The Federalists wanted a strong central government that could correct the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Men such as Alexander Hamilton sought a powerful central force that could control inter-state commerce and assert direct taxes, something that today’s Tea Party members would certainly have an issue with.

The states-rights, neo-secessionist, small-government ideologues who seem to have taken over the Republican Party might have a coherent political philosophy. But their views align less with the constitutional framers than with their opponents, the Antifederalists.

Those Tea Party members that understand our history, and in particular the Constitutional debate that followed the Convention, would undoubtedly be Antifederalists. Thomas Jefferson is more of a reflection of Today’s Conservatives and especially the Tea Party than is Alexander Hamilton.

My only concern is those who think that the Tea Party participants should be Federalists at heart. Seems they are the ones who are misconstruing history. Today’s Democratic/Left wants a stronger Federal government.

George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures, David A. Clary; Simon & Schuster; 352 p.

George Washington was a brash, self-confident, driven, and often daring and dashing young man, he was also at times indecisive and prone to make a bad judgment call or two. David A. Clary’s George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures is a well balanced presentation of a young Colonel Washington who cut his teeth on the back-country of Virginia and the Ohio Valley, the future speculator and Revolutionary war hero thrived on achieving personal advancement and success. Washington earn some of what he wanted, but ultimately realized he could never get all of it as a “provincial” member of the British Army.

However, controversy did surrounded the young commander, such as the massacre of French soldiers near Tanaghrisson by Mingos after they had surrendered to Washington. Yet, by the end of his journey during the French and Indian War, and his heroic leadership during Braddock’s blunder, and the retreat, Washington had gained the confidence and learned what true leadership was.

George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures is an excellent read and an insightful look at the growth of an American legend, though as the author notes, he was just a boy who became nothing more than just a man.

[Pauline Maier is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1968]

In 1997 Alfred A. Knopf published Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, which I did not read until a year and a half ago for my Constitutional History graduate class. American Scripture was well researched and well written. American Scripture was on the New York Times Book Review editors “Choice” list of the best 11 books of 1997 and a finalist in General Nonfiction for the National Book Critics’ Circle Award. Maier’s most recent work is a fantastic follow up. Her research is simply awesome with as daunting an index as you’ll see that makes Ratification far more impressive than American Script and a book that places Maier in elite company as a constitutional historian. What I love about the book is it nicely fills a void of sorts by not focusing on the Constitutional Convention, but instead ob the complicated and often intricate ratification process where the people did indeed debate and ultimately select the Constitution as the law of the land.

American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence
by Pauline Maier

As an AP US History teacher I find Maier’s work incredibly useful and frankly it will take me years to properly incorporate some of the chapters in the book. In particular I loved the sections about the Virginia and New York ratification process and the depth in which she goes. There is so much in this book that every time you pick it up you will undoubtedly pick up on something new.

From the Publisher:

When the delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, the new Constitution they had written was no more than a proposal. Elected conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify it before it could take effect. There was reason to doubt whether that would happen. The document we revere today as the foundation of our country’s laws, the cornerstone of our legal system, was hotly disputed at the time. Some Americans denounced the Constitution for threatening the liberty that Americans had won at great cost in the Revolutionary War. One group of fiercely patriotic opponents even burned the document in a raucous public demonstration on the Fourth of July.

In this splendid new history, Pauline Maier tells the dramatic story of the yearlong battle over ratification that brought such famous founders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry together with less well-known Americans who sometimes eloquently and always passionately expressed their hopes and fears for their new country. Men argued in taverns and coffeehouses; women joined the debate in their parlors; broadsides and newspaper stories advocated various points of view and excoriated others. In small towns and counties across the country people read the document carefully and knew it well. Americans seized the opportunity to play a role in shaping the new nation. Then the ratifying conventions chosen by We the People scrutinized and debated the Constitution clause by clause.

A top notch book and one destined to pick up some awards down the road in my hopeful opinion.

Americans “want to look to a common past.” But the idea of a unified-in-purpose nation, she says, “has its origins in 19th-century romantic nationalism.” She encourages her students and others to wrestle with the true meanings of the American Revolution. This questioning of what the tea parties — present and past — are all about “is an important part of our political debate.” And so the arguments rage on.

And as we have discussed before and as other websites do on a daily basis, the battleground of history is the use and abuse of it. And indeed the arguments will “rage on” atleast through the November election season.

