Saturday, Philadelphia: Washington and 'real Revolution'

From Philadelphia Inquirer: Washington and 'real Revolution'
Historian Jane Hampton Cook will speak at National Constitution Center.

Presidential historian and children's author Jane Hampton Cook will come to the National Constitution Center on Saturday to discuss George Washington and the "real American Revolution."
At 1 and 2 p.m., Hampton Cook will discuss Washington, drawing from her book Stories of Faith and Courage from the Revolutionary War, which gives insight into what the Founding Fathers faced in their fight for freedom. She will also talk about her children's story, "What Does the President Look Like?," which shows how technology influences the way we perceive our presidents and the ways the public discovered what they looked like. (There was a time when Americans had no way of knowing how our presidents looked unless they had met them in person.)

The author will speak at the center's "Discover the Real George Washington: New Views from Mount Vernon" exhibition gallery and sign copies of her books. At the exhibit, which runs through Sept. 5, children can learn about Washington's early life growing up on a Virginia plantation and participate in Colonial-era crafts, including paper- and candle-making.

Under the center's Kids Free Summer promotion through Sept. 5, up to four children 12 or under get free admission with one paying adult.

"George Washington and the Real American Revolution" with Jane Hampton Cook, 1 and 2 p.m. Saturday at the National Constitution Center, 525 Arch St., Independence Mall. Saturday hours of operation: 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. General admission: $12; $11 for ages 65 and older; free for ages 12 and younger (up to 4 children accompanied by an adult) through Sept. 5, and for active military with ID and members. For reservations for the event with Cook, call 215-409-6700. Information: 215-409-6600 or www.constitutioncenter.org.

Book Reviews: The Uniters of America

From The American Spectator: The Uniters of America By Rev. Michael P. Orsi
Robert Morris: Financier of the American RevolutionBy Charles Rappleye
(Simon & Schuster, 530 pages, $30)

The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster's Obsession and the Creation of an American CultureBy Joshua Kendall
(G.P. Putnam's Sons, 355 pages, $26.95)

Robert Morris and Noah Webster are Founders of the American Republic. In Charles Rappleye's Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution and Joshua Kendall's The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster's Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture, we are presented with two men of vastly different personalities and talents who helped to shape our nation. Their patriotism, entrepreneurial skills and self-interest has provided a model for our common culture. Though their contributions differed radically, both appreciated capitalism and used the free market to create a truly United States.

Morris and Webster both wanted a strong federal government. The former saw it coming through a common currency regulated by a national treasury. The latter envisioned a nation bound by a common language which would form an American identity.

Winning the American Revolution required money which the colonial government did not have. The stories of Washington's ragtag army, with its lack of provisions and minor mutinies, are part of the lore surrounding the colonists' victory over their well-supplied British counterparts. This original financial crisis was due to the Continental Congress's inability to tax the colonies and the worthless Continental script that was being printed to pay the army. The present decline in the value of the dollar is similar to the monetary crisis of the Revolution since now, as then, we have fiat money with neither gold nor silver to back it up.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that without the financial acumen and personal credit risks taken by Robert Morris of Philadelphia (1734-1806) the Revolution would have failed. Charles Rappleye says, "Morris committed his own fortune to the demands of the national cause" and quotes Morris as saying:

"My personal Credit, which thank Heaven I have preserved through all the tempests of the War, has been substituted for that which the Country had lost," Morris explained to a friend. "I am now striving to transfer that Credit to the Public."

Noah Webster (1758-1843), meanwhile, was instrumental in strengthening our national identity by compiling a truly American vocabulary with words, definitions, spelling and grammar germane to the new nation. Kendall writes, "But Webster had done more than just improve on the spelling books of his British predecessors. He had also helped give birth to a new language, which in turn would soon unite a fledgling nation."

Webster told George Washington, "our nation is but a name and our confederation a cobweb." He gained Washington's support for his projects because Washington realized that nothing better unites a people than a common tongue. His insights and contribution helped to meld the Colonies into one nation. As Kendall states:

Together, Noah Webster, Jr., the man of words, and George Washington, the man of action, would continue to work to unify America. Recognizing Webster's remarkable knack for getting Americans to think of themselves as American, Washington relied time and time again on his trusted policy advisor.

Kendall describes Webster as having a penchant for demography, collecting data and studying the etymology of words. His obsessive-compulsive behavior was perfectly suited for his magnum opus -- Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). Those who are seeking legislation, i.e., The English Language Unity Act, 2011, to make English the official language of the U.S. can claim both Webster and Washington as supporters.

Morris was an English émigré and an experienced merchant. He became a partner of Thomas Willing and Co., a famous Philadelphia Trading Company. Although he was originally hesitant to break with England he eventually signed the Declaration of Independence. His international connections lent itself to aiding the financial crisis in his home colony of Pennsylvania and the Continental Government during the Revolution. He became a key player as a member of the Secret Committee which funded the munitions for the Colonies. Later, under the Articles of the Confederation (1781-1782), he was made the Superintendent of Finance. Washington called him "The most powerful man in America."

Morris and Webster are models of the entrepreneurial spirit present at the nation's beginning. Both showed creativity and a willingness to work, as well as to take the risks necessary to succeed. Rappleye states, "To Morris, the primary role government should take in affairs of commerce was to get out of the way." Morris is quoted as saying "I assert boldly that commerce ought to be as free as the air, to place it in the most advantageous state to mankind in general." This stands as an indictment against the present government interventions in our financial system. The Dodd-Frank Act, 2011, for example, expanded government regulation of the market which causes a decline in U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth.

Morris was a pivotal figure in establishing a Bank of North America (1781). He knew that if the young nation was to flourish then private credit had to be established. Many feared that the banks were only a tool for the rich to grow richer. Because of this, the State of Pennsylvania was on the precipice of revoking its charter. Morris, however, according to Rappleye, "helped turn the tide of popular opinion against state intervention in the market." He says, Morris "opened the door to a new era of commerce, limited state sovereignty, and social mobility."

Webster also contributed to American enterprise through his persistence in getting copyright laws passed in his home state of Connecticut and through his prodding in six other states. He strongly supported the new Constitution because, he said, "This constitution will place the regulation of literary property in the power of Congress and of course the existing laws of the several states will be superseded by a federal law." With Webster's support, a national copyright law passed Congress in 1790. This of course protected intellectual property and encouraged Americans to develop their talents and grow in wealth for their efforts.

Toward the end of his life, Kendall believes that Webster lost touch with the promise of America because of his acceptance of inequality. As Kendall puts it:

Inequality, an embittered Webster had come to believe, was inherently good. While, as the papers reported, he still "retained the full power of his faculties," Webster had lost touch with the promise of America, which he himself had championed a half century earlier. It was the expert definer rather than his fellow countrymen who could no longer appreciate the true meaning of "liberty" and "equality."

But it is more likely that Webster was only being faithful to the Founders' belief in a meritocracy where equal opportunity, as opposed to equal distribution, was the key to national greatness and personal fulfillment.

Reflecting on his own life, Webster saw that being poor need not be a permanent condition in America. The present egalitarian ethos now regnant in our country discourages personal initiative and (as Alexis de Tocqueville feared) encourages mediocrity. It also creates serial poverty. The tragedy of this equalizing philosophy is seen in the 2011 Budget Crisis which was brought about by an entitlements mentality and relies on taxing the rich for its sustainability.

Morris seems to have a handle on the essence of America which is based on the truth of American capitalism in which financial inequality is a fact of life. As Rappleley puts it:

More than that, Morris installed his pragmatic, realist, modernist vision of a free people united by the principles of economic self-interest and not by bonds of state or political authority. For better or worse, that is the feature that distinguishes America from every other nation established in the New World, and set America on its course to becoming the economic powerhouse we know today.

Politicians would do well to read both books.

Daughters of the American Revolution take history field trip to visit early settler’s grave

From Independent Mail.com (Anderson, South Caroolina): Daughters of the American Revolution take history field trip to visit early settler’s grave
ANDERSON COUNTY — Members of two Anderson County chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution took a field trip on June 11 to visit the grave of an early settler of Anderson County. David Pressley, a soldier of the American Revolution, was born in Scotland and brought to America as an infant. He entered the service of the United States at the age of 13 as a volunteer under Capt. Andrew Hamilton in 1776 in the 96 District to combat Cherokee Indians.

In 1780, he served under General Francis Marion during what was called the “Indian Campaign.” He later settled in what is now Anderson County, becoming a postmaster for the area. He married Ann Edmiston in 1784 in the Abbeville District, eventually having 11 children.

The graves of the Pressley family are in the old Generostee Presbyterian cemetery, in a wooded area about one mile from the present-day Generostee A.R.P. Presbyterian Church. The tour was led by Marcus and Alice Campbell, well known experts in the early history of the “dark corner” of Anderson County.

