General Washington on Gays in the Military

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Been to Mount Vernon Lately?

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?

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'

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

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

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

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

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...

• "The Foundation for Writing Great Essays on the American Revolution"
• "Revolutionary War Facts"

Revolutionary War Facts

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!

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

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

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

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

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...

Why Was the Battle of Bunker Hill Fought?

Today marks the anniversary of the opening shots in the Battle of Bunker Hill. The battle, waged in June of 1775, was actually fought on Breed's Hill. Yet generations of Americans have known it as "the Battle of Bunker Hill."

The Battle of Bunker Hill is perhaps most famous for Colonel William Prescott's order: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." But why was the battle fought in the first place?

Why Was The Battle of Bunker Hill Fought?

The Battle of Bunker Hill (or Breed's Hill) was a natural extension of the battles of Lexington and Concord, which were fought in April 1775.

With the "Intolerable Acts" (the British response to the Boston Tea Party) the British had occupied Boston and declared martial law throughout much of New England.

Concerned with growing unrest in the countryside, British General Thomas Gage, the military governor in Boston, dispatched troops in April 1775 to Concord to seize munitions being stockpiled by the colonial militia. While en route, British soldiers clashed with colonists at Lexington and then fought a pitched battle with even more colonial militia at Concord.

Following the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British withdrew (under heavy fire) to Boston. While in Boston, the British went through a command change (Gage was sacked), and contemplated their next move.

While in Boston, the British were sloppily (but still effectively) besieged by angry, armed colonists. When those colonists began fortifying Breed's Hill, on the Charlestown Peninsular, the British had to act.

The Battle of Bunker Hill

Believing that a decisive, straight-on show of force would break the spirit of rebellion, the British launched a frontal attack against the rebel militia entrenched on Breed's Hill.

The first two assaults were disastrous for the British, but the Americans ran out of powder and musket balls. Colonel Prescott ordered a retreat, as the British stormed the hill on their third assault.

From a battlefield standpoint, it was a British victory. At the end of the battle, the British held the ground. But it was a costly battle for the British. They suffered over a thousand casualties (226 dead and 828 wounded).

British General Clinton wrote in his diary: "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America."

Interestingly enough, General Clinton's prediction was close to the truth. In the course of the American Revolution, the British would win most of the battles. But they would never break the resolve of the colonists. Ultimately, the Americans would have their independence.

For more on the Battle of Bunker Hill, read "The Decisive Day is Come," courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Are Our Leaders "Wise and Good"?

In Thoughts on Government (1776), John Adams wrote:

"As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good."

Would John Adams consider our leaders today "wise and good"? More to the point, HOW do we determine which candidates are "wise and good"? What criteria should voters bring to bear when selecting their leaders?

Let's talk about it in the comments.

Wisdom on Character from Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, one of the most influential writers in all of American history, gave one of the best quotes ever on character. On the subject of character, Paine declared:

"Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us."

Something to think about.

Robert Bork on Original Intent

President Barack Obama is about to nominate a new Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. He will likely appoint someone who abides by the "liberal" or "activist" model. According to Robert Bork, our justices and judges should not take it upon themselves to expand or evolve the Constitution or the law. Instead, judges should interpret the Constitution (or any law) according to its original understanding.

Alexander Hamilton: Founder of American Capitalism

Alexander Hamilton, whose economic ideals were shaped by European mercantilism, entrepreneurial industry, and personal ambition, stands as one of the most controversial and profoundly influential Founding Fathers.

In this video, Peter Robinson interviews Ron Chernow, the renowned Hamilton biographer.



******

To order Mr. Chernow's book, follow this link...

Has History Been Too Kind to the Founders?

David O. Stewart, author of The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, says that history has been too kind to some of the Constitution's Framers....



Do you agree with Mr. Stewart?


****

Chief Justice Roberts Speaking at James Madison Home

Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at Montpelier in Virginia, the home of the late James Madison, widely regarded as the "Father of our Constitution." The speech commemorated Constitution Day 2008....

