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.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
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 The unrest caused by the taxes (most of which were repealed) provoked the British into occupying Massachusetts and other colonies, and suspending self-government in Massachusetts specifically.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:
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:
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 …
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.)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:
“We need to continue with the upkeep and maintenance of the Minnesota state building, even during the shutdown,” she said.
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 …
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
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."
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.
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.
Monday, July 4, 2011
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?
(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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)