UC Students Hope To Find Revolutionary War Hero's Grave

From News 5 WLWT.com: UC Students Hope To Find Revolutionary War Hero's Grave
CINCINNATI -- Many of those walking or riding along the bike trail near Lunken Airport likely have no idea that they are going right past the grave site of one of America's greatest war heroes.

For people cruising by, the only way to get a handle on the history here is with a little sign along the trail.

But archaeology students from the University of Cincinnati were working Monday to shine a light on the past.

Somewhere in this graveyard lies Sgt. William Brown, a hero of the Revolutionary War. Wounded, he was given what would someday become the Purple Heart, stitched by Martha Washington.



Images: Search For Lost War Hero


"He was injured while trying to save many others, as a result, he was awarded the Medal of Merit,” Dr. Ken Tankersley said.

The students had some hi-tech tools, like ground penetrating radar to help as they try to map this graveyard, but it's a difficult bit of detective work to piece together the past like so many shattered headstones.

“They look at historical documents from the time period, documents that have gone along with the property, and more importantly, the physical evidence that they're getting today," Paul Muller said.

Newer tombstones are here for other Revolutionary War veterans, but no one knows exactly where these men are buried either.

After more than 200 years of time and neglect, students said honoring Brown is something that's way overdue.

“If we can, find where he's located and make sure that the site is protected,” Mark Gerken said.

Identifying all the graves in this graveyard is one challenge, which will be followed by a separate challenge -- getting people to stop and recognize their significance in Cincinnati and American history.

According to Wikipedia:
William Brown (1759–1808)[1] was a soldier for the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. He was born in Stamford and enlisted in the 5th Connecticut Regiment as a corporal on 23 May 1775, and re-enlisted as a private on 9 April 1777, for the duration of the war in the 8th Connecticut Regiment. He was promoted to corporal on 8 May 1779, and to sergeant on 1 August 1780, transferring with the consolidation of units to the 5th Connecticut Regiment on 1 January 1781, and to the 2nd Connecticut Regiment on 1 January 1783. He was awarded the Badge of Military Merit, one of only three people to be awarded the medal that later became the Purple Heart. No record of his citation has been uncovered, but it is believed that he participated in the assault on Redoubt No. 10 during the siege of Yorktown.

After the war he moved west to a newly developed river town called Cincinnati, Ohio. He lived out his days there, his original tombstone was lost to time; possibly stolen or destroyed. On 24 July 2004, at a cemetery across the street from what is known as Lunken Airport, a new tombstone was laid out in remembrance to Sgt. William Brown.

Brian Helgeland to Write Warner/Legendary's 'Here There Be Monsters'

Perhaps this movie, if made, will do for the American Revolution what Pirates of the Caribbean did for pirates...who knows?

Brian Helgeland to Write Warner/Legendary's 'Here There Be Monsters'

Brian Helgeland has been hired to write "Here There Be Monsters," a movie about Revolutionary War naval hero John Paul Jones -- except with sea monsters, individuals close to the project confirmed.

Producers of the Warner Bros./Legendary project are in talks with Robert Zemeckis to direct.

"Here There Be Monsters" is based on an concept by Legendary Pictures CEO Thomas Tull.

Tull is producing along with Legendary's Jon Jashni and Mandeville's Todd Lieberman and David Hoberman.

Helgeland, who won the Academy Award for 1997's "L.A. Confidential," also wrote the 2003 "Mystic River," the 2010 "Green Zone" and 2010's "Robin Hood."

Zemeckis directed a string of 1980s hits, including "Romancing the Stone," "Back to the Future" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," as well as 1994's "Forrest Gump."

His track record of late has been less solid.

His most recent 3D animated feature for Disney, "Mars Needs Moms," grossed just $40 million worldwide on a production budget of over $150 million. Zemeckis' producing deal with Disney subsequently was not renewed.

He also produced DreamWorks' upcoming boxing drama "Real Steel," and is directing Paramount's 2012 "Flight," starring Denzel Washington.

Revolutionary NJ: The rest of the story

From My Central Jersey, an OPINION PIECE: Revolutionary NJ: The rest of the story

Cate Litvack’s article on New Jersey’s role in the American Revolution that appeared on July 17 was both entertaining and informative. New Jersey certainly was the crossroads of the Revolution, as a number of historians have dubbed the state. But perhaps your readers also would be interested to know that, by some estimates, New Jersey sent more of its sons to defend the Crown than it sent to support the rebellion.

According to Dennis P. Ryan’s report written for the New Jersey Historical Commission, the state’s population of 140,000 was sharply divided, with as many as 50,000 considered to be loyalists and approximately one-third of the population working hard to remain neutral. Slaves were especially eager to support the Crown in return for its promises of their freedom.

Among others, Gov. William Franklin, the illegitimate son of Benjamin Franklin, threw in his lot with the British. And New Jersey’s Richard Stockton was the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who also signed a British loyalty oath.

This, of course, would not be the last time that New Jersey has gone against the grain, as it also shares the distinction with two other states (Kentucky and Delaware) of having rejected Abraham Lincoln’s bid for the presidency both times, in 1860 and 1864.

Gordon S. Wood, Historian of the American Revolution

From THe New York Times: Gordon S. Wood, Historian of the American Revolution

Gordon S. Wood is more than an American historian. He is almost an American institution. Of all the many teachers and writers of history in this Republic, few are held in such high esteem. Part of his reputation rises from his productivity — a stream of books, monographs, articles, lectures and commentary. Now he has added “The Idea of America” (along with a new edition of John Adams’s Revolutionary writings in two volumes for the Library of America series).

More important than his productivity is the quality of his work, and its broad appeal to readers of the right, left and center — a rare and happy combination. Specially striking is Wood’s rapport with the young. In the film “Good Will Hunting,” Matt Damon and Ben Affleck centered a lively scene at a student hangout on an impassioned discussion of Wood’s work. The television sitcom “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” made “Gordon Wood” into an adjective, and used it as a synonym for serious scholarship in general. “Wicked awesome,” one character said, “all that Gordon Wood business!” Through it all, the man himself preserves a quiet modesty, and even a humility that is central to his work. He is respected not only for what he does but for who he is.

Wood’s latest book is a collection of 11 essays, along with an introduction and conclusion, that encompass his entire career. It reveals more of the author than any of his other work and creates the opportunity for an overall assessment of his achievement. Wood introduces himself with a familiar line from the poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” He celebrates the foxes who flourish in his field, and adds in his modest way, “By contrast, as a historian I fear I am a simple hedgehog. . . . Nearly all of my publications have dealt with the American Revolution and its consequences.”

That one subject has occupied Wood for half a century — a concentration span that few can match. And after many years of labor in that field, he has transformed it. Scholars before Wood had offered many interpretations of the Revolution, but none seemed quite right to him. He concentrated his work on the years from 1776 to 1828, an unusual choice. When he began, Wood remembers, this period had “a reputation for dreariness and insignificance,” as “the most boring part of American history to study and teach.” Historians of early America tended to think of the Revolution as a colonial insurgency and lost interest after 1776. Scholars of the “middle period” believed that the real revolution happened in the Age of Jackson, and thought of the preceding years merely as prologue.

Progressives like Charles Beard and Carl Becker had tried to bring life to the history of the early Republic by writing about a transition from aristocracy to democracy, but Wood did not share what he called “their preoccupation with economic and other underlying interests.” He also disliked “the partiality that plagued their histories, a partiality that was prompted by the need to find antecedents for the divisions of their own time.”

Even less satisfactory to Wood was the scholarship of the mid-1950s. It was a time when liberals followed Tocqueville’s idea that America was born free without having to become so. Conservatives took up the argument of Edmund Burke (and John Quincy Adams) that the purpose of the American Revolution was not to promote social change, but to prevent it. Radicals compared the Revolution with the French and Russian Revolutions, and proclaimed that it was not a genuine revolution at all.

Wood rejected all of these approaches. He went deep into primary materials and made an open-minded effort to understand the language and thought of 18th-century Americans in their own terms. After 10 years of research he reported his results, first in a short essay reprinted in this collection, then in the 1969 book “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.” Leading his readers into the ­sources, Wood demonstrated that Americans in those years invented “not simply new forms of government, but an entirely new conception of politics.” They rejected ancient and medieval ideas of a polity as a set of orders or estates. In their place they created a model of a state that existed to represent individual interests, and to protect individual rights. To those ends, Americans invented radically new ideas of representation, and new models for the “parceling of power.”