Should We Thank the Founders for Capitalism?

Has capitalism in the United States been beneficial to America and the world?

There's no question that the Founding Fathers believed in capitalist, free market principles, and that they enshrined those concepts into the nation's fabric. The Protestant work ethic, the right of private property ownership, and the security of wealth (primarily land in the founding era) were all deeply embedded in the Founders' psyche. As a result, modern capitalism defined the founding of the United States and powered its rise to become the leading super power of the world.

Capitalism, however, has its detractors. Quite a few, in fact. It's no coincidence that many of these detractors are also not very fond of the United States. These critics often argue that capitalism is dependent on greed, and that greed is bad.

Capitalism's defenders, however, point out that greed is common in the human condition, and is hardly unique to capitalism. Watch the late (and great) Milton Freidman school Phil Donahue on this point...



Dinesh D'Souza takes the point further, arguing that capitalism constructively channels and ultimately civilizes greed. D'Souza writes:

"The moral argument for capitalism is that it makes us better people by regulating the vices of greed and selfishness. Capitalism civilizes greed in much the same way that marriage civilizes lust. Greed, like lust, is part of our human nature; it would be futile to try to root it out. What capitalism does is to channel greed in such a way that it works to meet the wants and needs of society."

What do you think? Is capitalism good or bad? And should we thank the Founders for it -- or wish they'd started us off on a different footing?

David McCullough on the Equality of Ideas

Bestselling author David McCullough talks about the "equality of ideas" that defined the founding of the United States....

George Washington and His Army: Put Yourself in the Shoes of General Washington

Think you've got it rough? When General George Washington took command of the Continental Army in the summer of 1775, he faced the strongest and best trained army in the world. And he did so with one of the most ill-equipped, poorly trained, and disorganized "armies" ever put in the field!

Washington Builds a Continental Army

Among the challenges Washington had to face was the fact that many soldiers affixed their loyalty more to their states than to any united nation. This is hardly surprising, since there was no united nation in 1775. Nevertheless, in a July 4, 1775 General Order, Washington declared that the soldiers and those who enlist "are now Troops of the United Provinces of North America." He further called on "all Distinctions of Colonies" to be "laid aside" in favor of service to the "Great and common cause in which we are all engaged."

Washington also had to concern himself with basic provisions (including food), ammunition, sanitation, discipline, and chain of command. In short, he had to build an army from the ground up, before he could effectively command it against enemy forces.

What would YOU have done? Sometimes, when things get really tough, we feel like throwing in the towel. Washington did. For Washington, he felt like quitting, basically saying that had he known how bad things would be, no consideration would have moved him to accept command. But Washington soldiered on. In a phrase from today's Army, he "Rangered up" and, with help, built the Continental Army into a fighting force that would keep the Revolution alive and the British busy for eight long years!

General Washington's Legacy

Though General Washington lost more battles than he won, Washington's courage, leadership and persistence held the army together. As author Richard Brookhiser has said: "War is not the World Series. It's not the best out of seven." Brookhiser's right. You don't have to win all the battles. You just have to win the ones that count, especially the last one!

Edward Lengel, author of General George Washington: A Military Life, explains (in the video below) the strengths and qualities that Washington brought to the Continental cause in the Revolution:








Without General Washington at the helm of the American Continental Army, it's hard to fathom an American victory in the War for Independence. Not only is it unlikely a better leader could've been found, it's almost certain that no such leader could've been trusted with the power and popularity Washington would have at war's end.

It's no exaggeration to say that General George Washington was the indispensable man.

Could the British Have Won the American Revolution?

Is it possible that Great Britain could have won the American Revolution? Britain, after all, had most of the advantages. Why did they lose? And if Britain could have won, how? How should Britain have handled her rebellious American colonies?

Two recommended articles for you to read...

"England's Vietnam: The American Revolution" by Richard Ketchum (American Heritage, June 1971)

"Why Did the British Lose the American Revolution?" by yours truly (American Revolution Blog)

And check out...

