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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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