, and basic ticorn hat. Supplement with a wig, deluxe tricorner hat, and/or a stage or imitation musket or sword.

Patriot Costume (for Kids)

Amazon's 1776 Revolutionary Patriot Kids Costume features a blue jacket with attached gold vest and cuffs, tan pants with attached black boot tops and white ascot. No sword or hat are included, so you'll need to get those separately.

There are many other possibilities as well. Check out this great selection of historical costumes at Amazon for more. And have fun this Halloween.

How Much Do You Know About The Constitution?

2010-09-17T19:06:00.000-04:00

In honor of Constitution Day, I thought I'd offer a brief quiz to test your knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. Let's see how you do...

1) The Virginia Plan served as the blueprint for the new Constitution. Who was the author of the Virginia Plan?

2) Who refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because he "smelt a rat?"

3) The executive branch of the U.S. government is addressed in which Article?

4) Which Virginia delegate to the convention refused to sign the Constitution, primarily because it lacked (at the time) a bill of rights?

5) How many delegates actually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787?

Post your answers in the comments! Should be pretty easy for you.

Guest Article: The Top 10 American History Games

2010-09-15T17:59:00.001-04:00

Periodically, I like to post articles from guest bloggers, other blogs, or article directories. This particular article was submitted to me by a reader as a guest post. While some of its content steps outside of our typical focus (early US history), I thought it might be of interest to you all, especially those of you who like computer games, since James' article deals mainly with PC games. Personally, I've played about half the games James references, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. :-)

******

The Top 10 American History Games
by James Mowery

1) Oregon Trail is probably the game most people associate with American History, and many students probably played it in school. Originally released in 1971, the game continues to see some niche releases to help modern Americans continue the life of a 19th century pioneer.

2) Gold Rush! was another classic game that might bring back a lot of nostalgia for older players. While it may be kitschy by today’s standards, it had very accurate depictions of the transit problems early America faced.

3) 1602 AD is probably one of the best demonstrations of what colonial building in early America was like. It’s therefore ironic that Sunflowers, the company that developed the game, is actually based in Austria. By establishing different economic and social centers, a player needs to grow their colony into something truly awesome.

4) 1503 AD is the sequel to 1602 AD. Like it’s older brother, it was actually developed in Europe. Continuing to expand upon economics, some aspects of the game rather realistically model food production
and distribution in the earliest days of colonial America.

5) Rails Across America, by Flying Lab Software, is one of the greatest demonstrations of the business aspect of the railroads that built America. It focuses on the strategy of developing a railroad company as a whole.

6) Railroad Tycoon does for industry what Rails Across America did for business simulation. The game, and its sequels, goes in depth about what sets American railroading into a class of it’s own. To this end, it allows the unique aspect of comparing American operations to those of foreign countries.

7) The History Channel’s Civil War offering has an interesting duality about it. On one hand, the game is somewhat similar to a chess match fought between the Union and the Confederacy. However, when pieces
collide, a real time strategy combat session ensues.

8) American Conquest is a unique real time strategy game that allows a player to either play as a colonial power, or oppose them as a Native American nation. This dynamic adds to the interest and intrigue of the
game.

9) Another one of the games that show just how different the incredible American spirit is, Chris Sawyer’s Locomotion allows a player to explore how exceptional our nation’s industries are.

10) Sid Meier’s Gettysburg!, as well as it’s Antietam themed successor, is interesting in the way that it allows alternate possibilities for the Civil War to be played out. There’s a fairly large player modification community built up around it that continues to develop add on modules for the game, as well.

--James Mowery is a computer geek that writes about technology and related topics. To read more blog posts by him, go to LedTV.

Important Facts About General George Washington

2010-09-10T19:25:00.002-04:00

George Washington is perhaps the most familiar name in the United States and one of the best known names in the world. Yet few people actually know much about George Washington, beyond the basic, elementary facts of his resume and a few well-worn (largely discredited) cliches involving cherry trees and wooden teeth.

A few years ago, while teaching American history in high school, I used to challenge my students with the question: "Do you think you know a lot about George Washington?" Since Washington is one of my heroes (and my students thus had heard me talk about him a fair amount), they were convinced they did. So, I would have them take out a piece of paper and write ten of Washington's specific deeds or accomplishments. I still recall how their confidence would inevitably and very quickly evaporate. Like most Americans, my students seemed unable to retain much in the way of specifics when it came to George Washington.

Several years ago, James Rees, resident director of Historic Mount Vernon, lamented this growing ignorance of America's father. "Among young people, and young adults, we find many who don't know Washington was the first president and can't say what century he lived in," said Rees. "My fourth grade textbook had 10 times as many pages on Washington as the one the same school uses now. And there is a sizable fraction of our visitors who can't tell you whose portrait is on the $1 bill."

This particular post will look at the most important facts about George Washington's military career. In a future post, we'll look at Washington's presidency.

Important Facts About General George Washington

So, what are the most important facts about George Washington's military leadership? Here are the basics:

George Washington was a respected Virginia plantation owner, colonial politician, and French and Indian War (Seven Years' War) veteran on the eve of the American Revolution. (It is, of course, also important to know that the Seven Years' War or French & Indian War preceded the American Revolution, and helped set the stage for it.)
Washington supported colonial rights during the buildup of tensions with Great Britain, serving in both the First Continental Congress (1774) and Second Continental Congress (1775).
Based on John Adams' recommendation, George Washington was appointed by the Second Continental Congress to command the Continental Army and lead armed resistance against the British Empire.
As Commander-in-Chief of the nascent and evolving Continental Army, Washington declined to be paid for his services, but kept meticulous records of his expenses during the war (which he submitted for reimbursement).
Washington became Continental Army general at age 43. Most movies and paintings show Washington leading American troops as an old man with white hair. In fact, Washington was tough, healthy, middle-aged man at the time of the Revolutionary War.
From 1775 until 1783, General Washington presided over the growth of a largely untrained, thoroughly ill-equipped and ill-prepared "army" into a formidable (albeit still inadequately paid and poorly supplied) fighting force.
Washington was a brave and courageous leader, risking his life under fire numerous times.
Washington was a creative, but inexperienced battlefield tactician. Though he made several battlefield mistakes, he nevertheless demonstrated great charisma, strong courage, dogged persistence, and a brilliant grasp of the strategic picture.
General Washington arguably saved the American Revolution with his famous, and quite audacious, crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas Night 1776 to attack the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey.
The last major battle of the American Revolution was at Yorktown, Virginia (1781), where a combined French and American land force, supported by the French navy, bottled up Lord General Charles Cornwallis and his British forces. This resulted in a change-of-government in London and the beginnings of peace negotiations between Colonial America and the British Empire.
With peace negotiations ongoing, Washington kept his poorly supplied and insufficiently paid troops in the field for nearly two full years, working diligently to ease tensions and preserve domestic peace.
Washington flatly refused offers of any sort of dictatorship, and instead appealed to his officers at a famous speech in Newburgh to support the civilian government and stand down from any talk of insurrection.
Britain granted American independence in 1783, and George Washington resigned his commission as Commander-in-Chief, becoming one of the only revolutionary leaders in world history to walk away from power.

George Washington would, of course, come out of retirement in 1787 to preside over the Constitutional Convention and would soon become the nation's first President under the new Constitution. But were it not for Washington's military leadership during the Revolutionary War, there would've been no Constitution and no presidency.

George Washington's generalship and his statesmanship (in the war's final stages) are what made America possible. This is something that all Americans should appreciate and never forget.

Help Save One of America's Historic Warships

2010-09-06T23:01:00.001-04:00

With apologies to my readers, I am stepping outside the normal historic parameters of this site with this post, but I feel it's a worthy cause -- one that will be of interest to anyone interested in United States history, especially US military history.

Moored along the Delaware River in Philadelphia is the oldest steel warship in the world still afloat and the last surviving US combat vessel which took part in the Spanish-American War. The 5,500-ton Olympia, however, may soon see its last days. Without extensive repairs and refurbishing, the Olympia either will sink at its moorings, be sold for scrap, or be scuttled for an artificial reef.

While this blog normally stays within the pre-Civil War period, the historic significance of the Olympia is something of which all Americans should take note. For this reason, I'm asking all my readers to check out Friends of The Cruiser Olympia, read about the ship and its legacy, and see if there is any way you can help. Even small donations can add up. If you can help, I hope you'll consider doing so.

"All Men Are Created Equal" and Slavery: What Did Thomas Jefferson Mean by 'All Men Are Created Equal'?

2010-08-31T13:18:00.000-04:00

With its eloquent declaration of equality and human rights, the Declaration of Independence is one of the most influential and moving documents in western history. Yet while declaring some of the most noble sentiments in history, it nevertheless was signed by men who in some cases practiced and in all cases tolerated slavery, one of the greatest evils in world history. What did Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress mean by the words "all men are created equal"?

Frederick Douglass vs. Alexander Stephens

On July 4, 1852, the abolitionist leader and former slave Frederick Douglass delivered a scathing rebuke to the hypocrisy of America's celebration of freedom in the shadow of slavery. In his famous 4th of July speech at Rochester, Douglass asked: "What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?"

Several years later, the white supremacist Alexander H. Stephens, newly inaugurated as the vice president of the secessionist southern confederacy, declared that Jefferson's ideals and principles, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, had everything to do with Douglass and other African Americans. This, however, was a great "error" in Jefferson's thinking, according to Stephens. In his famous (or infamous) "Cornerstone Speech," Alexander Stephens criticized Thomas Jefferson and America's Founders for embracing the supposed "equality of the races."

Frederick Douglass had every reason to take the United States to task for the nation's hypocritical acceptance of slavery, but it's interesting that his take on Jefferson's ideals differed from that of Stephens' in the way that they did. If Douglass was right, the Founders never really contemplated African Americans in their Declaration of Independence. This assessment seems to be the predominant one in modern times. But if Stephens was right, this raises very interesting questions as to how we today should evaluate our nation's origins.

What Did Thomas Jefferson Mean By "All Men Are Created Equal"?

In his landmark Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, an imminent early American judicial figure, wroite: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments [documents] is to construe them according to the sense and the terms and the intentions of the parties."

While my postmodernist readers may differ, I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Story's take on language. When someone makes a statement or puts words on paper, that author infuses those words with meaning. Deciphering author intent is the ONLY fair way to answer questions related to the author's motive, meaning, and purpose.