Wood also made another discovery: This revolutionary way of thinking did not derive from small elites or large treatises. He wrote that it was “not delineated in a single book; it was peculiarly the product of a democratic society.” In newspapers and pamphlets he found evidence that Americans of all conditions joined this great debate — men like William Findley, a weaver and farmer in Pennsylvania, and William Thompson, a tavern keeper in South Carolina.

To all this, Wood added a third finding. From the start, this new way of thinking was consciously conceived as an open process. Wood quoted Samuel Williams, a country clergyman in Vermont, who observed in 1794 that the American system “contains within itself the means of its own improvement.” It created a process of permanent reform that proved more durable than Trotsky’s permanent revolution.

“The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” was much admired for its craftsmanship and for its substantive contribution. It won both the Bancroft and John H. Dunning Prizes. But Wood did not rest on his laurels. In 1969 he also published a small book on the founders’ complex and highly creative thinking about political representation — a pivotal problem in the American Revolution. Other short pieces followed, and many appear together for the first time in this new volume. One essay included here, originally presented as a lecture in 1974 on democracy and voting in the new Republic, reversed the customary wisdom on that subject. Wood found that “it is not suffrage that gives life to democracy; it is our democratic society that gives life to suffrage.” That theme has important implications in our own world. Other essays in this book take up problems on constitutions and constitutionalism, democracies and republics, political power and human rights, always in Wood’s careful and very creative way.

In 1992 these small essays led to another big book, “The Radicalism of the American Revolution.” Here Wood enlarged his earlier idea of a political thought-­revolution, circa 1776-87, into a model of a sweeping social revolution from 1760 to 1825. He argued that this transformation “was as radical and social as any revolution in history, but it was radical and social in a very special 18th-century sense.” Wood wrote that “one class did not overthrow another; the poor did not supplant the rich. But social relationships — the way people were connected one to another — were changed, and decisively so.” The book altered the way historians thought about their field. It won a Pulitzer Prize for history.

In the 1990s, Wood followed it with another wave of small studies on the large figures who dominate our memory of the Revolution. Several of these essays appear in this volume. A piece on Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine rescues them from “some very brutal and often deserved bashing” by exploring an idea of humanity that these very different men shared. Another empathetic essay studies Alexander Hamilton and George Washington on the problem of monarchy in the new Republic.

Wood published many other articles on the founders in 2006, in a lively collection called “Revolutionary Characters.” He added a separate volume on Benjamin Franklin, the most complicated founder of them all. Always, Wood’s purpose was not to celebrate or condemn these leaders, but to understand them. His results lead us beyond the hagiographers who celebrate the founders as demigods, and iconoclasts who revile them as racists and sexists, an approach Wood believes to be inaccurate and anachronistic.

Wood expanded the scale of his inquiries yet again in 2009 in another big book, “Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815,” a volume in the excellent Oxford History of the United States. Here he links his earlier themes to an even larger transformation of an entire culture in its deepest values and purposes. This year he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. Altogether, Wood has done more than anyone to make the era of the Revolution and early Republic into one of the liveliest periods in American history.

His work has made a difference in one more way. It reinforced the center when it was under heavy attack from both extremes. In a gentle reproof to scholars on the left, Wood has offered evidence that “what is extraordinary about the American Revolution is not . . . the continual deprivation and repression of the mass of ordinary people, but rather their release and liberation.” To conservatives on the right he makes very clear that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were conceived by their framers in dynamic terms, and were intended to grow.

In all of this work, the strength of Wood’s scholarship derives from qualities of caution, balance and restraint that are uniquely his own. He avoids questions that cannot be answered by research, even questions of causation that engage most of his colleagues. Wood writes that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply the physical notion of ‘cause’ to human action.” He is mistaken here; other causal ideas go far beyond that physical model. But Wood’s approach is fundamental to his success. As a historian he asks not why people do things, but what they think they are doing, and how their thoughts have changed through time. Ideas are studied not as underlying motives for action, but in another way. Wood believes that “ideas and language give meaning to our actions, and there is almost nothing that we humans do to which we do not attribute meaning.”

And on the “lessons of the past,” Wood is even more restrained. In his new book he observes: “If the study of history teaches anything, it teaches us the limitations of life. It ought to produce prudence and humility.” Gordon Wood teaches that lesson by the strength of his own example.

Daughters of the American Revolution challenged by Bates family of Virginia

The Washington Post: Daughters of the American Revolution challenged by Bates family of Virginia

By Annys Shin, Published: July 14
Wayne Witt Bates did not set out to take on the Daughters of the American Revolution. But he is not used to being challenged on his genealogy. A short list of his credentials: researcher for the B ates Family of Old Virginia (300 members and counting), coordinator of the Bates Family DNA project and, for 15 years, editor of the family newsletter, the Bates Booster.

“I am surprised DAR wants to fight me about the Bateses,” said Bates, 88, of Centreville, who has been researching his family tree since retiring as a Pentagon employee in 1974. “I know more than anyone wants to know.”

The genealogical throwdown began in January, when a cousin in Nevada, Suzanne Witt Adrian, told Bates that the Daughters of the American Revolution had turned away her application to have one of their ancestors, Reuben Bates Sr., recognized for his Revolutionary War service.

Proving direct descent from someone who aided the Revolutionary War effort has been a prerequisite for joining DAR since it was founded in 1890 as a response to women being excluded from Sons of the American Revolution. DAR — which describes itself as “dedicated to good works, such as promoting patriotism, preserving American history, and better education for children” — has more than 165,000 members, with hundreds of applications pouring in each month.

The organization, however, has strict standards when it comes to proof, with a preference for primary sources such as probate records, wills and census records. A DAR genealogist told Adrian, who is already a DAR member, that she didn’t prove she was descended from Reuben Bates or that he served in the war. She appealed to Wayne Bates for help. He submitted evidence to bolster their case, including DNA test results that, along with paper records, seemed to show conclusively that Adrian Bates descended from Reuben Bates Sr.

But in March, she learned DAR doesn’t accept DNA evidence, and the society turned back her application for a second time, saying she still hadn’t proved lineage or service to qualify Reuben Bates as a patriot. For Wayne Bates, this amounted to a declaration of war.

Bates, who resembles Colonel Sanders in giant square eyeglasses, began shooting off daily e-mails to DAR genealogists. He went on genealogy message boards and posted mini-screeds with titles such as “Current Rigid Methodology Renders DAR Immune to Logic” and “DAR credibility suffers.”

His lobbying campaign did not go over well at DAR’s downtown D.C. headquarters, at 1776 D St. NW. Stephen Nordholt, DAR’s administrator, warned Bates that if he didn’t stop bugging them, there would be “no further attention being given your matter — even if you are able to find new documentation that proves service of the individual in question.”

Among Bates family members, Reuben Bates Sr.’s Revolutionary War service has been accepted as fact since the 1970s because of something Wayne Bates had found at the National Archives.

Back then, when his knees still let him scour courthouses and church basements, he came across a book that contained a list of Continental Army soldiers assigned to Virginia. Inside was a description of what essentially was a pay stub for service in the Continental Army by one Reuben Bates.

It read: “Bates, Reuben — Soldier of Infantry — paid by Mr. Duval on March 4, 1783 — 36 (pounds).”

The payment record alone is not enough to prove service, Wayne Bates concedes. Colonial-era parents were not terribly creative when it came to naming their offspring. There were multiple Reuben Bateses and William Duvals running around the newly liberated colonies in 1783.

So Bates narrowed his search. He found four men named Reuben Bates living in Virginia during the Revolutionary War and looked up their vital statistics. Only one would have been the right age to have served and lived in the same county as a Duval: his ancestor, Reuben Bates of Louisa County.

Bates surmised that Duval was most likely Maj. William Duval, whose service in the Continental Army is verified by military pension records at the National Archives. In his pension application, Duval said he commanded troops from Louisa and several other counties and that he also owned land in Louisa in 1783. He was, in fact, the only Duval in Louisa County in 1783, tax records show.

Bates thought for sure that was all the proof he needed. He figured that as Reuben’s neighbor and probably his commanding officer, Duval had paid him for his service.

But DAR was still not convinced. Genealogist Thomas Ragusin, in a letter to Adrian and Wayne Bates, said the Duval on the payment record could not have been Maj. William Duval of Louisa because the record mentions “Mr. Duval,” not “Maj. Duval.”

Bates offers his own explanation for that. The war had been over for two years by then, and Duval would have returned to being a civilian.

‘An art form’

Bates admits to being a tad obsessive. For fun, he once tracked down every man who served on his Navy destroyer in World War II. He spent much of the 1980s researching the causes of railroad accidents after his brother, a railroad engineer, was wrongly blamed for one. “I cleared his name, clean as a whistle,” he says proudly. “It took 12 years, but I did it.”