The Onion Pokes Fun at British Redcoats

Confused British soldiers, still fighting the American Revolution, were found earlier this month in Massachusetts! So say the editors of The Onion...an interesting publication if you've not yet read it.

To see what The Onion says about these lost and disoriented British redcoats, read "Redcoat Holdouts Still Fighting the American Revolution."

What Led to the American Revolution?

What led to the American Revolution? Why did the American Revolution happen? Pretty much every American knows there was an American Revolution that resulted in our independence, but few Americans understand the actual causes of the American Revolution.

What Led to the American Revolution?

The causes of the American Revolution can be traced most easily to the French and Indian War (otherwise known as the Seven Years War). That war, triggered in part by an eager and inexperienced George Washington, confirmed Britain's hold on North America and effectively ended French hopes to dominate the continent. It also put the British treasury in serious straits.

Faced with a fiscal crisis and the perceived need to maintain a troop presence in North America, Britain tightened its control over its North American colonies, and began to tax them directly for the first time. The most egregious of these direct taxes was the 1775 Stamp Act.

While it's fairly common for people to focus on the issue of taxation in studying the causes of the American Revolution, the real issue was control. The British Parliament believed that it had preeminent authority over the entire British Empire, including the colonies in North America. The American colonists, by contrast, believed they had the right to govern themselves, albeit under the protection and limited oversight of the British Crown.

Why Did the American Revolution Happen?

Tensions aside, what led to the actual shooting? After all, people have deep disagreements today regarding politics and government, taxation and control. What led the American colonists to actually take up arms and start shooting at British redcoats?

The touchstone event that made war inevitable was the Boston Tea Party of 1773. By that year, the British had rescinded all of the taxes on their North American colonies, save one....the tax on tea. The Tea Act of 1773, which helped fund the East India Company, was symbolic for both sides. From the British perspective, it showed that they had the authority (if they chose to exercise it) to levy any tax on the American colonists. Not surprisingly, this symbol wasn't lost on the American side. The colonists were deeply resentful of this power grab, and they took steps to show that resentment.

The Sons of Liberty, poorly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded British trade vessels in Boston Harbor in December 1773, and dumped over 340 crates of tea into Boston Harbor.

**Read about the Boston Tea Party, courtesy of The Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum.

Rather than offer a limited, political response to the Boston Tea Party, the British went ballistic! With passage of the Restraining Acts in 1774, (known popularly as the Coercive Acts or the "Intolerable Acts"), the British cleared colonial judges and elected officials out of their positions, ended town hall meetings, imposed martial law, and shut down Boston Harbor!

The colonies rallied together in response. In 1774, the First Continental Congress met to present a united front against Great Britain. And, in April 1775, blood was shed in Lexington and Concord. War was inevitable.

And in the summer of 1776, the American Revolution became a war for independence, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

**For more on the American Revolution, visit the American Revolution Blog, the American History section at Suite101.com, and (of course) surf through all the postings and links here at this blog.

Chuck Norris on the Founders, Obama, and...Running for President of Texas

Chuck Norris may run for the presidency of Texas. Say what? That's right, Walker Texas Ranger may soon be Walker Texas President - or Norris Texas President. :-)

Well, probably not. But the martial arts master turned actor turned activist warns that the United States may face disunity if the Obama administration continues to thwart the wisdom and vision of America's Founders.

**Check out Chuck Norris' provocative article by visiting "I May Run for President of Texas." And then let us know what you think in the comments area below.**

Disclaimer: Before anyone "flames" me, I am in no way endorsing, advocating, or encouraging disunity or secession. I believe we should remain loyal Americans and lift up our government in prayer. But I think Norris' article provides good food for thought. There are signs that we have drifted much too far from the vision of our Founders, and if we continue to do so, we do so at our own peril.

Jonathan Mayhew Lays Theological Groundwork for American Revolution

In his famous A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: with Some Reflections on the resistance Made to King Charles I, the Reverend Jonathan Mayhew laid an important corner stone in the foundations of the American Revolution. Indeed, John Adams credited Mayhew's sermon as having "great influence in the commencement of the Revolution."