Let me also add that the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, which embodied modernist thinking. They would've had little patience for the postmodernist nonsense that tries to render language as wholly incapable of expressing coherent meaning.

So, what did Jefferson mean when he wrote "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence? How can we decipher his meaning?

The best way to answer those questions is to look at Jefferson's other writings as well as his actions. It's true that Thomas Jefferson, and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were slave owners. In this respect, it is tempting to dismiss Jefferson's words as eloquent, but useless or hypocritical, rhetoric. Yet Jefferson showed himself to be a man torn by the moral difficulties inherent in slavery and by the inconsistencies between his values and his status as a slave owner.

Despite being a slave owner himself, the Virginia statesman nevertheless called the institution of slavery an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" on the country's honor. He wrote that the "rights of human nature [were] deeply wounded by this infamous practice." And in spite of his condescending, paternalistic attitude toward slaves (and his tragic belief that Africans were socially inferior to whites), Jefferson nonetheless preached that "all men are born free."

In a 1770 Virginia court case, Jefferson declared: "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

"[H]e [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

That the Founders weren't comfortable with such a denunciation of slavery in the Declaration of Independence, especially in light of the slave-based economies of the Deep South, is why this portion of the document was removed (much to Jefferson's chagrin). Nevertheless, it is instructive in understanding Jefferson's meaning. Clearly, Thomas Jefferson regarded slaves as "human" and as "men." As such, they were most certainly included in the scope of his words "all men are created equal."

Reevaluating Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

While it cannot be denied that the Founding Fathers collectively fell short of their own expressed values and principles when it came to the issue of slavery, it is simply not accurate to say that they visualized only white people when Jefferson wrote and they approved the Declaration of Independence.

The Founders were human. And like all human beings, they were sinners. They didn't always live up to the highest ideals. But this doesn't discredit the ideals or principles. It merely reminds us that they were human.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most eloquent and influential documents of all time, because it rests on the "equality of the races." In that sense, Alexander Stephens was correct. Tragically, Stephens saw this as an "error" on the Founders' part and hoped that the new Confederate States of America would correct it. Thankfully, Stephens' vision would not endure, but Jefferson's did.

Alexander Stephens vs Thomas Jefferson

2010-08-23T16:20:00.002-04:00

On March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia, the vice president of the newly formed Confederate States of America, declared that slavery was the "the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" and criticized America's Founding Fathers (specifically Thomas Jefferson) for embracing ideals that "rested upon the assumption of the equality of races." According to Stephens, this was an "error." The new Confederate States of America, declared Stephens, is "founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition."

This remarkable critique of the Founding Fathers is what justifies our stepping somewhat out of this blog's parameters. Normally, we focus on early American history and not the American Civil War. But Stephens' assessment of the Founding Fathers raises some interesting questions regarding how America's Founding Fathers came down on the issues of race and slavery.

Who Was Alexander Stephens?

If one looks at the pre-Civil War career of Alexander Hamilton Stephens, it is somewhat surprising that the Georgia politician would become one of the national leaders of a secessionist confederacy. A pro-slavery Unionist, Stephens spent most of his political career advancing southern economic interests, while at the same time defending the Union against any talk of secession. As late as the 1860 U.S. presidential election, Stephens was speaking out against southern secession.

Increasing regionalism and polarization in the 1840s and 50s, however, had set the stage for civil war, and there was little Stephens and others could do to stop it. With the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, the die was cast.

Stephens was elected to the Georgia secession convention, where he spoke out once again for Union, but defended the legal right of any state to secede. He soon found himself a member of the Confederate Congress, vice president of the provisional southern government, and finally vice president of the Confederate States of America. Though a reluctant secessionist, Stephens became an ardent supporter of the new Confederate government and its new Constitution.

The Deep South and Slavery

There are many Americans today who argue that slavery was but a minor factor or cause in leading to the American Civil War. These individuals, most of them serving as apologists for the "Lost Cause" myth of the American South, are correct that slavery wasn't the only issue of the war. They are also correct that Abraham Lincoln initially promised to leave slavery alone in the South, thus making clear that the Civil War (at least in the beginning) was not a war for liberation. But any efforts to downplay slavery as a relevant, defining issue of the Deep South run headlong into a high, thick wall of evidence to the contrary. For one thing, southern apologists who wish to downplay or ignore slavery must contend with the harsh reality of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens' infamous "Cornerstone" speech.

The Deep South states were very much motivated by slave interests. Their own secession documents, as well as numerous speeches and writings of their leaders (including Stephens), attests to the unmistakable fact that the Deep South seceded primarily over issues related to slavery. This is perhaps not so much the case with the Upper South, but there can be no doubt as to the initial wave of secession that began with South Carolina.

Stephens on the Founding Fathers

Today, America's Founding Fathers are continually attacked in the media, in academia, and in various other quarters of our society for being racist, pro-slavery, etc. Alexander Stephens also criticizes the Founders on the issues of race and slavery, but not in the same manner as modern critics. For Stephens, the Founders were NOT racist and pro-slavery, and THAT (in his mind) was the problem. Here is an excerpt from Stephens' speech, where he raises these objections to the Founders and their ideals:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

According to Stephens, Thomas Jefferson and America's Founders believed in racial equality, but they had it all wrong. The races, says Stephens, are not equal. And, says Stephens, the new Confederate government understands this.

Very interesting.

Was Stephens Right About Jefferson and the Founders?

Hopefully, all those reading this will agree that Stephens is fundamentally, tragically, and reprehensibly wrong on the issue of race. All human beings are equal in God's eyes.

But was Stephens likewise wrong when he described Jefferson and the Founding Fathers as believing in racial equality?

Well, let's agree that America's Founding Fathers certainly did not practice racial equality, not with any kind of advanced twenty-first century understanding of racial equality anyway. But Stephens' critique is that their principles "rested" on the general assumption of racial equality and his remarks primarily dealt with slavery. So, for our purposes, the issues here are slavery and the general, overall principles associated with basic human rights.

Our question then is did Thomas Jefferson have non-whites in mind when he penned the eloquent words of the Declaration of Independence? When Jefferson said "all men are created equal," was he just contempating whites or did he have a broader understanding of the word "men"?

Stephens would say that he did. That would be his answer. Many of today's critics of the Founders say Jefferson did not. What's the truth?

That is the question we will take up in my next post. In the meantime, I invite you to read Vindicating The Founders: Race, Sex, Class and Justice in the Origins of America by Thomas G. West.

Good Summer Beach Reading - Recommendations for Revolutionary War Fans

2010-07-24T10:21:00.000-04:00

Getting ready to go on our every-other-year beach vacation with my wife's family. This is a family reunion of sorts, where all four of Jane's sisters, plus their husbands and kids come to the Outer Banks for a mini-family reunion. Since I'm not a huge fan of going to the beach itself, it's a great week to do some reading.

So, what will I be reading? Well, right now, I've got the following packed and ready to go...

Rora by James Byron Huggins

This book was published almost 10 years ago. It's historical fiction, inspired by and closely following actual historical events. While it's not about the American Revolution, nor is it set in American history, the themes of Rora resonate very well with liberty-loving people everywhere.

Rora follows the story of Joshua Gianavel, the military leader of the Waldensians, European Protestants who valiantly resisted the medieval Catholic Inquisition by force. It's an exciting page-turner, full of incredible action. This will be the SECOND time I read it, and I read very few novels twice.

If you can't find it at your library or a used bookstore, you can get it at Amazon very cheaply.

George Washington on Leadership by Richard Brookhiser

George Washington on Leadership came out a couple years ago. I'm a fan of all of Richard Brookhiser's books, and this one looks quite promising. The only frustrating thing about it is that I had the idea to write a leadership book featuring George Washington as a model. But I never acted on it. :-( Brookhiser did. And it looks like a good one. I'll be reading it this coming beach trip.

Other Recommended Books

In addition to the above, I'll be taking a long a couple books that aren't related to our topic, including a book on public speaking and another on writing fantasy novels. (Yes, I hope to do that someday).

However, a few other books I can recommend to you, if you haven't yet taken your summer vacation are....

*Rise to Rebellion and The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara
*George Washington's War by Robert Leckie
*To Try Men's Souls by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen

Happy Reading!

And I'll be blogging some more when I get back!

Recommended American Revolution Movies

2010-07-06T22:31:00.001-04:00

Looking for American Revolution movies? Unfortunately, Hollywood has not done enough in covering this critical period of our nation's history. There just aren't that many films based in the American Revolution. But...thankfully...there are a few.

Here are my recommendations for American Revolution movies:

1.John Adams (HBO miniseries), starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney

One of the best film productions ever set in early American history, John Adams won numerous well-deserved awards! The miniseries stars Paul Giamatti, who portrays a believable John Adams. Laura Linney steals the show, turning in a breathtakingly awesome performance as Abigail Adams, one of the most remarkable women in American history. And I loved Tom Wilkinson as Benjamin Franklin!

Based on David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize winning John Adams and produced by Tom Hanks, John Adams is a must-see American Revolution movie (or, technically speaking, miniseries).

2. The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger

Okay, the plot doesn't exactly follow history closely and it's much too hard on the British. The antagonist, based on Banastre Tarleton (who was indeed ruthless and, at times, barbaric), is too evil. **Spoiler alert: Burning down a church with civilians inside is simply not something any British officer of the American Revolution would've done!

That said, it's nice to watch a big-budget Hollywood production, starring the same guy who portrayed William Wallace in Braveheart! (Though Braveheart is a better movie). If you just want to kick back, eat some popcorn, and enjoy a good movie set in the American Revolution, you should check out The Patriot.

3. George Washington, starring Barry Bostwick and Jaclyn Smith

This 1980s TV miniseries is a little dated. (You can tell it's a 1980s production, when you watch it). But it's worth your time, if you can get a hold of a copy. It unfortunately rarely comes on TV anymore. And you'll probably need to get in VHS. Like I said, it's 1980s.

Other American Revolution Movies...

I have mixed feelings about The Crossing, which stars Jeff Daniels, and Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor, which features Aidan Quinn. It would take me too long to get into a review of them right now, so I'll save that for another post.