The genealogical staff at DAR, by contrast, gets about two hours with each application. More than 90 percent are approved. The Bates case is part of a small minority that, instead, receive detailed “analyses” that lay out what is missing and what other documents to look for.

Genealogy “is not a science. It’s an art form,” says Terry Ward, who is DAR’s chief genealogist and leads a staff of 40.

Ward has short, gray hair and a slightly gravely voice. She’s worked in the DAR genealogy department for 14 years and remembers the days when correcting an old record involved scratching off the typewriting and then typing in the right information.

She has been the most frequent target of Bates’s barrage.

Ward has seen her share of applicants get upset when they are turned away, although they’re not usually as relentless as Bates. She doesn’t take it personally, she said. Nor do her staff members. They understand that genealogy is, at heart, an emotional exercise.

“It’s research and human nature. Someone goes up into the attic and finds Grandma was married twice and my uncle isn’t my uncle,” she says. “We understand that. We all started out researching our own families.”

She said proving service for a soldier in the Continental Line is rarely easy. Given the proliferation of identical names, proof of residency is critical to properly identifying someone. But the men who served on the Continental Line were pulled from different states, making it harder to know whether an ancestor is, for example, Reuben Bates from Virginia or Reuben Bates from New England.

Wayne Bates and other proponents of using DNA in genealogy argue that is precisely what DNA could help with. Within the Bates family, DNA has helped distinguish who descends from which branch. He said DNA evidence also backs up his claim that he is descended from Reuben Bates Sr. The Y chromosome DNA is passed down from father to son. Wayne Bates’s DNA was an exact match for that of a relative who, by paper, can document his lineage to Reuben. Other lineage societies, including Sons of the American Revolution, accept DNA evidence.

Ward and her colleagues said their problem with DNA is that it is still too imperfect a tool for them to rely on, unless someone is able to find every ancestor, dig them up and test their DNA. “If life were like ‘CSI,’ ” Ward says, “that would solve all of my genealogical problems.”

On a recent morning, Wayne Bates makes his way down to his cluttered office in the basement of the home he shares with his wife, Rose. At the foot of the stairs is a map of Fairfax County in 1760.

Refusing to quit

He grumbles that he doesn’t move as well as he used to and that he has to fork out $40 an hour to send a professional genealogist to ferret out documents for him. He does most of his research perched in front of his computer, his face hovering a few inches from the screen.

He picks his way around piles of binders, boxes, an old exercise bike, file cabinets and an armchair. He points to a volume titled “Ancestors and Descendents of William Whitt (1775-1850),” by David F. Whitt.

“That’s a tremendous book,” he says.

Bates looks around at the mess. “You ought to see it up here,” he says, tapping his forehead.

“I still think the first genealogist made an innocent mistake,” he says. But the rejection by Ragusin, the other DAR genealogist, was galling. “He ignored all the evidence.”

At one point, Bates’s cousin suggested they ditch the effort to recognize Reuben Sr., but the old man refused.

“My poor ancestor is blue in the face from holding his breath,” he says. “DAR is still holding him in limbo.”

Starring: the Oneida Nation in the Revolutionary War

From The New York Times: Starring: the Oneida Nation in the Revolutionary War

LOS ANGELES — “We used to have petroglyphs,” said Ray Halbritter, the nation representative of the Oneida Indian Nation and the chief executive of its Nation Enterprises.

In a telephone interview on Friday, Mr. Halbritter was explaining his nation’s reasons for dabbling in the movie business by agreeing to finance a planned picture about the Oneidas, their long-ago chief Han Yerry, and their alliance with American colonists during the Revolutionary War, even when others in the Iroquois Confederacy backed the British.

An independent production that is expected to cost $10 million, “First Allies,” as the film is called, is expected to begin shooting in central New York this fall. It will be directed by Kees Van Oostrum, a well-known cinematographer (whose credits include “Gettysburg”), based on the book “Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution,” by Joseph T. Glatthaar and James Kirby Martin. Mr. Halbritter and a pair from Hollywood, Alex Siskin and Sidney Ganis, will have various producing roles.

The idea, said Mr. Halbritter, is partly enterprise-driven: The nation would be pleased to make some money on an investment of assets derived from its casino and other businesses. But the Oneidas, he added, are also looking for something more effective than traditional storytelling to bridge what he sees as a gap between the nation’s fewer than 1,000 members and a world with which it has had property disputes and other run-ins for years.

“I had an aunt and uncle who burned to death, and the fire department wouldn’t send a truck,” said Mr. Halbritter, referring to an incident that occurred decades ago.

Among other things, “First Allies” is meant to remind the rest of America that the Oneidas, at considerable cost, helped give birth to the United States by fighting alongside the colonists, particularly at the battle of Oriskany, which will figure in the movie. “They were very close to George Washington,” Mr. Halbritter said of his Oneida ancestors.

Mr. Ganis, who spoke separately on Friday, said the major roles had not yet been cast. He and Mr. Siskin are lining up Native Americans for the native roles, but are looking for a Hollywood star to play Nicholas Herkimer, an American militia general who died of wounds received at Oriskany in 1777.

Mr. Ganis said it was Mr. Siskin’s idea to approach the Oneidas about financing a film about themselves. Meetings followed. Before agreeing to commit, Mr. Halbritter, no pushover, suggested changes to a script that had been written by Bob Burris. “It’s almost like he’s a studio chief,” said Mr. Ganis.

Bruce's History Lessons - The reluctant Revolutionaries

CantonRep.com: Bruce's History Lessons - The reluctant Revolutionaries
The American Revolution, which officially began July 4 in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, has been called a conservative revolution when compared with, say, the French Revolution of the 1780s or the Russian Revolution of 1917. In the latter two cases, fiery radicals fought to seize power from a sovereign ruler, while in America’s revolution conservative property owners fought to regain powers they believed were theirs by right as self-governing Englishmen.

There is much truth to this argument, which is not to say there weren’t radicals in America in the 1770s; there were, many of them publishing incendiary pamphlets, organizing violent protests or, as in the case of the Boston Tea Party, destroying British property. Certainly men, such as Sam Adams, sometimes called America’s first terrorist, were radicals, and Boston, in particular, and Massachusetts, in general, were hotbeds of ideologues calling for revolution and independence from Great Britain.

But the American Revolution never would have succeeded were it not for the decision by many moderates, mostly from the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, to join their more radical brethren in rebelling against British rule.

In most cases, these men did so only after carefully reviewing the pros and cons of breaking with the mother country — and there were many cons. Unlike Puritan New England and the slave-holding South, whose economies were mostly agricultural, the middle colonies, located along the Atlantic seaboard, had developed successful businesses based on trade with Great Britain, and they also were dependent upon capital invested by Great Britain. In other words, good Anglo-American relations were critical to the economies of the middle colonies. These middle colonies also understood that the British presence in America protected them from other foreign powers, Spain in particular, as well as the unfriendly Indian tribes on their frontier.

These moderates also knew that war with Britain not only meant the end of this mutually beneficial relationship, it also meant that if America lost the war — a very real possibility given that Britain was then the world’s mightiest military power — it would not just be the radicals, but these moderates as well, who would lose their property, their livelihoods and quite possibly their lives.

So why did the moderates join? At first because they hoped that a unified front of defiance would convince the British that war with the colonies was indeed possible and that it would be as harmful to Britain’s economic interests as to America’s. When that failed, and when the threat to their rights and liberties became manifest, they realized that no other outcome except war and independence was possible. More in sorrow than in anger these moderates became revolutionaries.

Justice William Smith House to be rebuilt with help of 12-year-old Fayetteville girl

Herald-Mail.com: Justice William Smith House to be rebuilt with help of 12-year-old Fayetteville girl

MERCERSBURG, Pa.— At first glance, the pile of rubble that once was the Justice William Smith House in Mercersburg might seem like a lost cause, but don't tell that to 12-year-old Bailey Orange.

The Fayetteville, Pa., girl is spearheading efforts to breathe new life into the historic structure that was dismantled in February by the Mercersburg Montgomery Peters and Warren Volunteer Fire Co. for expansion.

"I always loved history, so what we're doing is trying to restore this house so future generations can see it," Bailey said.

Even though she was sad when the building was torn down piece by piece, Bailey said she didn't give up hope.

"It would have been nice if we could have kept it like it was, but we can still build it again," Bailey said. "I think it might be even better. We're going to have a museum in it and it'll have some interesting things."

On Saturday, she kicked things off with a reconstruction ceremony at the new home of the Justice William Smith House at the former Exxon gas station, which is across the street from the house's original location.

The gas station site was owned by the First National Bank of Mercersburg until Friday, when Bailey's father, Dr. Paul Orange, purchased it for $69,500.

Orange purchased pieces of the house, which dates to the mid-1700s, for $49,500 in order to reconstruct it.

