Chief Pontiac The Hero?

The Proclamation of 1763 was a British decision to limit expansion of colonial settlements west of the Appalachian Trail. The event that is given the most credit for stimulating this decision is Pontiac’s Rebellion, which occurred when Chief Pontiac (go figure) led a group of Native American attacks against colonial settlements in the west. The British would then send troops to put down the rebellion.

Enter the Proclamation of 1763, which was issued to as a response to Pontiac’s rebellion and to prevent the expense of future conflicts between colonists and Native Americans. In all, the Proclamation accomplished two points: it stopped colonial settlement of territory west of the Appalachian Mountains and angered colonists who believed their colonial charters entitled them to lands from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. This perception by the colonists would increase tensions between the British and the Americans.

Would it be suffice to say that Pontiac is a hero in United States history? If so, why and how many other “forgotten heroes” are there in U.S. History? If not, why not?

WWLS: What Would Locke Say?

As we look back on the American Revolution, there are several big philosophical ideas that penetrate the surface.

The first is also the most widely discussed: “No Taxation Without Representation,” which speaks to the heart of what the colonists hated about the crown. Despite the fact that they were paying for the protection to which they so needed, the idea of not having a say in how much the tax amounted to weighed heavy on the minds of most patriots. Couple this with the effect of the period known as the “Enlightenment,” which stressed that reason could be used to solve humanity’s problems.

Among the individuals who were influential were Locke and Rousseau. Locke, in his Second Treatise, emphasized that sovereignty (power) rests in the constituents and that governments have an obligation to respect a person’s natural rights (life, liberty, property). Citizens have an obligation to revolt against a nation that fails to protect those rights, and Americans who favored revolution saw taxation as a violation of their natural rights to liberty and property. Rousseau would go on to further Locke’s ideas of natural rights with his social contract, which emphasized an agreement between the government and the governed.

The rationale for taxation was to repay debt that the Crown had accrued as a result of the French & Indian War, which was fought to protect colonists’ natural rights. Locke died in 1704, but assuming that he was reincarnated in 1770 to discuss the situation with Americans. How comfortable do you think he would feel with the colonists’ fighting the Crown considering the amount of protection that the Crown was providing the colonists at such a bargain? Was the crown really protecting the natural rights of the colonists with the tax?

The Corrupt Bargain Agreement

The “Age of Jackson” and Jacksonian Democracy are two terms that have special meaning in United States History. In reality, Andrew Jackson is the only president to have a period named after him that historians commonly refer to based on his name. In truth, some historians use the term “Age of Jefferson,” but the use of Jackson’s name is synonymous with the time period as opposed to sparsely sprinkled throughout textbooks. The Age of Jackson gave rise to popular politics and is also synonymous with the term, “Age of the Common Man”. This is a period in which more people began participating in politics throughout the country. One of the key platforms of Jacksonian Democracy was the idea and push of expanded suffrage. Obviously, efforts at more equality by different groups is a major push during the time period, and there was a strong movement away from politics being dominated by the wealthy elite as they dominated politics in the early periods of the country. Jackson was always viewed as a “man of the people” by most in the country and that characteristic was actually what most politicians of the time feared about him. Even still, most people do not realize that Jackson did not win the first election he ran in (1824) and this election was hi-lighted by one of the more interesting moments in United States history.

In 1824, four men ran for President of the United States: Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, William Crawford, and John Quincy Adams. Jackson won the popular vote but lacked the needed majority in the Electoral College. With no electoral majority the House of Representatives needed to choose from the top three candidates. Senator Clay used his influence to have John Quincy Adams chosen by the House. The scandal developed further when Adams chose Clay to be his Secretary of State. At that point, Jackson and his supporters accused Clay and Adams of stealing the election from the candidate chosen by the voters.

Scandal? If a situation like this occurred today how would the public react? What parallels can you draw between this and Bush v. Gore (Election of 2000)?

Washington Crossing the Delaware

Do you know the true history behind this picture? If not, you should look it up. How about the fact that the original picture was not George Washington crossing the Delaware?

The Original Text of the Declaration of Independence

On July 4^th, there is no other post acceptable than that of the text of the Declaration of Independence. For a fun news story, click here.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

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

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Political Cartoons and the Albany Plan of Union

This political cartoon was devised originally as a way to gain support for Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union during the French and Indian War; not as a way to gain support for the Revolutionary War. It is often misinterpreted by people as propaganda for raising support against the British in 1776. However, that problem does teach us a very important lesson. Know your history!