The Legacy of "The Divine Right of Kings"

The causes of the American Revolution are varied, and have been substantially discussed all over the Internet, including of course at this blog. The main theme undergirding all those causes was the issue of authority.

And for hundreds of years, Britain had rested its authority on a concept known to many as "the Divine Right of Kings." While the theory had been largely rejected in the "Glorious Revolution" of England (1688-89), it still heavily influenced the Church of England and gave many in the colonies pause as they considered their relationship with the Mother Country.

Significant to the "Divine Right of Kings" concept was the Apostle Paul's exhortation in his letter to the church at Rome that "every soul be subject unto the higher powers" and that the "powers that be are ordained of God" (see Romans 13:1-7).

Loyalists during the American Revolution often cited Romans 13 as reason to stand with King George III and Parliament. Indicative of this position was Loyalist minister Jonathan Boucher, who declared:

"Obedience to government is every man's duty, because it is every man's interest; but it is particularly incumbent on Christians, because (in addition to its moral fitness) it is enjoined by the positive commands of God; and, therefore, when Christians are disobedient to human ordinances, they are also disobedient to God. If the form of government under which the good providence of God has been pleased to place us be mild and free, it is our duty to enjoy it with gratitude and with thankfulness and, in particular, to be careful not to abuse it by licentiousness. If it be less indulgent and less liberal than in reason it ought to be, still it is our duty not to disturb and destroy the peace of the community by becoming refractory and rebellious subjects and resisting the ordinances of God. However humiliating such acquiescence may seem to men of warm and eager minds, the wisdom of God in having made it our duty is manifest. For, as it is the natural temper and bias of the human mind to be impatient under restraint, it was wise and merciful in the blessed Author of our religion not to add any new impulse to the natural force of this prevailing propensity but, with the whole weight of his authority, altogether to discountenance every tendency to disobedience."

Is the "Divine Right of Kings" Scriptural?

Medieval theologican John Calvin, one of the most influential biblical scholars in Christian history, certainly thought so. Calvin, known for his theological views on the sovereignty of God, argued that rebellion against God's ordained rulers was never justified.

**See John Calvin's "On Civil Government"**

The late Bible scholar William R. Newell, in his commentary Romans Verse-by-Verse, argues that Romans 13 is a clear, explicit stand against "lawlessness." And if the rulers are bad ones, that doesn't change a thing, says Newell. In Romans Verse-by-Verse, he writes:

"Never mind if they are bad ones, the word still stands, 'There is no power but of God.' Remember your Savior suffered under Pontius Pilate, one of the worst Roman governors Judea ever had; and Paul under Nero, the worst Roman Emperor. And neither our Lord nor His Apostle denied or reviled the 'authority!'"

Nineteenth century biblical scholar William Kelly echoed similar sentiments regarding Romans 13. Kelly declared:

"‘Authorities in power’ is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the Divine right of kings, but that ‘there is no authority except from God.’ Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian’s duty is plain: ‘those that exist are ordained by God.’ His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences, and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such."

Clearly, there are strong exegetical arguments for the "Divine Right of Kings" - at least on the surface. That the theory has been so persistent is also beyond dispute. But was Paul really endorsing the "Divine Right of Kings"? Was he endorsing unlimited submission to any authority?

Jonathan Mayhew on the Apostle Paul and Romans 13

Jonathan Mayhew's position on Romans 13 was that Paul was calling for "submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner," not those who abuse their power. And that the apostle made this clear by describing the purpose of government. Mayhew writes:

"...upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled [sic] to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle."

If Mayhew's interpretation of Romans 13 is correct, then the "Divine Right of Kings" is better understood as the "Divine Right of Just Government."

Was the American Revolution Biblically Justified?

Blogger Gary Manning says no, at least not insofar as the Bible is concerned. In a "Just War" series he did for his readers last year, Manning wrote that, while Paul kept the door open for civil disobedience of "unjust laws," the apostle "did not allow armed revolt."