Smith House supporters believe the actions of Smith were crucial to the start of the American Revolution and the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Using social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and her new website kidslovehistory.org, Bailey plans to spread the word that the birthplace of the American Revolution was Pennsylvania in 1765, not Massachusetts in 1775.

"We feel that what happened here started the American Revolution," Paul Orange said. "It wasn't Lexington and Concord. The things that happened here in the frontier were the spark that ignited the fire for the Revolution."

He said he needs about $500,000 to develop a Smith House property.

"I'd like the community to help, and we're going to try and get some federal, state and local money, if possible, but I will invest what I have to," Orange said.

He said the first phase of fundraising is in the hands of children.

"These are kids that care enough about history that they want to see this preserved in their lifetime," Orange said.

All of the dirt that the children dug through Saturday comprised a 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep space around the house.

"It was in the basement and we had them peel off that area around the house," said Jerry Ross, president of Birthplace of the Nation Foundation. "We felt that that would be the most intense in terms of artifacts. They made three piles here. This is all from the original property."

More than a dozen kids dug their shovels into one of three mounds of dirt, each time pulling out a treasure of broken pottery or something unique.

Digging in the dirt might not be Kendra Zaruba's favorite thing to do, but it was all in the name of history — her favorite subject.

"It's a part of history and it's really important for other generations to see it," the 12-year-old Waynesboro girl said. "I want it to be rebuilt so that other people can come and see it. It's really cool to think that we helped build it up again."

Soil from Mercersburg's Smith House searched for artifacts

Public Opinion.com: Soil from Mercersburg's Smith House searched for artifacts

MERCERSBURG -- Standing atop a dirt pile in Mercersburg, historian Tim McCown believes he's on the spot where the American Revolution began.
After the Justice William Smith House was taken down piece by piece, it now awaits reconstruction at its new site, divided among several piles of brick, stone, wood and soil.

Supporters of preservation of the house say it is linked to the first settler uprisings against the British, years before the Boston Tea Party.

With McCown's help on Saturday, children sifted through the earth piles in search of pieces of the house's history.

"The American Revolution started in this dirt," McCown said, holding a piece of plate that was discovered.

The archeological dig served as both an educational event and also as a kick-off to the fundraising campaign to reconstruct the house, according to Dr. Paul Orange, who purchased the pieces of the house.

About a dozen children, including Orange's 12-year-old daughter Bailey, searched through the soil for artifacts.

"I wanted to come out and see if I can inspire other kids, so that future generations can see what history is all about," she said.

Hailey Young, 10, found a piece of a glass plate, as well as five or six pieces of pottery.

"I thought it would be a lot of fun, because there's a lot of history in the house," Young said.

Supporters say the house has links to the creation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, as well as the Black Boys Rebellion in 1765.

"We contend -- and scholars -- that the revolution really started in the Pennsylvania frontier," said Jerry Ross, president of the Birthplace of the Nation Foundation, the group preserving the house.

Ross said they will likely break ground in the spring for the building at its new site.

In the meantime, the structure remains in pieces. All of the stones were numbered during the deconstruction process so that they could be reassembled the same way.

"The masons and carpenters took extensive notes, so when it goes up, it will be exactly as it was when it went down," Orange said. "The pieces are in very good condition for their age."

Mercersburg Montgomery Peters and Warren Volunteer Fire Company had purchased the property in 2009 with plans to use the land for expansion. The fire hall is on the adjacent lot.

Preservationists fought the demolition of the building. In February, the house was taken down, but the fire company agreed to sell the building pieces to Orange, who plans to rebuild the house across the street at the former site of an Exxon station.

It wasn't exactly the outcome supporters of the house had wanted, but as historian Douglas Claytor of Frederick, Md., put it, it was the next-best thing.

"The whole premise is education. This is an opportunity to teach. You have to look at it in this light," he said. "We're not in the save-from-fire-company mode any more."

There were two previous archeological excavations done at the site in 2010.

Karen Ramsburg, former president of the Committee to Save the Justice William Smith House, said that MMPW has asked for the artifacts from the digs.

"We're encouraging the fire chief to donate the artifacts to the museum, so they can be enjoyed by future generations to come," Ramsburg said.

The original house was built in the 1700s, though a top floor was later added. To make it historically accurate, the top floor will not be included when the home is reconstructed.

Orange said they are not sure yet exactly how much money will be needed in order to rebuild the house.

"It's a lot," he said.

But the history in the building is invaluable, according to Claytor, who has been involved with a number of other preservation projects in the region.

"It's so important these kids learn where they come from. That's real critical," Claytor said.

Benjamin Troupe, 15, Mercersburg, who joined in the dig Saturday, understood that.

"I came out to support the community and to preserve the history of our community. This it not just Pennsylvania history or local history, this is national history," Troupe said. "I want to save this for my kids and their kids, and say that I was a part of this."

About the house
Supporters of the Justice William Smith House say it is linked to James Smith and the first settler uprisings against the British at Fort Loudoun in November 1765, eight years before the Boston Tea Party and the start of the American Revolution.

A pioneer of the Pennsylvania frontier, Justice William Smith (James' brother and the house's namesake) challenged the authority of the British army after the deaths of hundreds of citizens from the Mercersburg area.

Justice Smith ruled that because the government had refused to protect its citizens from marauding Indians, the citizens had "the right to bear arms" in order to defend themselves.

Words turned the tide during the American Revolution

Anchorage Daily News: Words turned the tide during the American Revolution

Before the Fourth of July holiday recedes fully into the forgotten past, it's perhaps intriguing to recall some of the realities of the American Revolution, including the now infamous Tea Party. The real one took place in 1773, three years before the Declaration of Independence, and was something of an act of desperation on the part of the revolutionary cadre, led by Sam Adams. As the revolutionary movements swirling about us today have made clear, revolution can be a dangerous thing. Those who are actively involved risk ... everything.

Historians have called Britain's policy toward its American colonies through the 17th and most of the 18th century "benign neglect." Crown and Parliament did not want to pay for American colonization, so they sent would-be settlers on their way with a hearty "cheerio, and don't call home." As a result, the colonies became largely self-supporting, handling their own internal affairs and taxing themselves to pay the costs. But when the French and their Indian allies attacked the British colonies from the west, beyond the Appalachian Mountains, between 1754 and 1763, the colonial militias were outmatched, and the British Parliament raised a full army to meet the challenge.

Successful, the British decided to take control of colonial affairs, beginning by levying a tax to pay for the war. The colonists protested, arguing that they'd done fine taxing themselves, and Parliament did not need to start now. In addition, taxation only by representatives of the people taxed was already a cherished English liberty, a liberty, with others, the colonists thought it was Parliament's duty to protect, not take away. Parliament thought otherwise, passing an act in 1766 declaring its right to pass any laws regarding the colonies that king and Parliament deemed appropriate.

But protesting the home government's colonial policy was one thing, armed rebellion quite another. Tensions, and protests, ebbed and flowed in the decade after the war, and, while Sam Adams' revolutionaries were vocal and active, most people weren't all that anxious to risk their careers and their lives. Historians estimate that probably not more than 20 percent of the colonial population actively engaged in protest politics. Another 20 percent vigorously supported the crown, agreeing that Parliament had rightful authority over the colonies. Many of these "Loyalists" fled the new United States after 1776. The remainder of the population, though they may have sympathized quietly with the radicals, mostly went on about their business, wishing everyone else would, also.

The rebels worked hard to keep the populace informed and aroused, periodically staging protests while surreptitiously collecting arms. In early March 1770, a mob -- loud, surly, drunk and dangerous, mostly instigated by the rebels -- surrounded the customs house in Boston, taunting the young British soldiers on guard there. Pushing and shoving led to musket shots, killing five colonials, the Boston Massacre. In the aftermath, tempers cooled, and the rebels had difficulty keeping the revolutionary fervor high.

Then Parliament passed a new colonial tax, on tea, in 1773. This gave the rebels an opening. They published broadsides and called protest meetings, and when three shiploads of tea arrived in Boston in November, the populace responded with marches and demonstrations. On the night of Dec. 13, a large group of rebels, loosely disguised, perhaps organized by Sam Adams, boarded the ships and threw the tea into Boston Harbor. Parliament responded with a hammer, passing a series of draconian acts the colonists could only resist.

By the time the second Continental Congress met in May 1775, anti-British sentiment was higher than before the Tea Party, but still not in favor of independence. It would take over a year of discussion, and refusals by the king and Parliament to negotiate, for the rebels to persuade a majority of the population to support a declaration of independence. But eventually words turned the tide. Thomas Paine argued in his pamphlet "Common Sense," published in Jan. 1776, that the king had no legitimate authority over the colonies. And Thomas Jefferson set forth in the Declaration in July the new and astonishing idea that government should be based on the consent of the governed, not on the king or God. From that, there has been no turning back.