What other items can you think of, or find, that have been misused or misinterpreted throughout the course of history? As I stated yesterday, why do people refuse to investigate their past?

Note: Picture obtained via public image domain search.

Benjamin Franklin and the Albany Plan of Union

The term “salutary neglect” is how historians have come to refer to the way that lack of action that the British utilized in governing the colonies. Because of this type of standpoint, the colonists had become accustomed to governing themselves, but in the 1760s the British began to reassert power by collecting taxes and enforcing trade laws more aggressively than before as an aftermath of the French and Indian War. Over the course of 74 years, Great Britain had fought several wars with France and Spain: King William’s War, Queen Anne’s War, King George’s War, and the Seven Years War (commonly referred to as the French and Indian War). The Seven Years War (1754-1763) was a struggle between England and France for the Ohio River Valley.

Interestingly enough Benjamin Franklin developed the first plan for an “American” government in 1754 as a way to protect the colonies from the French. This basic government constructed an inter-colonial system that would aid in recruiting troops and collecting taxes for colonial defense. When the Continental Congress sat down to construct the first, true American government, they would use the Albany Plan of Union as a kick-off point when constructing the Articles of Confederation.

The Albany Plan called for a President General that would be appointed and supported by the Crown while also having a Grand Council to be chosen by the representatives of the colonial assembly. It is true that Benjamin Franklin used the Iroquois Confederacy as his model for government, but I also wonder if Franklin was attempting to stir a bit of trouble at the same time.

Franklin was clearly a diplomat and a great ambassador to foreign countries, which means he could foresee that both sides would reject the Albany Plan of Union. The colonists, used to self-rule, would clearly not want to be living under a governor that was appointed by a monarch 3,000 miles away just as the Crown would never want to have to consider a council of his subjects (the British Board of Trade never even sent the plan ahead for approval). Surely Franklin could have seen these ideas, concerns, and issues coming. Right?

If the Albany Plan of Union had been accepted by both sides, would the colonies still have attempted to gain independence? How would history be different?

The Big Issue on July 2, 1776

Here is the video that explains the big issue that Congress had to deal with on July 2, 1776. Listen carefully to the words of Rutledge’s solo. They provide insight into the mentality of the South (specifically South Carolina) during the discussion over independence.

Who Will Write the Declaration?

Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Jefferson was only one member of the Declaration Committee in 1776. This video outlines the individuals who were also part of the committee though Jefferson would eventually be the one to sit and pen the document. Worst case scenario, you will walk away knowing who was on the committee and getting a good laugh. Enjoy!

The REAL American Independence Day!

Imagine you took a group of fifty historians on July 4^th and placed them on a yacht for a party to celebrate the “holiday.” At some point in the evening, you stand up and make a toast to “A Happy Independence Day!” Much of the entire room looks at you in disbelief while a few of the others understand the mistake and chuckle. How could you have made a mistake? July 4^th is Independence day right? As historians, they should appreciate your efforts to celebrate a day that is important in their field. Shouldn’t they be cheering and raising their glasses as well? No, they shouldn’t. That’s because the true Independence Day is not July 4^th; it’s July 2^nd.

On July 2, 1776, Congress formally voted to declare independence from Great Britain. We celebrate July 4^th because it was the day that the wording of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was approved. This occurred after a much heated debate over slavery and the accusatory language that Thomas Jefferson used towards the king. It sounds rather funny, but one of the best ways to look at the events leading to July 4^th is to watch the movie (also a play) 1776.

The original Declaration of Independence that Thomas Jefferson wrote had over 80 changes made to it over the course of its adoption and signing. Jefferson, a very humble man, mostly sat by and watched the Congress rip his original work to shreds much in the matter of word-smithing. After headed discussion, Congress would approve the Declaration of Independence on July 4^th 1776 and eventually sign it on August 2, 1776 (though some were not present at that signing and would add their names later).

The point is this: most people accept common tradition and refuse to dig deeper to find the most intriguing story. This happens over and over again in history. Am I asking that the day be changed? Absolutely not! What I am asking is that people don’t take their history for granted and begin to investigate why certain events, topics, and celebrations are noted and if, in fact, they are even observed on the proper day. If I had the money, I would hire a fireworks company to set off the celebration tonight. Maybe that would get more people wondering about the history of our country.

Why do people refuse to investigate history to find the deeper, more interesting story as well as the more meaningful idea?