I absolutely do NOT recommend Revolution, starring Al Pacino. Of course, if you're a fan of the dark, cynical version of American history, parroted by the late Howard Zinn, then you'll probably like Revolution. Otherwise, skip it.

For kids (of all ages), I do recommend Liberty's Kids! :-) An excellent animated miniseries that covers the American War for Independence.

Okay, what about you? What are some of YOUR recommendations for American Revolution movies?

Over a Quarter of Americans Don't Know Country From Which US Declared Independence

2010-07-06T17:53:00.000-04:00

In a recent Marist poll, 26% of respondents did not know that the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Yes, you read that right.

Thankfully, 76% of respondents DID know. I suppose this is some consolation. But for over 25% respondents not to know is troubling to say the least. Hopefully, the poll is not representative of reality. For if it is, it is yet another example of how shamefully ignorant many Americans are today.

Happy Independence Day

2010-07-04T08:00:00.003-04:00

Today, July 4, is the official birthday of the United States of America (even though John Adams thought it would be July 2). I would like to wish all my readers a very safe and enjoyable Independence Day holiday.

Every Independence Day, I like to not only spend time with my family (which is important), but also read the Declaration of Independence. That is, after all, what the holiday is all about. So, if you'd like to read the Declaration of Independence, follow the below link to do so...

Text of the Declaration of Independence, courtesy of Archiving Early America

Blessings!

What Happened on July 2, 1776?

2010-07-02T16:36:00.000-04:00

In a letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams predicted that "The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America." Adams had good reason to make such a prediction, since July 2, 1776 was an extremely significant day.

On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress voted to approve Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee's motion for independence. Lee's motion had been put forward on June 7, 1776, after months of debate and over a year of armed conflict with the Mother Country. Lee's motion read:

"Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

Thanks to some aggressive negotiations and politicking, John Adams and his supporters were able to get twelve of the thirteen colonies to vote in favor of Lee's motion. New York abstained.

This victory is what prompted Adams to write his wife, Abigail, the following:

"Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A Resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony 'that these united Colonies, are, and of right ought to be free and independent States, and as such, they have, and of Right ought to have full Power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things, which other States may rightfully do.'

"You will see in a few days a Declaration setting forth the Causes, which have impell'd Us to this mighty Revolution, and the Reasons which will justify it, in the Sight of God and Man. A Plan of Confederation will be taken up in a few days. On July 2, 1776 the Association known as United Colonies of America officially became the United States of America."

That "Declaration setting forth the Causes" would end up overshadowing the hardfought legislative victory of July 2. On July 4, Congress followed up its vote for independence with an approval of the Declaration of Independence. And it is that vote, which Americans have chosen to remember as their national birthday.

Great Novels of the American Revolution

2010-06-30T10:00:00.022-04:00

In general, I prefer reading nonfiction to fiction, but there are times I like to kick back with a good novel, especially great novels on American history! And since the American Revolution is my favorite period of history, here are some novels I have thoroughly enjoyed. I recommend the following novels without reservation...

1. Rise to Rebellion by Jeff Shaara

Jeff Shaara's father, Michael Shaara, is the Pulitzer winning author of the classic The Killer Angels, a Civil War novel set around the Battle of Gettysburg. Like his father, Jeff Shaara takes actual historical events as well as the writings (letters, diaries, etc.) of the key figures -- and builds a novel around them.

Jeff Shaara has written several such novels, including two on the American Revolution. Rise to Rebellion is the first in the two-part series, and the main heroes of the book are John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Highly enjoyable.

2. The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara

Shaara completes his two-part saga of the American Revolution with The Glorious Cause. In the first part, the main protagonists were Adams and Franklin. In this second part, Shaara shifts the spotlight to none other than George Washington. An excellent book! Highly recommended.

3. To Try Men's Souls: A Novel of George Washington and the Fight for American Freedom by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen

Even if you're a diehard liberal, you have to give Newt Gingrich credit for being an interesting figure, a credible historian, and an effective writer. Gingrich takes his love of history and his giftedness as a writer and teams up with bestselling novelist William Forstchen to write this novel set during the tumultuous and critical events of December 1776.

This is actually not the first Gingrich-Forstchen project. They wrote three awesome alternative history novels set around the Battle of Gettysburg. (The Civil War is outside the purview of this particular blog, but if you like "what-if" questions of history, you've GOT to read their Civil War novels! Start with Gettysburg, where the authors postulate a successful and daring end-run around the Army of the Potomac by General James Longstreet, resulting in General Meade's decisive defeat. What IF the South had won at Gettysburg? You've GOT to read it, if you haven't!). Gingrich and Forstchen have also written alternative history novels set around World War II.

To Try Men's Souls is NOT alternative history. In terms of the events portrayed, it's as accurate as they come. And it's a captivating novelization of a true story.

So if you like great novels on American history, then consider the above three. They are definitely well worth your time. You can follow the links to get them at Amazon or (better yet) check them out of your local library.

Happy Reading!

My Top Five Founding Father Biographies

2010-06-27T22:54:00.001-04:00

I love reading biographies. As a fan of the American founding era, I've found the following biographies of Founding Fathers to be particularly excellent. I'm not suggesting that these are the very best biographies written, nor am I saying that they are the most scholarly. But they are a great balance between solid scholarship and excellent readability. They are highly recommended.

1. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin by the man himself

There's nothing like reading primary source documents. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin remains an all-time great classic of American literary history.

2. John Adams by David McCullough

This Pulitzer Prize winner is one of the most comprehensive and absorbing biographies I've ever read. McCullough is unfairly looked down upon, because he lacks "proper" historian credentials. More evidence of the academic elitism that sadly permeates much of our culture. McCullough is a consummate researcher and a stickler for detail. His scholarship is solid. And he knows how to tap into the human element and tell a good (and accurate) story. I highly recommend McCullough and all his books, especially John Adams.

3. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands

Benjamin Franklin is one of the fascinating characters in world history, and certainly one of our most interesting Founding Fathers. H.W. Brands paints a vivid portrait of Franklin's life. I had a hard time putting this one down. Definitely worth your time.

4. Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington by Richard Brookhiser

This is, by no means, a comprehensive biography of Washington. For that, check out Joseph Ellis' His Excellency (which I recommend with some qualifications) or James Thomas Flexner or Douglas Southall Freeman. However, Brookhiser does a superb job examining Washington's legacy in American popular memory. Very insightful and very interesting.

5. Alexander Hamilton, A Life by Willard Sterne Randall

I confess that I have not yet read Ron Chernow's very popular biography on Hamilton. If I had, I may recommend it, instead of Randall's. But, of the biographies on Hamilton which I've read, Randall's Alexander Hamilton is the superior one. I was swept up in the story of Hamiton's life. He is truly the rags-to-riches story of the American founding. In many ways, Hamilton epitomizes what it means to be an American more than any other Founding Father. Honorable mention goes to Richard Brookhiser's Alexander Hamilton, American.

Also Recommended...

While not a biography per se, I would also highly recommend Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. The book does a great job showing how the colorful characters of our founding era interacted to produce not only some of the most interesting dramatic episdoes in our history, but also the most successful nation the world has ever known.

Have You Been to the Disney Hall of Presidents Lately?

2010-06-22T16:02:00.005-04:00

Walt Disney World's "Hall of Presidents" is one of the longest-running attractions in the Magic Kingdom. First opened in 1971, the Hall of Presidents is a multi-media attraction that honors all those (so far) men who have served as President of the United States. Since the early 1990s, though, the Hall of Presidents has undergone some significant changes. In the opinion of this blogger, not all those changes have been good.

My family and I just got back from vacationing at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. We of course enjoyed ourselves, though it rained much of our time there. (That was kind of a bummer). Still, does anyone actually have a bad time at Disney World? :-)

Though this was my fifth trip to Disney World, it was the first time I saw the redesigned Hall of Presidents. My first time to Disney World was in the late 1970s. I was a first grader and was absolutely blown away by the whole experience. Then, in the late 1980s, my parents took me back while I was in high school. I was older and able to take it in much more. And I had an absolute blast.

Yet the Hall of Presidents stood out as one of the most inspirational and moving experiences I had ever witnessed. Even as a first grader, I remember enjoying it. As an eleventh grader, though, I absolutely loved it and soaked it up. That and Epcot's "American Adventure." This was at a time, when I saw myself going into politics, so it made it all the more exciting.

My wife and I took our first trip together to Disney World (my third trip overall) sometime in 1993, and I once again soaked up the Hall of Presidents. Then, that same year (sometime after our visit) Disney changed the attraction. It would be the first of several.

In 1993, Columbia University professor Eric Foner helped revise the attraction to make it less iconic. His changes, supported by then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner, moved the Hall of Presidents away from Walt Disney's original vision. The most noticeable change was perhaps the diminished focus on Abraham Lincoln, Disney's hero.

The Hall of Presidents has gone through several more updates and changes since 1993, including a speech from the current President (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have all spoken - depending on who was President at the time). George Washington now speaks, which is, in some respects, a welcome change. Yet, all these changes have made the Hall of Presidents less than what it once was.

Let me give you an example. In the classic version, the finale had George Washington seated in the center of all the Presidents. He stood during the roll call, surveyed all the Presidents as if he were the leading statesman. When the narrator had finished the roll call, Washington nodded to a seated Abraham Lincoln and then took his seat (as if he, Washington, were the presiding officer, yielding the floor). Lincoln then stood and gave a very moving and patriotic speech, adapted from his famous Young Men Lyceum's address, in which he said "If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher." It was a great send-off, reminding Americans of their sacred duty to carry on the torch. That's all gone now.

Sure, Washington speaks. But, frankly, having him speak almost makes him less statesmanlike.

No longer is Lincoln's wise and patriotic statesmanship the final send-off. Instead, we're given a generic, feel-good, rah-rah speech from the current President. That's all well and good, but it just isn't the same. Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not Lincoln.

Since 1993, the changes to the Hall of Presidents have frankly diminished it. Gone is that feeling of "wonder" evoked in the original version. Now, it comes off more or less as a multi-media patchwork, trying to cut a balance between highlights from a history book on the one hand and political correctness on the other. This isn't to suggest that the Hall of Presidents has drifted into Howard Zinn territory. (Thankfully, it's still pro-American). Nor is it to say that it's a bad experience. I still like it, but not as much as I once did.