20 July: Curator to give lecture on N.H.'s role in American Revolution

Seacoastonline: Curator to give lecture on N.H.'s role in American Revolution
EXETER – On Wednesday, July 20 at 2 p.m. at Langdon Place of Exeter, a lecture "New Hampshire and the American Revolution" will be given by American Independence Museum curator Wendy Bergeron. She will give a brief overview of New Hampshire's role in the American Revolution as well as introduce participants to the American Independence Museum in Exeter. The event is free and open to the public. 17 Hampton Road, Exeter. For more information call 603-772-5251.

Dayton: American Revolution was all about taxing the rich, and stuff

A political note

Hot Air: Dayton: American Revolution was all about taxing the rich, and stuff

Too bad Mark Dayton isn’t running for national office. Otherwise, I’d love to see Chris Wallace ask Dayton the “flake” question after Dayton’s explanation of the American Revolution to Minnesotans last week, an explanation that went largely unnoticed. Minnesota’s governor has shut down state government in an effort to force the Republican-led legislature to hike taxes on the wealthy in a state that’s already ranked 43rd in the nation for tax climate, and attempted to justify this stand by hearkening back to our forefathers:

It is significant that this shutdown will begin on the 4th of July weekend. On that date, we celebrate our independence. It also reminds us that there are causes and principles worth struggling for – worth even suffering temporary hardships to achieve.

Our American Revolution was very much about fair and just taxes, where the middle-class was over-taxed while the very rich went tax-free. In the absence of fair taxes, the basic services people relied upon for their health and well-being were denied them.

Er … riiiiiiiight. The American Revolution, led by wealthy landowners and businessmen like John Hancock, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the moneyed class revolted against the Crown for forced redistribution of wealth via government. Damn the History Channel for not covering this aspect of the Revolution!
For Dayton’s benefit, the American Revolution did result from taxes, but it wasn’t a revolt against middle-class taxes, as the composition of the Revolution’s leaders would certify. The main issue was the capriciousness of the application of taxes, which Great Britain imposed without giving the colonists representation in Parliament. The unrest caused by the taxes (most of which were repealed) provoked the British into occupying Massachusetts and other colonies, and suspending self-government in Massachusetts specifically. That enraged the colonists, who had practiced self-government for more than 150 years, and pushed the colonies into a fight for independence rather than protests to protect their perceived rights as British subjects.

By the way, I’d love to hear an explanation from Dayton as to the “basic services” that were denied colonists by the British based on uncollected taxes from the rich. As far as I know, the colonies didn’t have Medicare or Social Security either before or after the Revolution. The only services supplied by the British were the troops that defended the colonies, which is one of the reasons the British began taxing them.

You can’t blame a Minnesota education on this, either. Dayton comes from wealth and had the best education his family’s money could buy at the Blake School, a prestigious private school in the area. Dayton graduated cum laude from Yale, apparently without taking an American History course. In fact, Dayton eventually got accreditation as — wait for it — a teacher.

Meanwhile, Dayton had to make some determinations as to which state employees were deemed essential in the shutdown, so that they could continue providing those much-needed services to the middle-class people. That includes Dayton’s housekeeper:

[H]ousekeeper Michelle Mersereau was kept on the payroll because the mansion, on St. Paul’s historic Summit Avenue, is 100 years old and needs constant care, she said. (The mansion was opened in 1912 as the home of Horace Hills Irvine, a St. Paul lumberman and lawyer.)
“We need to continue with the upkeep and maintenance of the Minnesota state building, even during the shutdown,” she said.

The GOP accused Dayton of also keeping his personal chef on the payroll. Dayton later said that he’s paying the chef out of his own pocket — an explanation that only appeared after the GOP caught the chef still performing his duties:

Dayton spokesperson Katherine Tinucci called to say that the chef, Micah Pace, is being paid by the governor out of his own pocket for the duration of the shutdown.

And that was the case from the beginning of the shutdown July 1, before Republicans made a big deal of it, she said. “We just didn’t make an announcement about it then,” she said.

Er … riiiiiiiiight. The state GOP had some fun with the story yesterday, putting together a Top Ten list of why the housekeeper and chef are “essential” state employees:

(10) Gov. Dayton thinks a chef and a housekeeper come standard with all public housing.
(9) Gov. Dayton has made such a mess of the budget process that one can only imagine the mess he has made of the Governor’s Mansion.
(8) Keeping the governor’s $45,000 Personal Chef and $35,000 Housekeeper/Server on staff is a reasonable compromise – half way between fending for himself and floating state bonds to purchase Forepaugh’s and Stanley Steamer.
(7) Gov. Dayton believes that deeming a personal chef and a housekeeper/server “essential” proves government can create jobs.
(6) Someone has to open the windows of governor’s SUV for his dogs on very hot days.
(5) Personal Chef Micah Pace will institute significant cost savings by creating “Lobster Helper” recipes for Gov. Dayton during the shutdown.
(4) Gov. Dayton offered the jobs to Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch calling it a significant compromise on his part, but they turned him down.
(3) During budget negotiations neither Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk nor House Minority Leader Paul Thissen has proven capable of cleaning up after the governor.
(2) Gov. Dayton’s ex-wife is too busy writing checks to Alliance for a Better Minnesota to come over and help. (Rockefellers don’t do windows.)
And the Number One reason Gov. Dayton decided to deem his $45,000 Chef and $35,000 Housekeeper/Server “essential” government employees during his shutdown of state government:
(1) Gov. Dayton cannot accept a Minnesota where the governor of the state does not have personal servants at public expense so that millionaires do not have to pay one dollar more in taxes.

Come on, now. We know that the American Revolution was fought so that imperial governors could continue to live in luxury while they denied the middle class basic governmental services …

Speaker revisits onset of American revolution in Georgia

Savanna Now: Speaker revisits onset of American revolution in Georgia

By Larry Peterson Copyright 2011 . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
They came to celebrate something that happened long ago, but were reminded of how new Georgia was then.

About 80 people gathered Monday for the annual laying of wreaths at the monument to Button Gwinnett, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The Colonial Cemetery observance - sponsored by various chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution - lived up to its billing.

It featured bagpipe music, patriotic songs, prayers and dessert snacks, including cupcakes with tiny American flags.

But the main course was a talk by Scott Smith, executive director of the Coastal Heritage Society.

Smith stepped away from a lectern to be near a sparsely leafed, Spanish mossed-draped tree under which many in the audience sought shade.

Describing Savannah at the outbreak of the revolution, he spoke of a fledgling society on the edge of something big.

Georgia, last of the 13 colonies to be founded, was just 43 years old.

"How many of you remember 1968?" he asked.

That, he said, is a present-day way of understanding how new Georgia was at the time.

As some people shooed away gnats with their programs, he listed the ages - none over 70 - of several revolutionary leaders.

"Most of these men were talking about ideas younger than themselves," he said, referring to the principles of the revolution.

He noted that, at the time, James Watt was developing the steam engine, which would power the industrial revolution.

Publication of "The Wealth of Nations," a capitalist manifesto that many still embrace, was less than a year away, he said.

"The world was on the brink of cataclysmic rapid change, but that was not known," Smith said.

Little was known very quickly those days; it took 37 days for word of the declaration to reach Savannah, he observed.

On today's scale, few Savannahians were directly involved in the conflict, he said.

On one side were about 200 members of the Sons of Liberty; on the other, "40 or 50 men of substance and ships' captains."

But that was "almost all the grown men of Savannah," he said.

Like those of other colonists, he said, the loyalties of Georgians were divided.

Some had benefitted from the rule of King George III and James Wright, the royal governor.

But others chafed at royal restrictions on trade "and having to claim their land through the crown and pay some shillings for their acres," he said.

Still, Smith added, "many people tried to live their lives and did not want to take a side until they suffered an injustice."

"If ... 15 or 20 armed men came up to your farm and kidnapped one of your sons to go with them as a soldier, took your extra horses ... and burned your barn," Smith said, it didn't matter which side they were on.

"They had created an injustice," he said, "and you would find vengeance."

"... We know how it ended, but we lose the concept of what it meant to the small people of the state."

Litchfield area Revolution descendents remember

The Register Citizen: Litchfield area Revolution descendents remember
LITCHFIELD — The namesakes of the Litchfield-area chapters of two organizations had plenty of deep roots in northwestern Connecticut’s history. That legacy — which included intrigue and governance — was honored July 4 at East Cemetery.