Libertarian commentator Jonathan Rowe also argues that the weight of Scripture was on the side of the Loyalists in colonial America. The Bible, writes Rowe, was "insufficient for establishing the principles upon which we declared independence and constructed the Constitution."

**Visit American Creation for a series of blog posts on biblical arguments, including Romans 13 and the American Revolution**

David Barton, a notable (and controversial) Christian commentator on the founding era, argues that the Revolutionary War was indeed justified. Answering the question "Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?," Barton writes that Romans 13 argues for a general ordination of government, not every single official who sits in a government position. Sounding much like Mayhew of old, Barton explains:

"God ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposes anarchy, He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness. Yet, there are clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Ghadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.). Has God endorsed those specific governments that promote that which He hates? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission and support to the very things that He hates – such is not possible."

So....who is right? What's the answer?

Perhaps the answer is found in Psalm 75, written long ago by Asaph. In this psalm, Asaph writes that "exaltation comes neither from the east, nor from the west nor from the south," but that God "is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another" (Psalm 75:6-7).

From this passage (as well as others of course), we draw the principle that government is determined by God. He raises up government and He takes it down.

So, what happens when a government is in place that is contrary to the Bible's principles for government? What happens when an unjust ruler is in power?

The Bible counsels God's followers, in similar cases, to seek wisdom from God. We are to submit ourselves to God's direction and guidance and we are to "trust in the Lord....in all our ways" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

And, in some cases, this may mean revolution. God led Moses to free the Hebrew people from Egyptian slavery. He called on Gideon to liberate Israel from Midianite oppression. Indeed, the Old Testament (especially the book of Judges) is full of God raising up leaders.

What about the American Revolution? Many of the Founders believed that God was raising them up to build a new nation. They believed they were doing God's work as well as their own in declaring independence from Great Britain and establishing the United States of America.

Whether this is true or not, it is true that the Founders beseeched God for guidance and wisdom in the months and years leading up to the Revolutionary War. The First Continental Congress (1774), for example, opened with a prayer by the Rev. Jacob Duche on behalf of the American colonists who "have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee."

And it was to the "Supreme Judge" that the Second Continental Congress appealed for "the rectitude of our intentions" when passing the Declaration of Independence.

Ultimately, only God can answer authoritatively whether the American Revolution was biblically justified. But the Founding Fathers believed that it was. And their appeals to Almighty God for His blessing and protection were not mere rhetorical devices, but sincere prayers for God's wisdom and provision. Our nation today could learn something from their example.

Empire: Total War is a Total Mess!

Empire: Total War, the newly-released real-time strategy (RTS) epic game from SEGA and Creative Assembly, shows great promise and boasts great potential, but falls short in the most important facet of gaming - the "Fun Factor."

Saying Empire: Total War falls short in the area of "fun" is actually an understatement. Playing Empire: Total War may be one of the most frustrating and maddening experiences you will ever have.

Let me be clear. I'm a huge fan of the Total War series. I've invested numerous hours of my life playing Medieval: Total War, Rome: Total War, and Medieval II: Total War. Great games - all of them!

And I have been salivating at the possibility of getting my hands on Empire: Total War. I mean, here at last, was a game dedicated to the era of the American Revolution! Not only does Empire: Total War come with a Revolutionary War campaign, but the "Special Forces" edition of Empire: Total War comes with The History Channel Revolution on DVD. To say that I've been excited about this game would be a colossal understatement.

But, alas.....my troubles began as soon as I opened the case.

I went to Gamestop in Wilmington, Ohio, slapped down my card from Uncle Visa and paid $74 and some change for the "Special Forces" edition. I get back home, and lo and behold, Volume II of The Revolution is missing. That's right, the box only has Volume I of The History Channel series on the American Revolution! That program is the main reason I paid for the premium edition. (Turns out that all the "Special Forces" editions only ship with Volume I. So, buyer beware, the box cover makes it sound like you're getting the whole series of The Revolution. You're not. You're only getting Volume I, which has the first four episodes).