The new Hall of Presidents is like what New Coke is to the Classic Coke. The new Hall of Presidents simply doesn't reflect Walt Disney's classic, patriotic vision like it once did. And I don't think that's a good thing.

If anyone at Disney is reading this, consider this a vote to bring back the classic version.

Revolutionary War Diorama Ideas

2010-06-05T00:46:00.003-04:00

Diorama projects are a lot of fun. Diorama projects can also be tedious and overwhelming, especially for the first timer. My first diorama project was such a project. I had decided on a Civil War diorama focused on the Battle of Gettysburg. I got a B. Well, actually, my dad got a B. :-) He did most of the work!

Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at a diorama set in the American Revolution. If this is for a school project, make sure you read your assignment carefully and check with your teacher on any questions before proceeding. If you're doing this as an adult just for fun, well, then, you don't have to worry about any of that.

**Beginners may want to read How To Build Dioramas**

Whether you're a student with a diorama project or just a history buff who enjoys modeling and making scenery, here are three ideas for your next diorama project:

1) Washington Crossing the Delaware -- You've seen the painting. Why don't you make a diorama of it? You'll need a diorama water kit, a boat, some Continental Army soldiers rowing, and - of course - George Washington! Depending on how detailed or "professional" you want this to be, you may have to work hard to find soldiers in the right pose for this to work.

2) British Artillery - This idea may not be very innovative, but there's a British artillery set available from Amazon. Grab the artillery set and a basic diorama land kit, some paint, and you're ready to go.

3) Continental Artillery - Once again, Amazon has the set ready to go. Just grab it, a land diorama kit, some paint, and you're on your way.

If these ideas don't grab you, grab a pictorial book on the American Revolution to help trigger some more possibilities. You can also Google "Revolutionary War diorama" and even check YouTube for other possible ideas.

**See what one elementary class did with Revolutionary War dioramas - Click Here!**

Whatever you decide, have fun!

Oh...and why don't you post a picture of your project online and then let us know in the comments section where to find the pic. We'd love to see it.

Good Luck!

Fort Ticonderoga Musket Demonstration

2010-05-16T22:43:00.001-04:00

I occasionally like to post videos from YouTube, especially those of reenactors demonstrating musketry, cannon fire, the daily life of a Revolutionary War soldier, etc. Here's one of a musket demonstration at Fort Ticonderoga...

Guns and Bows and Arrows: What if the Continental Army Had Taken Ben Franklin's Suggestion?

2010-05-07T16:58:00.004-04:00

In February 1776, Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to General Charles Lee, expressing his wish that "pikes could be introduced" along with "bows and arrows," which, Franklin added, "were good weapons, not wisely laid aside." What if the Continental Congress and the American army had taken up Franklin's suggestion?

Franklin's reasons for recommending the longbow over the musket are difficult to refute in an eighteenth century context. Those reasons were essentially the following:

*The bow was often more accurate.
*A man could shoot four arrows in the time it takes to fire and reload a musket.
*No gunsmoke, thus no problems in field vision.
*An incoming flight of arrows is rather disconcerting to the enemy.
*An arrow stuck to a man essentially immobilizes him, until extracted.
*Bows and arrows are more easily provided than muskets and ammunition.

Given the Continental Army's supply problems, one wonders why Franklin's suggestion wasn't more readily entertained.

Perhaps some of my readers have come across some information on this subject, but, based on my reading of the history, I would say the reasons Franklin's suggestion was never given serious thought are:

1) Image: Using bows and arrows was considered primitive. Having an army with uniforms, muskets, bayonets, professional training, etc. was a mark of civilization and progress. To regress back to the 1500s or to adopt tactics used by Native Americans was probably not a direction that the Continental Congress was even willing to contemplate. A more serious dimension to this was the fact that the Americans may have feared that such a direction would result in their being taken less seriously by France, Spain, and the Netherlands. They wanted these European powers to see them as a respectable nation ready to take its place in the family of nations.

2) Chivalry: The advent of gunpowder had a lot to do with the decline of armour on the battlefield. While armour provides some protection against arrows, it provided virtually none against musket balls! By the time of the American Revolution, European style warfare had evolved to armies in bright uniforms maneuvering on the open field and firing musket volleys at one another, with some artillery and cavalry thrown in for variety and good measure. To reintroduce bows and arrows would have been deemed (in all likelihood) as "ungentlemanly," much like the British viewed colonists shooting at them from behind rocks and trees.

Perhaps some of my readers could add to those reasons, but I think that (consciously or unconsciously) the above two were probably among them.

Still, one wonders if the American Revolution woud've turned out differently or perhaps ended sooner had Franklin's suggestion to Charles Lee been accepted by General Washington and the Continental Congress.

Facts About George Washington's Inauguration

2010-04-30T15:07:00.004-04:00

On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the President of the United States of America, the first person to serve in that capacity under the newly ratified Constitution of the United States.

Here are some facts about George Washington's inauguration:

*George Washington was not the first person to bear the title "president of the United States." That distinction goes to John Hanson, the first American president under the Articles of Confederation. The men who served as president under the Articles did not carry executive authority. Theirs was a very weak presidency. Washington was the first person sworn in as President under the new (and still current) Constitution of the United States.

*George Washington was inaugurated in New York City (the only President to be inaugurated in that city). The nation's capital would soon move to Philadelphia and then, during the administration of John Adams, to the newly constructed city of Washington.

*Since there were no Supreme Court Justices as of yet, Robert Livingstone (New York's highest ranking judge) administered the oath.

*Washington took the oath of office on a Bible, starting a tradition followed by virtually all Presidents since.

*Washington wore a sword to his inauguration, a tradition that did not have as much staying power.

*Though it is a matter of some dispute, historical tradition holds that Washington said the words "so help me God" after reciting the constitutional oath of office. While some researchers challenge this tradition, Washington's First Inaugural was very religious. In his speech, he most pointedly asked for God's help. Accordingly, most Presidents (certainly since the mid-1800s) have appended the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath - a tradition that probably (though we can't say for certain) goes back to Washington.

*Washington's second inauguration (1793) had much less fanfare, probably reflecting his lack of enthusiasm for accepting a second term. His Second Inaugural Address is a mere 135 words, the shorest in history!

When Did The American Revolution Start?

2010-04-18T23:12:00.003-04:00

The opening shots of the American Revolution were fired in the center of Lexington, Massachusetts on the morning of April 19, 1775. One British soldier was wounded, while eight men of Lexington fell dead. This tragic exchange of gunfire would trigger the American Revolution, a war that would last for eight long years and would result in the birth of the United States of America.

The colonists who gathered on Lexington Green that day weren't planning to start a war. On the contrary, the British were on their way to Concord -- not Lexington! But the militia of Lexington turned out on the Green, so that the British army would see them as they marched by. It was intended as a show of force, a demonstration of colonial resolve.

The British were headed to Concord to secure arms and munitions reportedly being stockpiled. Lexington was on the way. Captain John Parker turned out his Lexington Company of the Middlesex County Brigade of the Massachusetts Militia to stand in the center of Lexington as the British would (he thought) pass by. Parker's men ranged in age from 18 to 63 and his unit numbered just under 80 men, most of whom were farmers.

The British were not in the mood for such a display. Seeing the colonials turned out, their 700-man force turned off the road to Concord and marched into Lexington.

Seeing the British approach, Parker proclaimed to his men: "Stand your ground! Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here."

The commander of the British advance guard ordered the militiamen to lay down their arms. Seeing that he was overwhelmingly outnumbered, Parker gave the order to disperse. As the colonial militia began to back away, a shot rang out. It remains a mystery to this day as to who fired that shot!

Eight Americans were killed. Nine were wounded. The British suffered one minor casualty and resumed their march to Concord. The grieving citizens of Lexington would never be the same, and neither would New England - or, for that matter, all of North America.

Whoever fired the shot, though, triggered more than a local skirmish. He started what became a global war!

Picture by Don Troiani at HistoricalArtPrints.com.

Recommended Reading

"Causes of the American Revolution" (an article by yours truly over at Suite101.com)

Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fisher

Do You Owe The Library Any Late Fees?

2010-04-17T15:59:00.005-04:00

I don't know about you, but I love to read books. I'm frequently seen at our local Borders and at our local library. In fact, I'm known to walk out of our local library with a huge stack of books, ready to explode out of my grip and all over the floor!

And...yes...I've helped the local government by paying my fair share of late fees over the years. Fortunately, my home county of Loudoun doesn't charge late fees. They just freeze your card. :-(

But the neighboring county of Fairfax DOES charge late fees, and come to think of it, I still owe them about ten bucks. :-(

Well, ten bucks is nothing compared to what George Washington apparently owes the New York City Library. According to The Associated Press, George Washington, if alive today, "might face a hefty overdue library fine."

For more on this story, read "George Washington Racks Up Late Fees at NYC Library."

So, the next time you owe late fees, reflect on the fact that you're in good company. :-)

Washington's Tomb Points to Promise of Easter

2010-04-03T19:15:00.004-04:00

Thinking of Easter, I couldn't help but reflect on the tomb of George and Martha Washington. The Washington Tomb, which became the resting place for the remains of George and Martha Washington in 1831, carries an overt Christian declaration.

To read my latest post over at American Creation that deals with the Washington tomb, click on the following link...

"Washington's Very Christian Tomb"

For more on whether George Washington was a Deist, Unitarian, skeptic, or Christian, check out...

"Was George Washington a Deist?" - an article at Suite101 Protestantism

Washington's God by Michael Novak and Jana Novak

George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter Lillback

The Quartering Act Moves America Toward Revolution

2010-03-24T14:21:00.004-04:00

On this day (March 24), the British Parliament approved one of the most controversial and provocative measures in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to provide barracks or suitable alternative arrangements for British soldiers stationed in North America.

Those alternative arrangements were, if necessary, to include "inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine." If all such "publick houses" were filled, colonial authorities were then obligated to "take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty's forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary."

Opponents of the Quartering Act of 1765 saw such a large presence of British soldiers as not only unnecessary (the late French and Indian War having been concluded), but dangerous to colonial liberties. They also objected to Parliament making such demands from thousands of miles away. Colonists treasured their hitherto unchallenged tradition of self-government.

Agitators called up images of British redcoats tossing families out of their homes, taking liberties with colonial women, and engaging in other forms of bullish behavior.