Cannon fire, period costumes and a sizable crowd filled the cemetery at noon as the Mary Floyd Tallmadge chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Oliver Wolcott Branch of the Sons of the American Revolution convened to recount the contributions their titular figures made to the founding of the United States of America.

The Charles Merriman Society of the Children of the American Revolution also joined in the festivities, as younger descendents of revolutionaries were part of the proceedings. According to Paul Selnau, president of the Oliver Wolcott Branch of the Sons of the American Revolution, the descendents of not just Tallmadge, Wolcott and Merriman took up residence in Litchfield, but so did those of other Revolutionary War-era contributors.

“Like many of us,” Selnau said, “we traced our patriot ancestors for many, many years.”

Tallmadge’s husband, Benjamin, helped organize an espionage ring that undermined the British efforts during the Revolutionary War. Through a series of coded messages, including one indicated by laundry — the number of handkerchiefs hanging on a clothesline directed members of the ring to specific meeting places — Benjamin Tallmadge’s ring helped unearth General Benedict Arnold’s treason and provided intelligence for General George Washington.

Benjamin Tallmadge, who came to Connecticut from Setauket or Brookhaven, New York, attended Yale College and served as the superintendent of Wethersfield High School from 1773 to 1776 before joining the rebellion.

Tallmadge would eventually serve in the House of Representatives for eight terms, as well as a stint as Litchfield’s Postmaster.

Wolcott’s name would be familiar to northwestern Connecticut denizens, due to the town, school and library named in his honor. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Wolcott led a militia company in the French and Indian War before turning his guns on the British crown as a major general for the Connecticut militia. Wolcott would eventually be elected to the post of Connecticut lieutenant governor before dying in office.

“Many of us who lived in Connecticut,” said Selnau, “our patriots started out in this area.”

One of those descendents, six-year-old Samantha Smith, placed a flag on Tallmadge’s grave. Smith’s father, Charles, recounted his family’s history in the Revolutionary War. Six members of his family — five from Connecticut — served, and several of them defied the odds not just in revolution, but longevity.

“The hardest part was making it to 40,” Charles Smith said. “They put everything on the line for us.”

The Daughters and Sons of the American Revolution were not alone in presenting the ceremony. Following a recounting of Tallmadge’s and Wolcott’s contributions, the First Litchfield Artillery Regiment set off window-rattling cannon fire. While the ceremony is not the first of the year for the Daughters and Sons of the American Revolution, it will not be the last. Selnau said his chapter took part in celebrations in Southington and Southbury, and are planning another commemoration in Norfolk for the fall.

Westbrook: Spain aided Americans in revolution

LubbockOnline: Westbrook: Spain aided Americans in revolution

Ray Westbrook
Among all the worries besetting George Washington in the American Revolution, there must also have been a concern that the British might come in the back door by way of the Mississippi River.

But he found an answer in a man who was not even a settler in the 13 original colonies - Gen. Bernardo Galvez from Spain.

The general and his army - which included a large contingent from the Canary Islands - was also the means for LaVerne Barksdale Lusk of Lubbock to become a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. One of her ancestors from the Canary Islands - Salvadore de Torres - enlisted in the army raised by Galvez.

It gave her a hero from the American Revolution, because the army he joined is credited with fighting a crucial battle outside the 13 British Colonies - one that was along the banks of the Mississippi River.

Maps show the Canary Islands exist in a kind of figurative independence in the ocean off the coasts of Spain, Portugal and Morocco. They were the last stop-off point for Christopher Columbus when he was on his way to the New World.

"My grandfather spoke Portuguese, so I figure they were more Portuguese," Lusk said of the islanders.

"George Washington was having a tough time in 1776 protecting the colonies," she said of her research into the War for Independence.

"But he had friends - friends who conspired with the Spanish. And the Spanish King Charles was willing to help."

Spain began providing financial aid and arms for the patriots' war against the British. At the time, there was an uneasy peace between England and Spain, so negotiations were kept secret to prevent war.

"The King of Spain made a pact, and he had some very influential people within the French government. They conspired together. And the Spanish were very clever - they recruited mainly from the area of the Canary Islands, which were my people, my family. He brought them in, made them soldiers to watch the mouth of the Mississippi."

Apparently, the secrecy kept England in the dark about the force that would later attack British troops in the Battle of Baton Rouge.

Galvez knew that area. Before Spain's king assigned him to the position of general of the army in the New World, he had been governor of the Louisiana territory claimed by Spain.

Spain hoped for something in return from Washington: that he would help Spain get Florida back, which had been lost to the British.

There also is a Texas connection to the Canary Islands and Spain, according to Lusk's research. Some of the Spanish settlers, and apparently Canary Islanders, were already in San Antonio before Galvez came to America.

"We just assumed that everyone that was Spanish descent that lived in Texas, came from Mexico. And that's what they thought in Louisiana. But the Spanish were there long before anyone else."

The stage had been set for Galvez.

"The reason that is so important to us Texans, is that they had cattle. Their specific duty was to feed the army in Louisiana."

She said of the DAR's recognition of the crucial battles by Galvez's army, "The Canary islanders were considered to be fighting in the American Revolution."

Research by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution made it possible for the revolutionary-era's descendants to consider their ancestors who fought in the war, even if they weren't from the original colonies.

Lusk explains it this way in the case of the Canary Islanders: "They were under George Washington as continental soldiers, but they wore the uniforms from King Charles."

According to Jeannine Kallal, chairman of the Spanish Task Force for the DAR, Louisiana, Texas and California are among areas that may have descendants of Revolutionary War soldiers.

"There is no difference between proving the service of a patriot from Boston or a Spaniard from Texas; the service must be acceptable and documented," she wrote for a 2002 issue of the organization's American Spirit publication.

Lusk has found that the role of Spain in the American Revolution was large - and largely unknown until research in the latter part of the 20th century.

She is a former airline hostess, and remembers that one of her flights opened her eyes to documentation about Spain's participation in the war and her own ancestry.

"Several years ago, I had a Jesuit priest on my flight that was going to Madrid. It was during the Barcelona Olympics, and this is why I am in the DAR. He told me, 'I'm going to help translate records that were found in Madrid.'

"They had been hidden for a couple of hundred years, just sitting there. He said, 'It's records on the Canary Islanders and the soldiers who fought in the American Revolution for the Spanish.' "

Lusk said, "When the French were going to take over Louisiana, at some point after the purchase of Louisiana, they discovered that these records on the Spanish and the military had been sent through Cuba into Madrid. They were hidden for all those years. When they unlocked them and started translating, it was the names of all these people who actually served for King Charles of Spain.

"My relatives were on there, and I was able to trace my lineage back through these people having served. They had been actually living in Louisiana - and they died in Louisiana," she said.

"Until the Jesuits started searching the records, we didn't really know the true involvement of Spain in the American Revolution. Now, there are 400 of us who have gotten into DAR under the Spanish history."

By the time Galvez led his forces against the British at Baton Rouge, Spain had formally declared war against Great Britain.

The fort was defended with 400 troops on Sept. 23, 1779. Galvez feigned an attack, and began pounding the British heavily with cannon fire early in the morning. At 3:30 p.m., the fort surrendered, and in the surrender the British also surrendered the fort at Natchez, assuming that an overwhelming force had been sent against them.

It helped Washington defeat the British in what was then the United States. England was finding that a second war on the continent was too expensive a price to pay, and their losses in battle to Washington already were heavy.

Galvez is credited not only with fighting in America, but with personally preparing peace agreements in Europe that England was willing to sign.

For Lusk, the old records that are being looked at anew enabled her to know that a soldier from the American Revolution was also one of her ancestors.

"None of my family knew anything about these people - it was all a big secret."

The 21st century King Charles of Spain has been accepted as a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. His ancestor from 1779, also named King Charles, was in the role of a kind of general, as it were, commanding war against the British on behalf of the colonists.

Other recognizable names that have been granted membership are Laura Bush, in the DAR, and former President George Bush and Gov. Rick Perry, members of the SAR.

Lusk only learned of her lineage in recent years. But it may be appropriate that she was born in Louisiana - born and raised in Baton Rouge.

It was where Pvt. Salvadore de Torres and Gen. Bernardo Galvez fought the British in the American Revolution.

Fourth of July: A pop quiz about America

Los Angeles Times: Fourth of July: A pop quiz about America
(The quiz at the link is an interactive one. Check it out if you don't know the questions to the answers below)

How much do you know about the founding of the nation?

1. At the time of the American Revolution, which of the following was not true

A. Fifty percent of the wealth in Boston, then a town of about 16,000 people, was in the hands of its 500 wealthiest merchants.

B. One out of three adult men in Boston had no property and no regular job.

C. Banks were on the verge of economic collapse and had to turn to the British government for help.

D. Wages had declined dramatically for average workers in Boston.

2. One reason for American dissatisfaction with Britain was

A. The colonists feared a crackdown on illegal molasses that was being smuggled into Boston harbor to feed a large distilling industry that produced rum for the colonies.