American Revolution historian Jack Rakove made what I thought was the best observation:

The Tea Act of 1773 that sparked the Boston Tea Party, Rakove says, was born of the crown’s collusion with corporate Britain — the East India Trading Co. So if Tea Partiers are up in arms over the American government being in cahoots with the corporate world — say, over the Obama administration’s handling of the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out many faltering financial institutions — the present-day dismay would have legitimate roots in the ire of yesteryear. “That wouldn’t be implausible,” Rakove says.

That is where the current movement could make some key important historical comparisons.

Paul Revere’s ride is another one that has several myths. According to some: “Paul Revere stopped at taverns along the way and was so drunk he fell off his horse at a tavern in Lexington and was captured by the British.” In 1968 The Boston Globe published a story on Patriot’s Day that Revere was drinking the night of his ride. However, historians such as David Hackett Fischer (Paul Revere’s Ride) have successfully dispelled such myths.

“Listen my children, with attentive pause; To the midnight ride of William Dawes.”

Now, a good class discussion piece might be to ask the students why did William Dawes get short changed in history for his efforts that night? Some will say Revere was simply a better promoter. Maybe, but Dawes contributes to his own dimise. As Fischer notes, Dawes made various mistakes during his ride and failed to alert the correct people in numerous towns. However, this still does not explain why Dawes has been forgotten, afterall he did alert a lot of people and made good such time he caught Revere in Lexington just after midnight.

Mr. Davis attempted to cover the first 50 years of the 19th century by following the narratives of 6 events: Burr’s trial, Weatherford’s War, the Madison Mutiny, Dade’s promise, Morse’s code and Jesse’s journey. Mr. Davis sought to provide “a portal into the times” in which each event unfolded. These are what he calls “overlooked.”

Mr. Davis has not written a history book in as much as he has a political op-ed piece. Davis starts off with President Obama’s election and throughout the book brings up politics of today and compares it with the past; and he takes events from the past and compares them with today. For example, Davis compared several events from American history with the terrorists attacks of 9/11. Here are those examples: William Weatherford’s “massacre” (Mr. Davis wording) at Fort Mims when Creek Indians stormed the fort and killed over 500 (265 armed militia) but spared the blacks so they could enslave them. Mr. Davis also compares a Seminole Indian attack in Florida against American soldiers as another 9/11 like event. I’m sorry, but how attacks by soldiers (warriors) against soldiers (and yes some settlers who understood the danger) is comparable to a radical Islamic terrorist attack against unarmed civilians whose only crime was going to work compares is beyond me!?

In his “Introduction,” Mr. Davis correctly points out that back in 1776 there were “many founders” who would have “been perfectly at home owning Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two little girls and perhaps selling all or some…” Historically inaccurate? No, the straw man here is easily disposed. Well done Mr. Davis! Of course, Davis fails to point out that some founders did not own slaves: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. But the point here is Davis’s agenda, it’s “gotcha” history with his own political twist. As if the man is telling us anything new.

Now he does actually get into some interesting stuff with his 6 narratives only his constant injection of politics into his narrative ruined it; at least for me.

Davis then reveals the shocker that Washington (who freed his slaves upon his death) and Jefferson (who could not as he technically no longer owned them upon his death due to massive debts) would surely have been two of those who would have had no problem with the above scenario and would have even taken part. I don’t know how often Washington sold his slaves or if he ever broke up families (and the same goes for Jefferson), but Mr. Davis better know. Does Mr. Davis know that by the time the Revolution and Constitutional Convention are completed and the nation holds its first elections, the fact that anyone was voting on such a massive scale was unprecedented in world history. Remember, most of the world was “ruled” or lived in anarchy.

Mr. Davis then wraps it up by pointing out the hypocrisy of the founding when Obama himself, had he lived back in the day, would have only been “three-fifths of a man” when the counting of population took place for representation in Congress. Never mind that all the racists Southerners wanted all blacks to be counted as an entire human being as it would have benefited them.

Another and final example I will provide, every time (maybe I missed one or two when he didn’t) when Davis compares an event that was bad within something from modern history he does so with only Republicans. In his discussion on “presidential vendettas” he brings up Nixon and Bush, never mind FDR who had political opponents jailed.

The book is nothing more than a political expression of Mr. Davis and a good example of “presentisim” and activism that has no place in historical scholarship.