Along with Parliament's tax legislation, such as the Sugar Act and Stamp Act, this forced presence of British troops in colonial North America only served to increase tensions with the Mother Country. Street brawls became fairly common, until finally things came to a fatal head in the streets of Boston in 1770. And the American Revolution was, from that day forward, almost inevitable.

Washington Saves America at Newburgh

2010-03-15T16:08:00.005-04:00

On March 15, 1783, General George Washington made an impassioned and ultimately successful appeal at Newburgh, New York for his Continental Army officers to not lead a coup against the civilian U.S. government.

The Road to Newburgh

Tensions between the Continental Army and the U.S. government over back pay and poor supplies had existed throughout the American Revolution. They became volcanic in the latter part of the war, nearly causing an eruption several times. Following the British surrender at Yorktown, the patience of the Continental Army wore extremely thin.

As negotiations dragged on between American diplomats and their British counterparts over how to resolve remaining differences and establish formal recognition of the United States, Washington kept his army in the field. Yet, in doing so, Washington kept officers and troops in the field who had not been paid for years. With the war winding down (and, in fact, all but over), many Continental officers and soldiers believed (with good reason) that they would NEVER receive what had been promised them.

It was in this context that George Washington was asked to declare martial law and install himself as dictator. He flatly refused. But a conspiracy to use the army to pressure the civilian government and force the states into a strong federal union continued to build. Many of the conspirators were determined to move ahead, with or without Washington's support.

Washington at Newburgh

To get ahead of events, Washington called for a special March 15 meeting of his officers, with Horatio Gates presiding. Washington indicated he would not attend. But...he did. When he arrived unexpectedly, the facial expressions of his officers and the tension in the room let it be known that he was not welcome.

Washington gave an impassioned speech to the assembly, urging patience and restraint. And he read a letter from a congressman to support his case. While reading the letter, he fumbled with the words and then fished out a pair of spectacles. Most of those in the room were unaware of the General's declining eyesight. Washington, a fan of the theater, played the awkwardness to the hilt! Explaining his use of glasses, Washington said simply: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

When he had finished reading, he looked up, saw most of the room in tears. Knowing when to exit, Washington quickly concluded his remarks and left the room. And the conspiracy collapsed!

In that moment, General George Washington saved the legacy of the American Revolution, confirmed civilian oversight of the military, and put the United States on the course to being the most successful republic in world history.

Related Reading

For more on this subject, check out...

"The Rise and Fall of the Newburgh Conspiracy" by George Marshall, Jr.

George Washington's War: The Forging of a Revolutionary Leader and the American Presidency by Bruce Chadwick

Grover Helps Out George Washington

2010-03-08T19:40:00.001-05:00

Here is a look at the American Revolution -- Sesame Street style. :-)

How Important is a Resume?

2010-02-25T19:58:00.002-05:00

When you read an article or book on history or listen to a speech, how important is a resume? How important is it that the person have a certain degree or set of degrees from a certain school? Does it matter how many previous books she has written or how many awards he has received? What role do (or should) "credentials" play in whether a person is worthy of our respect and esteem?

I explored these questions in an article I just wrote for American Creation on the subject of academic elitism. Let me know what you think.

Did President Washington Lie in Office?

2010-02-22T20:42:00.003-05:00

According to a CNN/Opinion poll released today, 3 out of 4 Americans believe Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both lied to the American people while serving in office.

The poll results highlight Americans' deep cynicism, especially when it comes to politics and Presidents. But is it fair to apply this cynicism to George Washington, the man Parson Weems idealized in the cherry tree legend as the boy who couldn't "tell a lie"? So much for that, I guess. And so much for "Honest Abe." Most Americans will have none of that. Nope, for them, our first President and our sixteenth President lied through their teeth, while serving in office!

Rather distressing, to say the least, given Washington's strong desire to maintain a reputation of integrity. "I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man," the first President once said.

While it's reasonable to conclude that most people (dare I say "all" people) will lie at some point in their lives, I find it somewhat troubling that we so easily believe the worst in people, especially individuals who did so much for America.

This kind of poll reminds me of the surveys during the Bill Clinton sex scandals. You remember those? The polls that said "all Presidents cheated on their wives." Yeah, that's right. There were surveys showing that large portions of the American public actually believed that most, if not all, of our Presidents committed adultery!

The fact of the matter is that all Presidents are not alike. Some Presidents are more decent and honorable than others. Some Presidents are more honest than others. And some Presidents are more admirable and noble than others. George Washington would be such a President -- a man worthy of our respect and esteem. A man who deserves better than this CNN poll.

Put Washington's Birthday Back Where it Belongs!

2010-02-16T17:55:00.003-05:00

Forty years ago, you rarely heard the name "Presidents' Day." Now, of course, we read drivel like the following over at the website eHow: "Presidents' Day is more than just a day off from work. It's a holiday that gives us a chance to think about the lesson we an learn from the lives of those who have attained the highest office in the United States" ("How to Understand the Meaning of Presidents' Day," eHow).

Excuse me while I try to settle my stomach down. It wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the fact that so many people believe this garbage. Because, as the eHow article demonstrates, the United States of America has pretty much lost ALL understanding of what the February holiday is SUPPOSED to be about.

The travesty began in 1968, when Congress passed the Monday Holidays Act. Prior to that piece of legislation, there were nine federal holidays celebrated on specific dates. Each year, they would fall on different days of the week. That was too confusing and not worker-friendly enough for congressional tastes, so they decided to "improve" the situation.

With the Monday Holidays Act, Congress shifted four holidays (George Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans' Day) to designated Mondays in their respective months. Veterans' groups cried foul (justifiably so), and got Veterans' Day moved back to November 11, recognizing its origins as a day inspired by the armistice which ended World War I.

Once Washington's Birthday was dislodged from its actual birthday, the day simply became another day off work, a capstone to a three-day weekend. Advertisers began to use the term "Presidents' Day." And, well, the rest is history.

Today, Americans should take a cue from the veterans. They should cry foul!

And Congress and the states of the U.S. should move Washington's Birthday back to where it belongs.....on his birthday!!!

That means that, each year, the United States government (and all state governments) should recognize February 22 as a holiday to honor George Washington, the father of our country.

The February 22 holiday should recognize George Washington....and ONLY George Washington.

Anyone who says that George Washington doesn't deserve his own holiday is surely deprived of something we call "common sense." Anyone with a functioning brain should recognize the enormous contributions George Washington made to the United States and the fact that, without Washington, there likely wouldn't even be a United States today. Washington deserves every bit the moniker "Father of his Country."

It's only been since the Monday Holidays Act that people have begun to question this, now alleging that other Presidents warrant similar attention. Well, first, some Presidents shouldn't get ANY attention. And second, Washington isn't just being recognized for what he did as President. The purpose of his holiday was to recognize him for all of his accomplishments.

Chances are, though, that this wrong will not be righted. Too many people are used to hearing and saying "Presidents' Day." And people frankly love having three day weekends.

And, because of those two things, George Washington's legacy will continue to diminish each and every year.

Was Early America's Most Prominent Episcopalian Really a Deist?

2010-02-13T14:28:00.009-05:00

**The following is an article I wrote for the Anglican Church section of Suite101 Protestantism.**

Was George Washington a Deist?
Examining One of America's Most Famous Episcopalians

No study of famous Episcopalians would be complete without examining the faith of George Washington. Yet of those who have studied George Washington and his Christian faith, many claim that America's most preeminent Founder was more Deist than Christian. Was George Washington, the most famous Anglican in American history, really a Deist?

Was George Washington Even Religious?

Presidential biographer William A. DeGregorio says religion factored "very little" into Washington's life (DeGregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. Barricade, 2001). Pulitzer Prize winning author Joseph Ellis similarly downplays Washington's faith, arguing that the nation's first President was “never a deeply religious man" and saw God merely “as a distant, impersonal force, the presumed well-spring of what he called destiny or providence" (Ellis, Joseph. His Excellency George Washington. Vintage, 2005). Does this characterization of Washington square with the historical record?

***The rest of this article can be found at "Was George Washington a Deist?" - a feature piece in the Protestantism section of Suite101.com.

Abraham Lincoln: Champion of America's Founding

2010-02-12T01:02:00.006-05:00

In honor of Abraham Lincoln's birthday, let us briefly consider our nation's sixteenth President and one of the Founding Fathers' greatest cheerleaders. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was not a Founding Father, and this site concerns itself mainly with the period in American history that predates Mr. Lincoln's. But Lincoln counted himself as one of the Founders' strongest champions.

In an 1856 speech in Bloomington, Illinois, the future President declared: "Let us revere the Declaration of Independence!" In another speech that same year, he called the Declaration "the immortal emblem of Humanity." That these were not mere rhetorical flourishes is evidenced by Lincoln's numerous tributes to America's Founding Fathers and their founding documents.

It may seem difficult for people in this postmodern age to grasp, but Lincoln's very conception of the United States of America was based on its founding principles.

In The Political Thought of Abraham Lincoln, historian Richard N. Current wrote: "Lincoln passionately believed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United of the United States. To him, these documents were not merely historical relics; they embodied fundamental ideals, ideals in the process of realization, ideals that formed the basis for his political thinking."

Says writer Lewis Lehrman: "Mr. Lincoln had steeped himself in the history of the Founding. He understood both its politics and its purpose. And he worried that its meaning had been lost on a generation that associated it only with fireworks and celebrations." One wonders what he'd say of today's generation?

Lincoln faces critics today on primarily two fronts. On the one hand, some charge that Lincoln was a racist who never really believed in civil rights or had any real problem with slavery. He was, according to this view, "forced" into emancipating the slaves. This view of Lincoln is frankly both shallow and cynical.

Abraham Lincoln was a man of his times. From within the paradigm of his world (mid-1800s Illinois), he could not conceive of a future America, in which blacks and whites would enjoy racial equality and harmony. That is true, but he was nevertheless deeply troubled by slavery and sincere in his opposition to it. And, given the benefit of his eventual and very real friendship with Frederick Douglass and seeing firsthand the valor of African Americans in the Civil War, Lincoln's views on race evolved to the point that he was remarkably foresighted for a man of his generation.