Then, I start the install process. Apparently, to cut down on piracy or to collect customer information or just to torture their customers, Creative Assembly and SEGA make you register with Steam (which is some kind of online game hosting company). This isn't optional. In order to play the game that you bought, you have to register and play through your new Steam account!

Several times, I got an "error" message that the game was unavailable and that I would have to try again later. Say what!? I paid $75 for the game. It's my game. I own it, and I expect to play it. The fact that I have to go through some online platform to play the game that I just bought is ludicrous.

After opening and closing Steam a few times, and talking to my computer a little (you know, some "encouragement"), I finally made it through that process - only to have the game keep jumping and jittering and freezing in the intro movie and the launch process.

I dialed down the graphics to "low" hoping that would work. Of course, by this time, I've invested over an hour just to get the blasted thing to work! I'm frustrated and frazzled. The word "fun" isn't even in my vocabulary, and isn't that why we play games to begin with!?

Okay, so I finally - and I mean "finally" - get to the game menu screen. I decide to go with the "War on Land" tutorial. I hit "play." Game freezes and locks up. I have to shut the whole computer down, reboot it, and try again. Now, I'm a pastor, so I don't make it a habit to curse, but I must confess that some of my old Army vocabulary came bubbling up into my mind at this point.

So, we're now at Take 2 - the second attempt. It's now been close to 90 minutes that I've invested just to get STARTED with this game. A game that's supposed to be fun. After selecting once again the "War on Land" tutorial, it slowly loads...slowly... slowly...slowly...and hangs there. Almost loaded, but not quite. That gold bar is about 90% full, but it refuses to budge the remaining 10%. It just hangs there.

Minutes pass. The bar doesn't budge. My Army vocabulary starts to come to my mind again, and then....I hear "Welcome to the battle tutorial...." The problem is that the screen isn't matching the words. The narrator is telling me how to fight battles and I hear the sound effects of my army setting up to battle, but the screen still shows that blasted gold bar at 90%. I haven't made it to the play screen yet. I'm still on the loading screen.

The narrator stops speaking. He's obviously waiting for me to do what he told me to do, but I can't. I'm still staring at a 90% complete gold load bar. Still haven't made it to the actual game yet. Once again, Army vocabulary comes into my mind.

It becomes apparent that this second attempt isn't going to fare much better than the first. I hit the windows button and the escape button. Nothing. So, I do the control-alt-delete. Nothing. Once again, I'm faced with shutting the computer down cold. And that's what I do.

I decide that maybe the third time's the charm. However, this time, I'll go back to the desktop. I loaded it on both my laptop and desktop. My laptop has Vista and more power, actually. But perhaps my desktop will fare better. Can't hurt to try.

So, here we go again...this time, I make it all the way to the game, but Empire: Total War runs rough from that point forward. At least, however, it runs.

Does the game show promise? Absolutely. Does it tease you with great potential? Definitely. Does it deliver? Unfortunately, no. Perhaps if you have a top-of-the-line computer system, you'll have fewer problems.

Either way, I have found Empire: Total War to be totally frustrating. Hopefully, SEGA and Creative Assembly will see the error of their ways, and do what needs to be done to make the game more playable and enjoyable.

***

Addendum (March 13, 2009): I have been able to get this game to work on my desktop at the lowest graphics settings. However, the game is still sluggish. The game's campaign videos will not play properly, and there are game play issues as well. Perhaps upgrading my desktop computer's RAM and graphics card will help, but I don't have the money for that right now.

Addendum (March 15, 2009): It's confirmed -- The special edition ships with only Volume ONE of The Revolution, the DVD series on the American Revolution. This is false advertising, in my opinion, as the box cover says NOTHING about Volume I. It indicates you'll get the full series. So, buyer beware!

