What Were The Real Causes of The American Revolution?

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

"No Taxation Without Representation"

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

• The most burdensome and controversial tax levied on the colonies was the Stamp Act of 1765, which was repealed in 1766 (nine years before military hostilities broke out and ten years before independence was declared)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

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

So, if not taxes, what then?

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

To make a diorama, you will need:

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

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

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

1) The Drafting of the Declaration of Independence

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

2) Lewis & Clark

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

3) GIs Around a Sherman Tank

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

4) World War I Trench Warfare

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

5) USS Monitor v. CSS Virginia

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

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

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

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

******

Genealogy Research Using Free Internet Resources - A Case Study

By Linda Altman

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

Previous Genealogy Research Performed

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

The Quest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Letter From Martha Washington Discovered in Small Kansas Town" 

History Channel War of 1812 Documentary Waves The Flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson Books Found

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

"'Amazing Trove' of Jefferson Books Discovered"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if George Washington Had Never Been Born?

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

George Washington and the French and Indian War

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

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

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

George Washington and the American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington and the Revolution's Aftermath

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

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

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

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

George Washington and the Constitutional Convention

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

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

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

George Washington and the First Presidency

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

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

Washington was Indispensable

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

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

******

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

What Would Francis Scott Key Think of Christina Aguilera?

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Baker Offers a History Text For Visual Learners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning a Trip to Boston? Check out These Boston Attractions

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

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

****

"Boston - Top 10 Tourist Attractions"
By Leslie Reitman

A Boston vacation can mean different things to different travelers.

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

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

Here are arguably the  top 10 tourist attractions in Boston.

1. Duck Tour

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

2. New England Aquarium

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

 3. Whale Watching

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

4. Walk the Freedom Trail

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

 5. Visit Faneuil Hall

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

6. Eat in the North End

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

7. Ride The Swan Boats

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

8. The Museum of Science

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

9. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

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

10. Visit Newbury Street

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

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

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

Article Source: Boston - Top 10 Tourist Attractions

Christmas at Mount Vernon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Reading and Merry Christmas!

Why Did The American Revolution Happen?

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

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

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

Was The American Revolution About Taxes?

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

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

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

What Were The Colonial Grievances?

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

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

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

• For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

• For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

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

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

Daniel Day Lewis to Play Spielberg's Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

David McCullough Takes Readers on a Stirring Adventure in 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington Gets the Chernow Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Approves the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789

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

Origin of the Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

Congress Passes Twelve Amendments

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

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

The Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 24 in History: The Judiciary Act of 1789

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

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

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