The other criticism of Lincoln is that he was a tyrant who trampled on the rights of the southern states. Neither time nor space will allow me to get into the aspects of the Civil War, but let me say this. Abraham Lincoln's pro-Union perspective, which led him to forcibly resist southern secession, was consistent with that of former Presidents Andrew Jackson and George Washington. Were Jackson and Washington tyrants?

Abraham Lincoln was not a perfect man. He was, after all, a human being. And all human beings are flawed and imperfect. But Lincoln did aspire to values and principles greater than himself. For Lincoln, the greatness of the American people would come only with a reliance upon the values enshrined in their heritage.

Sure, Lincoln believed in the future. Yes, Lincoln didn't want any society stuck in the past. But Lincoln didn't believe progress required the jettisoning of core beliefs and values deeply embedded in America's founding. On the contrary, he felt that the success of America rested on its ability to carry forward those principles.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln!

The Blizzard of 1772: The Washington Area's Worst Snowstorm?

2010-02-10T14:27:00.004-05:00

"Snowmageddon" is what Barack Obama has called the blizzard of 2010! And the blizzard of 2010 is indeed the worst winterstorm the Washington, DC area has suffered through in recorded history. But, apparently, the blizzard of 2010 isn't the worst ever. That "honor" may go to the blizzard of 1772, an event recorded in the diaries of both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

The blizzard of 1772 reportedly blanketed the entire mid-Atlantic region, including Pennsylvania, New York, Baltimore, and what is now Washington, DC. Given the lack of official records from that period, we have only scattered diary accounts and newspaper records to go by. But if these accounts are any indication, it was quite an event!

According to York County, Pennsylvania records, entire deer herds were destroyed by the blizzard. And both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington put the accumulation at over three feet. They were apparently trapped in their homes!

While the one-two punch of 2010's blizzard (the second punch is currently being felt in the region) may be just as bad, we at least have the benefit of technology to help us cope. Imagine being in the days of Jefferson and Washington, where there was no Internet, no Weather Channel, no weather satellites, no paved roads, and no snow plows.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

General Washington on Gays in the Military

2010-02-02T18:48:00.005-05:00

If history is any indication, General George Washington would not be pleased with the current rush to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in America's armed forces. But it seems no one in the Obama administration is listening.

Following the lead of President Barack Obama, America's top two Defense Department officials called today for an end to the military's ban on open homosexual conduct. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both said that it was time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the United States armed services.

General George Washington, America's first military leader, disagreed. It would have been interesting to have General Washington present for the same hearing. I wonder if Congress would even listen to him, though, given the growing momentum for change.

Washington's position on gays serving openly in the military was seen in March 1778, with the case of Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Enslin was courtmartialed for "attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier" and "for Perjury in swearing to false Accounts."

In a report dictated apparently by Washington and copied out by his staff, the general's feelings are made clear. "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning..."

While some may argue that Washington's primary concern was with Lieutenant Enslin's aggressiveness or breach of protocol, it's more likely that the Continental Army Commander-in-Chief found Enslin's homosexual conduct itself to be "detestable" and a danger to unit morale and cohesion.

Does this make General Washington homophobic? Was our nation's first general an intolerant bigot?

While it would appear that the current policy's days are numbered and that change is indeed coming, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Washington too quickly. Washington was a man of his times, but we make a grave error if we assume that Washington's times were, in all respects, inferior to our own.

It's true that the United States has enjoyed progress since the late 1700s on many fronts, including the rights and privileges of women and racial minorities. In those areas, we should recognize progress. And, frankly, had Washington lived through all the years of American history, a very compelling argument could be made that he would've evolved and grown WITH the country in terms of his attitudes on racial and gender equality. Washington, after all, changed his views on race in the course of his own life. His trajectory was clearly in the direction of ending slavery and embracing the rights of African Americans.

But the issue of gays in the military is somewhat different. Washington didn't order Enslin's dismissal, because he saw the man has being socially or genetically inferior. He dismissed Enslin, because of the man's actions and how those actions affected the army as a whole. What's more, for Washington, there was something moral at stake. This wasn't a case of social elitism. For Washington, it was a matter of proper conduct and moral behavior.

Indeed, it was Washington who issued another order, forbidding cursing in the Continental Army and challenging his men to conduct themselves as "Christian soldiers." For Washington, moral conduct was fundamental to the success and value of the army. A good soldier was an effective soldier, and a good army was a powerful army. When you allow immorality into the army, you poison its cohesion and effectiveness. That appears to have been Washington's perspective. And that is what lay at the root of his dismissing Enslin.

Lest you think I'm overplaying Washington's sense of morality, recall that, as President, he echoed a similar theme in his Farewell Address. In that speech (published and not delivered), Washington declared that "religion and morality" were "indispensable supports to political prosperity."

I understand that the issue of gays serving openly in the armed forces is a very sensitive and highly emotional one. And I know that, for some, it's difficult to see it as anything but a matter of rights. Nevertheless, I think we should be cautious, before we jettison the wisdom and example of our nation's first (and arguably noblest) military leader.

Mark Steyn Takes on Multiculturalism

2010-02-02T14:30:00.003-05:00

While the subject matter of this video clip isn't directly tied in with the American Revolution, I felt it provocatively addresses the larger concept of cultural values, forcing us to confront the question of whether some cultures are morally and politically superior to others. This is a relevant debate, as the whole reason why many people are interested in the American founding is because they want to explore the values that shaped American culture specifically and western culture generally.

Dennis Prager Interviews Howard Zinn

2010-01-29T23:36:00.002-05:00

This is a very interesting discussion between conservative radio host Dennis Prager and the late socialist author and activist Howard Zinn...

How Should Critics Say Goodbye to Howard Zinn?

2010-01-28T17:16:00.004-05:00

Howard Zinn, a longtime Boston University professor, bestselling author, and one of the most passionate voices for the American Left, died Wednesday, January 27, 2010 while traveling in California. The cause of his death was a heart attack. He was 87 years old.

How does one who has long been critical of Zinn's strident bias and incomplete "scholarship" say goodbye to such a man? How should Zinn's critics say goodbye to the man in good taste?

I suppose I should start by expressing my sincere condolences to Zinn's family. I never wish harm on anyone, and even though the 87-year old's family couldn't expect him to live forever, saying goodbye to a loved one is never easy or welcome. Having personally lost loved ones and having (as a pastor) walked with many families through the kind of grief now confronting Zinn's family, I sincerely wish to express my sorrow.

I should also acknowledge that Zinn offered a refreshing dose of passion and activism in an age where many, many people float through life with little direction, meaning, or aspiration. Zinn was not apathetic about his beliefs. He was devoted to his cause and invested his life in advancing it. I wish more people were like that, instead of just letting life pass them by.

All that having been said, I cannot allow Zinn's passing to go by without also noting the great damage, I think, he did to America's sense of identity. In short, Zinn helped make America more cynical. At a time when people need something to believe in (hint: people always NEED that, even if they say they don't), Zinn devoted his life to demolishing heroes, overturning icons, and dragging Americans through the messiest and darkest parts of their collective "Memory Lane."

You might be tempted to ask: "What's wrong with that?" The answer is nothing, if it's done honestly, fairly, and (yes) in moderation. But there was nothing (and I mean NOTHING!) fair or moderate about Howard Zinn!

When I think of Zinn, I think of John Adams' critique of Thomas Paine. When commenting on Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Adams remarked that Paine was great at tearing things down, but not so good at building anything up in its place.

It's true that Zinn called our attention to some things that needed our attention. But he did so in a way that was bitter, often brutish, and usually unfair to all the participants involved.

Zinn admitted that his "scholarship" (I can't help but put that word in quotation marks) was biased. He once said: "Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable… because if you have any kind of a social aim… then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity."

Not only did Zinn thus admit to selective, agenda-oriented, activist historiography, but he also revealed his postmodern "All Truth is Relative" colors.

**Read "Master of Deceit," an article by Dan Flynn that reviews Zinn's work

A half-truth is the most dangerous kind of lie, and Zinn excelled at half truths. By zeroing in on the so-called "dark side" of American history, without showing the brighter side(s) or fairly presenting the context(s) within which many of these darker action(s) took place, all Zinn really did was fuel anger and feed cynicism.

For this writer, truth is not relative. As for Zinn, his own words show that he probably didn't even have a conception of truth or recognize the possibility that it might exist. For him, truth was what you make it, and Zinn made sure to advance his version of the "truth" no matter how much collateral damage he caused in the process.

Bottom line, we should show respect and offer our prayers and support to Zinn's family. And we should do our best to find the good in the man. But let's not fall into the trap of celebrating a legacy that, frankly, doesn't deserve it.

The Legacy of Andrew Jackon's Victory at the Battle of New Orleans

2010-01-08T14:49:00.006-05:00

Any student of the War of 1812 knows that its most dramatic American victory took place at New Orleans, a battle that occurred two weeks after the war officially ended. Despite its tragic timing and apparent irrelevance (at least in terms of its chronology), General Andrew Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans left four important marks in American history.

1. The Battle of New Orleans made Andrew Jackson not only a national hero, but a national sensation. This was, of course, before television, radio, and entertainment celebrity infatuation. For Americans of the early 1800s, Andrew Jackson became their iconic, larger-than-life, celebrity figure! This guaranteed Jackson's eventual rise to the presidency, which would forever change not only the presidency, but American politics in general.

2. The victory at New Orleans helped reestablish a semblance of American confidence and pride. While the Treaty of Ghent settled the War of 1812 as more or less a draw, the conflict had been a messy affair for the young United States. The US had enjoyed some successes in the war, but had also endured some devastating and humiliating losses. Indeed, at the time of Ghent and New Orleans, much of the US was in British hands. And the British had also established that they could land troops pretty much anywhere they wanted and, in some cases, march them wherever they wanted with impunity. Jackson's decisive victory at New Orleans ended the war on a proverbial touchdown or Grand Slam.

3. With their loss at New Orleans, the British failed to gain control of or establish a foothold on the crucial Mississippi River. The British had recently sacked the nation's capital. Though they had failed to take Baltimore, which would have effectively gutted the Eastern seaboard of the United States, they were still in a strong position to do some major damage to America's pride and economy at New Orleans. Had they succeeded in their plans, America's economy would've been seriously imperiled. And even with the Treaty of Ghent having been inked, it's difficult to imagine Britain just handing over their gains at New Orleans without some additional concessions or compensation. Thanks to Jackson, though, America didn't have to worry about any of that.