Addendum (March 24, 2009): To be fair, while Empire: Total War demands a pretty high-performing computer and graphics card, the game is very fun, once you get into it. I've enjoyed several hours of the game, since my initial review post. I don't retract anything. Installing and getting used to the game was very frustrating, especially with the whole "install through Steam" arrangement. Why can't the game just play like Medieval II: Total War? Just install and go! Why do they need Steam? Aside from that, though, and the fact that the game will be sluggish and problematic on older computers (if it plays at all), it IS a fun game, once you get into it.

British Rifle Fire Demonstration

Revolutionary War era British firing demonstration at Fort Michimilimac in Mackinac, Michigan....

Real and Fictional Adventures of Robinson Crusoe

It's apparently curtains for NBC's series Crusoe, starring Philip Winchester and Tongayi Chirisa. The show, produced by London-based Power, was apparently envisioned as an ongoing television series. At least, that was the plan initially. The ratings were disappointing, however, especially considering the heavy promotion of the series. The series was soon redefined as a 13-episode "miniseries," which broadcast its final episode on January 31.

Crusoe is, at least in the opinion of this author, entertaining and family-friendly. The scenery is beautiful. The acting is fine, especially from Chirisa (who plays Friday) and recurring guest star (and veteran) Sam Neill.

Unfortunately, the ending of the miniseries is a huge disappointment. I can't say much more than that, without giving away something. But, let's just say, that I was not happy. It leaves you, frankly, with a sense of frustration - like you've been cheated. Maybe the producers and writers were hoping (or even counting) on the series getting picked up for another season. If so, that hope doesn't look promising.

To visit the official NBC site for the series, click here.

If you missed Crusoe, you can watch (as of this blog post) all the episodes for free at Hulu.com. But be warned, you won't like the ending.

The Legend of Robinson Crusoe

The story of Robinson Crusoe was, of course, penned by author Daniel Defoe and published in 1719. Written as an autobiographical account of a man's 28 years on a remote tropical island, Robinson Crusoe is considered by many to be the first novel in England.

Beloved by generations, the story has been published numerous times and made into several films.





Even the Tom Hanks film Castaway was a modern spinoff of Defoe's classic. And, of course, don't forget Lost, which in its own way, takes some inspiration from Defoe's Robinson Crusoe.

Most recently with Crusoe, NBC hoped to profit from Defoe's brainchild, reimagining the classic as an adventure story wrapped in conspiracy, intrigue, betrayal, and romance. It is the second time TV brought Robinson Crusoe to life - the first effort being a 1960s series titled The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe.

Why are we Talking About Robinson Crusoe at this Blog?

It's true that Robinson Crusoe has nothing really to do with the American Revolution or the founding of the United States. But, if you're like me, I appreciate any movie or TV series that explores the general time frame of the colonial era.

Given the literary heights achieved by writers like Defoe and some of his contemporaries and the heroic achievements by so many of that era, I'm surprised there aren't more movies and TV series set in the period that saw the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the dawn of the Modern Age.

Was there a "Real" Robinson Crusoe?

While the fictional Robinson Crusoe, imagined by Daniel Defoe in his classic 1719 novel, is a shipwrecked adventurer befriended by the noble "Man Friday," the real story behind the legend is much different. The original "Robinson Crusoe," who apparently inspired Defoe, was a hard-drinking pirate named Alexander Selkirk. And he wasn't shipwrecked. He was left on the island deliberately because the captain thought he was a pain in the proverbial backside.

Read "Scientists Research the Real Robinson Crusoe" to learn more about the man who inspired the legend.

Lessons from Robinson Crusoe

The real lesson of the whole Robinson Crusoe story, I suppose, is twofold:

1) It reminds us (or at least should remind us) of all the things we take for granted. Imagine if, one day, you were stripped of all meaningful possessions, separated from your loved ones, and relegated to living a lonely existence far apart from the notice or care of anyone. A story like Crusoe should make us all thankful for even the smallest pleasures in life.

2) When life does get tough (and it most certainly did for Crusoe), we need to make the best of it. Robinson Crusoe never surrendered to despair. He survived and held onto hope. (And, at least in the NBC miniseries, he made a really cool treehouse!)

It's up to us, of course, to take those lessons to heart.