B. King George III had recently imposed a tax on the birth of sons in the colonies.

C. Because of Britain's extensive holdings in coffee plantations, the crown had raised the price of tea in an attempt to make it unaffordable and push the colonists toward drinking coffee instead.

D. British ships had first right to berths in Boston harbor, which meant that the ships of colonists were often forced to wait offshore for days or weeks, unable to unload their cargo.

3. Which of the following details about the Boston Tea Party is not true

A. The participants dressed as Indians, carried tomahawks and communicated in grunts and gestures.

B. Anonymous participants sent a lock the next day to one of the tea ships' captains to replace a lock they had broken.

C. Many of the participants returned home with their pockets full of tea, making them some of the few Boston residents who had tea to drink in the months that followed.

D. Paul Revere embarked on a ride after the cargo was successfully disposed of to take news of the "tea party" to New York.

4. The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament and reviled by American patriots, required colonists

A. To pay postage fees on all mail sent within the colonies.

B. To pay for an official stamp on printed material.

C. To pay income tax for the first time.

D. To pay a tax on the loading and offloading of cargo.

5. Which of the following is not true of the silversmith and patriot Paul Revere

A. He was born Apolos Rivoire, the son of a protestant Huguenot who had fled Catholic France.

B. When demand for silver goods dropped during hard economic times, he made false teeth.

C. He rode through the Massachusetts countryside and rang bells to warn the British that they could not take away American arms.

D. When he set out for his April 1775 warning ride, he forgot two things: his spurs and the cloth he needed to muffle the sound of the oars he would use to cross the Charles River. The sweetheart of one of the oarsmen lent her flannel petticoat to the war effort to be used as a sound muffler.

6. Benedict Arnold agreed to tip off the British to the vulnerabilities at West Point in exchange for payment and a commission in the British army. Which of the following about the traitor isn't true

A. His sister became a spinster after Arnold frightened away her suitor by firing pistol shots at his heels.

B. One winter, on returning from business in the Caribbean, Arnold found that his wife, Peggy, would not allow him to touch her because she'd heard that he had contracted a venereal disease during his travels.

C. After his plot was exposed and Arnold fled, he wrote to George Washington asking that his wife be protected, saying that she was "as good and as innocent as an angel."

D. As a young man in Norwich, Arnold stole young birds from the nest and maimed them. He also spread shards of glass outside a local school.

7. George Washington was named commander in chief of the Continental Army in 1775 and became the nation's first president in 1789. Which of the following things is not true of Washington

A. After he was named commander in chief, he asked for a grey horse, saying he wanted nothing so flashy as "a baye or a palominoe."

B. While commanding the Continental Army, he refused the monthly salary that had been authorized for him, saying he would keep an exact accounting of his expenses and be reimbursed only for them.

C. As a young man, he copied rules for living into a notebook. Among them was that he shouldn't clean his teeth on a tablecloth at meals.

D. After meeting Washington in 1775, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband saying that the general reminded her of the lines from John Dryden, "He's a temple, sacred by birth."

8. Which of the following passages is from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

A. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…"

B. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…"

C. "…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

D. "The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…"

9. John Hancock is best known for the size and flamboyance of his signature on the Declaration of Independence. Which of the following facts about him is not true

A. Before he was 30, Hancock had inherited the largest fortune in New England, a fortune that was made in smuggling.

B. In 1768, a customs investigator reported that he had been shut inside a cabin of a Hancock-owned ship. The door was nailed shut, he said, while the crew unloaded wine that had not been declared.

C. At Harvard, Hancock was demoted for getting a slave drunk.

D. Three days before Hancock's uncle died, making him an extremely wealthy man, the woman Hancock had hoped to marry, Juliet Smith, called off their engagement after he repeatedly stepped on her foot at a dancing party.

10. Thomas Paine's passionate pamphlet "Common Sense," published in 1776, was a rousing call to action. Which of the following passages is not from that work

A. "Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!"

B. "Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe."

C. "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."

D. "Tar, timber, iron and cordage are [America's] natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing." The information in this quiz -- or at least the correct information -- was drawn from A.J. Langguth's book "Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution."

This Fourth of July, Britain should bring the American revolution home

The Telegraph (UK): This Fourth of July, Britain should bring the American revolution home
Today is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and an opportunity to consider what has happened to Great Britain and America since the July 4, 1776. Toby Harnden, the Telegraph’s US editor, reports that the mood in the US is bleak. Many conservatives feel that their country has departed from the principles of its founding fathers: that the state has grown too big and the people have lost faith in the American Way. If they think it’s bad over there, they should visit Britain. America might be piling up debt faster than Elton John on a flower-buying spree, but it can still teach the mother country a thing or two about liberty.

The American Revolution was, in many regards, a British civil war. In 18th century Britain, Parliamentary government was supposed to protect freeborn men from the threat of absolutist monarchy and excessive taxation. However, the British refused to extend Parliamentary representation to the American colonies, creating the unethical paradox of a democratic empire. Edmund Burke, the great grand-daddy of British conservatism, had every sympathy for the American revolt against crippling taxes and restrictions on their right to steal Indian land. In his view “our English brethren in the colonies” were fighting to uphold ancient Anglo-Saxon rights in the face of brutish imperialism by a German-descended king, enforced by “the hireling sword of German boors and vassals”. When the Americans rebelled in 1775, there were plenty of Brits who supported them.

Likewise, the cultural bond between the two continents was strong enough for 15 to 20 per cent of the American colonial population to risk reprisals and fight on the side of the Crown. Popular culture depicts the loyalists as Nazi goons. In fact they were honest dissenters who feared that home rule would result in pure popular democracy and, given the passions of the mob, democracy could end in European-style dictatorship. They rebelled against the rebellion in order to protect the rights that Parliament theoretically guaranteed. The War of Independence was a struggle between men equally committed to liberty but divided as to how best to protect it. The America that emerged from the War of Independence was not an immaculate birth: it was the next stage in the evolution of British democracy.

Since the Declaration of Independence, America has necessarily adapted to changing circumstance. In the 20th century, war and welfare vastly increased the state’s role in society and business. The levels of debt that modern administrations have racked up would certainly have distressed the Founding Fathers. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote that for the USA to survive, it had to choose “between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.” Public debt leads to taxation, “and in its train wretchedness and oppression.” By those standards, the American Revolution has already run its course.

Yet the gulf between principle and practice can be wide without nullifying the principle. Thomas Jefferson preached self-reliance, but he died $100,000 in debt – most of it spent building a lavish plantation that wouldn’t look out of place on the Las Vegas Strip. Modern America has materially drifted from the country that took arms against King George III, but the spirit of the free man and the good society lives on (imperfectly) in popular culture and the Republican primaries. In contrast, Britain has departed so dramatically from the values of the 18th century that our strain of conservatives can no longer remember them. Our past is so alien to us that we’ve forgotten that America – with its vulgar manners and free market chicanery – is really a part of us.

Men once died for the principle of British parliamentary sovereignty. Today it is an antiquated joke. Large numbers of our laws are made overseas, while our debt and inward investment is controlled by hostile nations. Parliament was erected to resist tax increases but it has become the body that exists to legitimise them. The 2009 expenses scandal revealed the extent to which the political establishment of Britain disregards the institutions that it inhabits. The state has a monolithic, self-aggrandising quality that defies all attempts to limit it. Ed West recently pointed out that the British public sector has more employees today than it had in 1979, when it owned half the economy. Arguably, crucial to the sustenance of individual liberty is the healthy functioning of civil society. Yet the concept of the Big Society is a joke that even Archbishops laugh at.

Of course, the USA suffers from many of these maladies. The difference is America’s ability to renew itself generation after generation. In 2008, Barack Obama’s election seemed to prove that the American Dream is still alive. In 2009, the Tea Party provided a conservative response that gave a silent thrill to historians who once feared that Paul Revere might never be mentioned on television again. For all its many mistakes and crazy contradictions, the Tea Party has revived a debate about the founding principles of America – seeking salvation in values of self-rule and self-reliance that are fundamentally British in origin.

Sadly, Britain has wandered too far from her ethical foundations to build anything as radical as the Tea Party. All we can rely upon to rescue us from the statist Leviathan are a few school chums in Westminster twiddling with the tax code, or a cheerfully dotty UKIP MEP delivering a blistering attack on banana-import regulations in the European Parliament. The Fourth of July provides an uncomfortable reminder of our once radical heritage. Modern Britain desperately needs a revival of the spirit of the 1700s. It needs its own Declaration of Independence – from itself.