4. The diverse nature of Jackson's forces served as a microcosm of America and an example for future generations. Answering the British army which numbered over 7,000 men, Jackson's forces were somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000. They included US Army troops, militia from several states (Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana), free blacks, Choctaw warriors, and even pirates! Racially, culturally, and economically diverse, Jackson's army embodied the "Melting Pot" ideals of America and would serve as an inspiration and example of how Americans from different races and backgrounds can work together for the common good.

Though it took place nearly 200 years ago, the legacy of the Battle of New Orleans is still with us today.

*****

For more on the battle itself, check out "Eyewitness to History: The Battle of New Orleans."

Was the American Revolution Fought Over Economics and Greed?

2010-01-01T15:27:00.006-05:00

In the movie Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon's character Will tells a group of Ivy League students that if they want the "real" history of the American Revolution, they should read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

Howard Zinn, and a large number of other scholars and more than a few everyday Americans, believe that the United States of America was founded on greed. And that the American Revolution was orchestrated, due to the Founders' economic self interests.

The first time I came across this argument was when I was an 18-year old clerk in the Sears Catalog Department at Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax, Virginia. In the slow times, I would sometimes get into political debates with my fellow associates. In one such debate, a lady I worked with proceeded to tell me that the Founding Fathers were not noble. They were, in her words, greedy swindlers, slave owners, blah, blah, blah who founded the United States for their own selfish economic interests.

In the years since, I've come to learn that there are a rather large number of folks who believe this very thing. They, in fact, believe the very worst about our nation's founding. To them, the Founders were not good guys deserving of our respect and accolades. On the contrary, the Founders were (so say this group of cynical, usually left-wing critics) the villains of the story. Villains that set in motion one of the most repressive and evil nations in the history of mankind.

Time will not permit me to defend the United States overall against this kind of bashing. For this article, I will focus solely on the American Revolution and the charge that it was waged over economic interests.

First, the sheer lunacy of this charge is evident in the fact that the Founding Fathers put far more at risk in waging the American Revolution than they would have, had they remained loyal to the British Crown. For example, George Washington's economic standing was certainly impacted by the Navigation Acts. But as history professor Larry Schweikart points out, that was "nothing compared to the losses he could have suffered by leading the Continental Army." (Schweikart, Larry. 48 Liberal Lies About American History. New York: Sentinel, 2008).

Second, the core of the Declaration of Independence, the document which articulated America's reasons for breaking with Britain, focuses on political and social ideals rather than economic issues. Notwithstanding the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation," the tax issue was nowhere near the top of grievances enumerated in the Declaration of Independence!

Third, several studies have been done on the period, and most of which have shown that, while British economic policies were certainly inconvenient and challenging, they were not (by and large) repressive. The Americans didn't rise up in rebellion over taxes or economics. They rose up over the issue of self-government! Even the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" demonstrates this. The issue wasn't taxation per se, but rather over which legislative body had the authority to tax. The war was over ideas, not money.

Fourth, political and social interests dominated the Constitutional Convention. In his landmark work We The People, historian Forrest McDonald demonstrated that, while the political and sectional interests of the states (admittedly with economic ramifications) were represented in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, not all economic interests were represented.

Finally, while it's true that self interest DID play a role in the American Revolution, this has been the case in every war and in every episode of history. And this isn't just with American history, but WORLD history.

General Washington himself acknowledged this, when he wrote: "I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward."

Human beings, by nature, are self-centered. This is why James Madison wrote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The Founders recognized this about people, including themselves.

The genius of the United States is that our nation is founded on a set of noble aspirations -- moral tenets that call us to be better than ourselves - and a "checks and balances" framework that recognizes, channels, and (in some cases) takes advantage of our primal, selfish instincts as human beings!

Highlighting the sins of America's past doesn't prove the United States to be a repressive nation. And pointing out that some profited from the Revolution doesn't prove that the Revolution was fought over greed.

The reason why we should respect and, yes, revere our Founders is that they recognized the reality of human nature, and decided to start a nation that would strive to rise above it! A nation that would call out the best in people - in Lincoln's words, "the better angels of our nature."

For this, we should thank and honor our Founders. Not condemn them.

Washington's Army Celebrates Christmas Miracle

2009-12-26T16:23:00.003-05:00

In colonial America, Christmas was not nearly as popular as it is today. Nevertheless, the Continental Congress and General George Washington's fragile Continental Army had much to celebrate the day after Christmas in 1776.

On Christmas Night 1776, Washington's Continentals crossed the icy Delaware River to attack the unsuspecting Hessian forces comfortably encamped at Trenton, New Jersey. This was no simple boat crossing. The conditions were grueling. It was a miracle that the operation was even successful, but....successful it was!

Washington's forces caught the Hessians by surprise and thoroughly drubbed them. The battle of Trenton literally saved the American Revolution and breathed new life into the American cause.

Without Trenton, it is unlikely the United States of America would exist today.

Mutiny in George Washington's Army Endorsed in History Channel Program

2009-12-11T15:35:00.003-05:00

On Sunday, December 13, The History Channel will air "The People Speak," a program narrated by Howard Zinn and based on his seminal work A People's History of the United States.

The program features actors reading letters, accounts, etc. from actual people in American history. Zinn's focus is on "ordinary people," as opposed to the "Great Man" approach, which would focus on luminaries like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. And his focus is almost always on "ordinary" Americans suffering in the shadows.

In this clip from the forthcoming film, we see what amounts to an endorsement of the mutiny in George Washington's army...

"From 'The People Speak' -- Mutiny in George Washington's Army"

For my own part, having read of this incident in the American Revolution, General Washington had little choice but to clamp down hard on this mutiny. That he sympathized with the plight of his army is proven by all his letters and appeals to Congress, governors, and private businessmen for aid. But in order to keep his army together and win the war, Washington couldn't allow disorder and mutiny to go unpunished. He had to act.

And this perspective - Washington's perspective - gets short shrift from "historians" like Howard Zinn. That the spotlight of history should, at times, shine on everyday Americans is commendable. For that, Zinn has done some good. But to put the spotlight EXCLUSIVELY on the "ordinary Americans" who are often suffering, and then caricature their leaders as their enemies is only accurate in some occasions. To do so on a regular basis, as Zinn does, is frankly reprehensible.

To anyone who watches this program, which comes from one of the most anti-American "historians" on the stage today, I urge caution.

Jefferson Letter Uncovered

2009-12-05T20:10:00.002-05:00

Imagine you're a graduate student combing through the papers of a prominent colonial era Delaware family. Sure, it's interesting, but also a wee-bit tedious. After all, you're kind of doing the "grunt work" that your professors don't necessarily want to do. But, then, you find something....

Something big. Something connected to a famous name in American history and something that might even make a footnote in history for you.

Well, that's precisely what happened to Amanda Daddona, who is pursuing a master's in history with the University of Delaware.

Check out "Student finds letter 'a link to Jefferson'" for the details.

Schoolhouse Rock Takes on The American Revolution

2009-11-28T13:58:00.001-05:00

Some of you might remember this.... :-)

Been to Mount Vernon Lately?

2009-10-29T15:17:00.001-04:00

If it's been several years since you've visited Mount Vernon, you need to make plans to go....

Would the Founders Approve of an Empire?

2009-10-24T10:15:00.001-04:00

Richard Brookhiser addresses the question of whether the American Founders would have approved of an "Empire"? This is a brief excerpt from an interview on "Uncommon Knowledge."

Scalia Says Constitution is 'Dead'

2009-10-03T15:31:00.003-04:00

In this interview excerpt, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects the notion of a "living" and evolving Constitution, and argues instead that the Constitution is "dead." What does he mean? And do you agree?

The Treason of Benedict Arnold

2009-09-20T23:13:00.004-04:00

On September 21, 1780, American General Benedict Arnold met with British Major John Andre to plot the transfer of West Point, a key strategic post in New York, to British control. The meeting was a culmination of months of secret negotiations between General Arnold and the British, and it marked perhaps the most famous act of treason ever committed by an American military officer.

Why Did Benedict Arnold Betray the American Cause?

Benedict Arnold was one of George Washington's favorite commanders. Brave, tenacious, and highly gifted as a military leader, Arnold had distinguished himself repeatedly in battle.

Yet the brilliant Arnold was also egotistical and self-interested. And had a tendency to rub many people the wrong way.

Passed over for promotion, denied credit for certain accomplishments, and faced with major financial challenges, an increasingly bitter Arnold hardened his heart against the American cause and offered his services -- for a price -- to the British.

Why did Benedict Arnold, one of America's most talented and courageous generals, conspire to betray the American cause?

***See "The Enigma of Benedict Arnold," courtesy of Early America Review

What if Arnold's Treason Had Succeeded?

At the time of Arnold's meeting with Andre, the American general commanded the fortress at West Point, a key strategic point that prevented the Royal Navy from accessing the Hudson River. This effectively limited the British presence in New York to the coastline, especially New York City.

Had British General Clinton captured West Point, the British would've gained control of the Hudson and quickly divided the American colonies, just as they had hoped to accomplish during their previous ill-fated campaign that ended ingloriously at Saratoga.

Arnold's plan almost worked. He had already weakened West Point's defenses and Clinton was preparing a major assault. Had it not been for Andre's capture, the stalemate in the Revolutionary War's theater would've been broken -- to the distinct advantage of the British.

At the very least, this would've meant that the Revolutionary War would've dragged on for many more years. At worst (at least from the American perspective), it would've meant defeat for the American cause.

Fortunately for the Americans, Andre was captured and the plot discovered. Benedict Arnold escaped arrest (and a sure hanging) and would finish the war in British uniform! But the consequences of his treachery were nowhere near what they could have been.

The Bombardment of Fort McHenry

2009-09-13T23:24:00.004-04:00

One hundred and ninety-five years ago today, Fort McHenry was under intense bombardment from British ships off the coast of Maryland. The Royal Navy was hoping to reduce Ft McHenry as part of an overall land-sea invasion operation against Baltimore, which the British considered to be a "nest of pirates."

Detained by the British was an attorney named Francis Scott Key. Key, who had been negotiating with the British for the release of a friend, hopelessly watched the bombardment, fully understanding the stakes of the contest.

What if Fort McHenry Would've Fallen?