If you want a good book on this time period, take a look at David Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

As early as 1789 Washington wanted Americans drinking only home grown spirits, so he presented his “buy American” policy indicating he will only drink porter made in America.

From the news article, it appears that ole’ Washington’s rye whiskey recipe is back in business!

“Mount Vernon recreates Washington’s rye whiskey recipe for public consumption.”

Just 213 years after George Washington started distilling his rye whiskey, it has once again hit the market. A nearly 15-year process of research and archeology allowed historians at Mount Vernon to recreate the first president’s whiskey recipe.

The distillery, just three miles from Mount Vernon outside of Alexandria, Va. opened for business after the Virginia General Assembly approved sales in small amounts, selling out all 471 bottles at $85 dollars a pop.

To read more…

So as you Bar-B-Que or go to the lake, take a moment and honor our Greatest Generation, the Founders!

I have already addressed the fact that Natural Law was the essential influence in the Declaration and the Constitution. That in itself establishes that the United States of America was founded on principles that flowed from Christian doctrine.

But nonetheless, lets look at this notion that somehow, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening and George Whitefield (who deserves credit for influencing some –if not many– of those Founders such as Samuel Adams), and an era of what some would call today fanatical religious tendencies, that miraculously the Founders were not Christians and at best Deists. By the way, though I think it could be fair to declare some of the Founders as Deists, by definition they stilled believed in God and called themselves, as you will see, Christian. A Deists simply rejects the notion that God intervenes in human affairs (more of a by product of the Enlightenment). This is a reaction, during the 18th and early 19th Centuries, when many rejected the “dogma” of religious institutions; not God.

It would take more time than I am willing and able here to tackle each Founder in one shot, so for this first installment I will tackle two of the prominent Founders that are pointed to as “not Christian”: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

THOMAS JEFFERSON
The man is a riddle, an enigma, and wrapped in a … vortex, or however the saying goes. I love Jefferson. For all his imperfections in modern eyes, he was still perfect in so many other ways. If it is true that Texas has taken him out or reduced his importance, than I am no fan of their new curriculum.

Let me take you back to 1803, Jefferson is into his second year as President. He had been mauled by the Federalists as being essentially an atheist. (I love how pundits today act like the political shenanigans of today are somehow new!) He wrote what is the best letter that I have found concerning his Christianity or lack there of. The letter was to his esteemed Friend Dr. Benjamin Rush (April 21, 1803) and in it Jefferson was clearly reflective on his record as a Christian, and was writing in response to a long standing promise — apparently — to Rush regarding his (Jefferson) stance on Religion and his religious beliefs.

Jefferson started off by stating, first and foremost, “I am a Christian…” and then he qualifies it, but the statement is clear. Now I can stop there and say, “bring it on,” but sense I know there are those who will have the, “yeah buts,” I will continue. [read letter here if you would like.]

Jefferson’s convictions were indeed complex, which is what one would expect with such a complex thinker. Jefferson continued in this letter, but did so hesitantly as he iterates: “I know it will not be expressed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.” Jefferson did not know it, but even today there are those with political motivations (like the Federalists) to essentially demonize him by misrepresenting and distorting a few of his words here or there.

Yet Jefferson is complicated and that cannot be denied. Just read the letter noted above and you will see how three dimensional his mind worked. But to say he was not a Christian is a gross and “malignant perversion” of his words.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
To me Franklin is the key as those who insist that the Founders were not Christian point lovingly to Franklin as the poster child for their argument. Indeed, some of his thoughts and writings can be taken out of context and used to give the impression that he was not a Christian and did not care for religion. He probably did not care for the Church, the institution and did so for reasons he clearly articulated.

Franklin was a child of the Enlightenment and viewed Christianity through that prism. Franklin was a pragmatist and had no tolerance for religious persecution of one religion over another. The “dogma” as he called it. He believed in free will but also wrote very clearly that God, a supreme being, was benevolent and powerful. He believed in Natural Law and also believed in tolerance and utility with regard to living a Christian life. What Franklin did not want was a Preacher telling him how and why he ought to believe in God. [Source: Papers of Benjamin Franklin; also, see Walter Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life," Simon & Shuster, 2003; 84-88.]

Final Note, this government website has an array of documents regarding the dedication of Jefferson, Madison, ect., and their religious convictions come Sundays. Strange how non-Christian folks such as Jefferson and Madison would bother dedicating, religiously, their Sundays to God and church.

Next Segment: Washington and John Adams