The British had already captured Washington, the nation's capital, and had burned its federal buildings to the ground. A devastating and humiliating blow to the Americans. Now, the British were following up their burning of Washington with an attack on Baltimore. Had they succeeded, it would've essentially gutted the eastern coast of the United States.

While it may be overstating things to suggest that the United States would've fallen back under British imperial control, it is certain that the loss of Baltimore (so close to the burning of Washington) would have all but guaranteed British victory in the War of 1812.

Had that occurred, several very unfortunate scenarios may have ensued, including the British refusal to return captured territory (which they eventually did under terms of the Treaty of Ghent), the possible secession of the New England states from the Union, and more. Th future of the United States would've been bleak.

The Climax

On the morning of September 14, Francis Scott Key peered through the smoke and haze - and saw, with delight, what the British saw, with great disappointment. The American flag still flew over Ft McHenry!

The Royal Navy soon abandoned its efforts to reduce Ft McHenry. What's more, British land forces lost their lead general, Robert Ross, to a sniper's bullet and their invasion was stalled against American forces led by Generals Samuel Smith and John Stricker.

The British eventually withdrew their forces and decided on a more southern strategy, an attempt to take New Orleans and gain control of the vital Mississippi River. There, that would meet devastating defeat at the hands of Andrew Jackson.

Key's sighting of the American flag, and the ultimate defeat of Britain's attack on Baltimore, inspired him to write "The Defence of Fort McHenry," a poem later put to the music "To Anacreon in Heaven," a popular men's drinking song. America's national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner," was born.

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

2009-08-08T17:44:00.004-04:00

Thomas Jefferson was arguably the most articulate and eloquent of our nation's Founders, and made some of the most stirring condemnations of slavery in his writings. Yet, Jefferson himself was a slave owner and (at times) seemed to be beholden to the slave-holding South.

Was Thomas Jefferson for or against slavery? Was Jefferson beholden to the slave-holding South? And was the infamous 3/5ths compromise responsible for Jefferson defeating John Adams in the 1800 presidential election?

Watch this very interesting panel discussion on Jefferson's legacy as it pertains to the issue of slavery...

Early American History Paper Topics

2009-07-06T15:36:00.005-04:00

Looking for history class paper topics, particularly American history paper topics? You've come to the right place, though we will focus on early American history, especially the founding era.

**If you prefer American history research paper topics beyond the founding era, check out "American History Paper Topics" by Naomi Rockler-Gladen (Suite101.com)

Make sure you follow these steps in selecting the right topic...

1. Clarify Assignment Parameters

If your American history teacher has assigned you a paper to write, your first task is to familiarize yourself with the parameters of the assignment. Did your teacher specify a date range (i.e., 17th century, 18th century, etc.), a cultural/gender focus (Native American culture, women in early America), or a political angle (i.e, causes of the American Revolution, causes of the War of 1812, etc.)?

2. Brainstorm List of Topics

Once you've established the parameters of the assignment, it's time to brainstorm a list of about 10-15 topics that fit within those conditions.

Let's say, for example, that your teacher wants a paper on childhood in colonial America, you would then brainstorm all the possible angles to this core subject. A mind-mapping type exercise may be helpful.

Continuing with our example, your list might look something like...

*Infant mortality in the 1700s
*Childhood disease and medical treatment of the 1700s
*Children of Continental Army soldiers in the American Revolution
*Orphanages in Colonial America
*Early Textbooks in Colonial American Education

As you can see, there are a number of possibilities.

So.....to help get you started....here are a list of broad topics related to early American history that you can then brainstorm sub-topics from....

*The Great Awakening
*Jonathan Edwards
*George Whitefield
*Benjamin Franklin and Poor Richard's Almanack
*Scientific Discoveries and Inventions in the 1700s
*Commerce and Trade in Colonial America
*The French and Indian War
*Causes of the American Revolution
*The Siege at Yorktown
*The Franco-American Alliance of the American Revolution
*The Constitutional Convention
*The Federalist Papers
*The Anti-Federalist Papers
*The presidency of George Washington
*The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
*The Alien & Sedition Acts
*The Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions

Again, we could go on for quite some time. There are so many topics in early American history from which to choose. But the above list should get you started.

3. Conduct Initial Research

Once you've brainstormed about 10-15 topics, do some initial research on the Internet. See which topics strike you as the most interesting and for which you can find adequate information. Don't spend too much time on research yet. Your objective is to narrow your choices down to one or two.

4. Double-check Your Choice(s) with your Teacher

If you can, take the 1 or 2 topics you ultimately select (from the above step) to your teacher and confirm that you're headed in the right direction.

5. Deeper Research

Once you get the go-ahead from your teacher, it's time for more intense research. Look for statistics, quotes, and other information on the topic. Study all angles.

And then you're ready to start your outline and write your paper.

Good luck!

****

You may also want to check out...

Revolutionary War Facts

2009-07-04T14:53:00.006-04:00

The war that gave the United States of America its independence is alternately known as the "American War for Independence" and the "Revolutionary War." If you're looking for basic Revolutionary War facts, this article should help. Here, we look at the essential facts of America's War for Independence, focusing on those things every person should know about the Revolutionary War.

Where Did The Revolutionary War Take Place?

The American Revolutionary War was, in many respects, a world war. It impacted four continents and touched the lives of millions of people around the globe. Yet most of the fighting, particularly in the early years of the conflict, took place in North America.

What Countries Fought in the Revolutionary War?

The principal players in the American Revolutionary War, of course, were Great Britain and the thirteen colonies who rebelled against King George III and the British Parliament. On July 4, 1776, those thirteen colonies proclaimed themselves the "United States of America."

Other nations drawn into the conflict included France and Spain as well as Canada (though, at the time, Canada was not a country, but was part of the British Empire).

When Did The Revolutionary War Start?

Tensions were mounting between Great Britain and its North American colonies since the French and Indian War. Rioting, street violence, and rural unrest were not uncommon in the 1760s and early 1770s. Shots were fired and blood was spilled in the streets of Boston in 1770. Some therefore maintain the war began with the "Boston Massacre." However, none of these incidents resulted in sustained warfare. Not until April of 1775.

The first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775.

**For more on what started the Revolutionary War, read "Causes of the American Revolution."

Major Battles of the Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War was a long and difficult war, but major battles (similar in scope and scale as what would be seen many years later in the American Civil War) were few. More soldiers died in camp than on the battlefield. Perhaps the most significant battles and campaigns include (but are not limited to):

*The Battle of Bunker Hill (1775)
*The (failed) American invasion of Canada (1775)
*The New York / Long Island Campaign (1776)
*The New Jersey Campaign, including the battles at Trenton and Princeton (1776-77)
*The Battles of Brandywine and Germantown (1777)
*The Battle of Monmouth (1778)
*The Battle of Camden (1780)
*The Battle of King's Mountain (1780)
*The Battle of Cowpens (1781)
*The Battle of Guilford Courthouse (1781)
*The Battle of Yorktown (1781)

When Did The Revolutionary War End?

The last major battle of the Revolutionary War was fought at Yorktown in Virginia in 1781. It ended when a besieged British army, commanded by General Lord Charles Cornwallis surrendered (via proxy) to General George Washington.

The issues of the war, however, were not fully resolved until 1783, when the British granted American independence with the Treaty of Paris.

Who Won The Revolutionary War?

The American colonies achieved their independence with the Treaty of Paris (1783). Thus, it must be said that the Americans won and the British lost. However...

The British Empire, in some respects, emerged stronger from the Revolutionary War. Their most serious international rival, France, was bankrupted by the war, and its government would collapse in turmoil during the French Revolution.

Britain held onto its other global possessions, and its Royal Navy continued to "rule the waves" for many years to come.

What's more, the United States took a few years to get going. Britain was still able to make money off the United States via trade, and (for a time) even played some states off of others. With the U.S. Constitution and the War of 1812, the United States got its bearings and would eventually emerge as a stronger world player. But in the years immediately after the Revolutionary War, the British remained in a formidable position.

***For more on early American history (particularly with respect to its moral, cultural, and religious heritage), check out "Books on Early America" and visit American Creation.

Happy Birthday, America!

2009-07-04T00:26:00.002-04:00

Happy Birthday, America! Enjoy your Fourth of July celebrations and time with family, but don't forget HOW we got here - and the sacrifices made by so many to sustain our freedom over the years and into today.

"The United States is the only country with a known birthday." ~James G. Blaine

Cryptologist Cracks 200-Year Old Code

2009-07-02T15:39:00.002-04:00

A 200-year old code has finally been cracked! The recipient of the code was President Thomas Jefferson. The sender: Robert Patterson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Now, I'm no mathematician, so forget my trying to explain HOW it was cracked. I'm simply provide you with the following link to a Wall Street Journal article that lays it all out...

"Two Centuries On, a Cryptologist Cracks a Presidential Code"

Congress Declares American Independence on July 2, 1776

2009-07-02T13:56:00.001-04:00

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia, moved a resolution for independence.

For the year leading up to Lee's resolution, members of the Congress (and people throughout the colonies) were somewhat divided over whether to officially and formally separate from Great Britain. Britain's ruthless prosecution of the war against the colonial uprising (which included the hiring of mercenary troops) and the publication of Common Sense had resulted in a decisive sea change of popular opinion. More colonists were calling for independence -- a permanent break from Britain.

On July 2, Lee's motion for independence was approved. John Adams predicted that July 2 would be celebrated as America's Independence Day. But....it was not to be.

Two days after voting for independence, the Continental Congress received a document that formally articulated the reasons for independence, including their grievances against Great Britain. This document, known as the "Declaration of Independence," was authored by Thomas Jefferson and was approved on July 4, 1776. And it was that day (July 4) that subsequent generations of Americans have chosen to remember as their nation's birthday.

Neat 4th of July Video

2009-06-26T15:44:00.002-04:00

As we approach the Fourth of July, I thought I'd post this neat video I came across on YouTube...

Causes of the War of 1812

2009-06-18T18:29:00.002-04:00

On this day (June 18) in 1812, President James Madison signed the war resolution passed by both houses of Congress, officially confirming a state of war with the British Empire.

For what reasons was the War of 1812 fought? Was it a war of American aggression or a second War for Independence? Was the United States justified to declare war on Britain and invade Canada?

For answers to these questions, watch this video...