The War of the Austrian Succession was fought on four different continents

Note: The “War of the Austrian Succession” included several different conflicts within it. Thus, many of my blog’s mentions of these related conflicts are instead directed to this post, which helps to put many of these conflicts (and sub-conflicts) into context.

Anecdote about the “War of Jenkins’ Ear,” and how that conflict got its strange name

In 1731, a British ship called the “Rebecca” was stopped by a Spanish ship. As Wikipedia puts it, “Under the 1729 Treaty of Seville, the Spanish were allowed to check British vessels trading with the Americas for contraband.” (see source) Thus, the Spaniards searched the ship thoroughly, and found that it was indeed carrying smuggled sugar. The captain of the “Rebecca” was a man named Robert Jenkins. Captain Jenkins later alleged that, during this incident, the Spaniards had removed part of his ear. The British government was then looking for a pretext for a war against Spain. Thus, they brought Captain Jenkins into Parliament, as evidence that his ear had been cut off by Spanish officials. But Captain Jenkins was wearing a cap, which concealed how many ears he had. Moreover, Captain Jenkins was never forced to remove this cap. Thus, there was a suspicion that, underneath his cap, there were two perfectly normal ears – each of which was firmly attached to his head in the normal way. But the war seemed too desirable to the British to bother with such “trivialities” as verification of the story. Thus, the “War of Jenkins’ Ear” soon began in 1739. This may be among the strangest names ever given to any conflict in history. The majority of the conflict took place in New Granada and the Caribbean Sea. However, it would also involve some fighting in Havana, Cuba – and in Central America, at a city called Cartagena (not to be confused with the city back in Spain). North America would also see some related fighting in Spanish Florida and British Georgia, which was part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear.” This would later become a part (arguably) of the “War of the Austrian Succession.”

Capture of Portobelo (Central America, 1739) – part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Battle of Havana (Cuba, 1748) – another part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

The Seven Years’ War was a massive worldwide conflict

“The free exercise of the roman religion [in Canada] is granted, likewise safe guards to all religious persons, as well as to the Bishop, who shall be at liberty to come and express, freely and with decency, the functions of his office, whenever he shall think proper, until the possession of Canada shall have been decided between their Britannic and most Christian [French] Majesties.”

– Articles of Capitulation of Quebec (18 September 1759), Number 6 – the document that changed Canada from a French colony into a British colony

The Seven Years’ War was a true world war, fought on five different continents

When we think of the eighteenth century, we usually think of the great revolutions in America and France, which were in the latter half of that century. And these revolutions obviously were quite important. But these revolutions were an outgrowth of previous conflicts, including (arguably) the Seven Years’ War. The Seven Years’ War was a true world war, to a degree that the later Napoleonic Wars were not. Specifically, the Seven Years’ War would eventually be fought on five different continents. The conflict would have profound consequences for the fate of empires, and even for the map of the world. There has been at least one major documentary about the “French and Indian War,” a related war that helped to spark the larger “Seven Years’ War.” But no documentary overview of the Seven Years’ War has yet been attempted. Thus, it seems to remain mostly forgotten today. Therefore, I would like to attempt an overview of this conflict, and of the many sub-conflicts that were a part of it. That is, I will try to show how the Seven Years’ War rocked the eighteenth-century world, and how it was fought from one end of this globe to the other.

Naval battle of Quiberon Bay, 1759 – Off the coast of Brittany, France

The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo

The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the British Empire. It saw the birth of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” itself, in the 1707 “Acts of Union.” It saw much-admired advances in philosophy, from the English philosophers to the “Scottish Enlightenment.” And it saw many important political developments for the British Empire, at home and abroad. For example, it saw the continuation of an ongoing struggle between Britain and France. Britain would be affected by the loss of many of its overseas colonies in North America. Much closer to home, it was affected by the French Revolution, and the chaos left in its wake. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, it would eventually fight the Napoleonic Wars, one of the defining conflicts of its history. Therefore, an examination of this general period might be in order here. That is, I plan to go from the 1707 “Acts of Union” … to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This period has a massive legacy for the British Empire, and for many of its former overseas colonies.

Battle of Trafalgar – Spain, 1805

The Constitution of Massachusetts influenced the national Constitution

“We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

– Preamble to the original Constitution of Massachusetts (ratified 1780), as written by John Adams

The Constitution of Massachusetts was originally written by John Adams …

In 1787, John Adams was serving as the American ambassador to Britain. Thus, he was not present at the (federal) Constitutional Convention, which was held that year. But he had more influence upon the federal Constitution than one might be tempted to conclude from this. This is because, eight years earlier, he had attended the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention held in 1779. Thus, he was the principal author of the Constitution of Massachusetts. This is among the oldest written constitutions to remain in effect today. It was also the first constitution anywhere in the world to be “created by a convention called for that purpose, rather than by a legislative body” (as one source puts it).

John Adams, the principal author of the Constitution of Massachusetts

… and remained unchanged until the 1820s, long after the founding era

This constitution remained unchanged until the Second Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. This latter convention was held from 1820 to 1821. At this time, the first nine amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution were all passed simultaneously. Thus, all of the amendments to that constitution were well after the founding era. I will be focusing here on how the Massachusetts Constitution influenced the federal Constitution. Thus, all of the amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution (even the very first one) are too late to be relevant to our present subject. Thus, I will be focusing here on the original text of the Massachusetts Constitution – as drafted in 1779, and presented and ratified in 1780. This will showcase the ideas of John Adams, and how they influenced our federal Constitution.

The title page of the first published edition of the original 1780 Massachusetts Constitution

A review of “Versailles” (French documentary)

“L’état, c’est moi.” (“I am the State.”)

– A line attributed to King Louis XIV of France – a line that he may or may not have actually said, but which nonetheless seems to accurately express his views on government (and himself)

Aerial view of the Palace of Versailles

A film about three kings of France, one of whom was executed …

In 1643, a new king was crowned in France. Officially, he would be known as Louis the Fourteenth, but he is also known by the nickname of “Le Roi Soleil” (or “The Sun King”). Some consider him the longest-reigning absolute monarch in history. The term “absolute” is appropriate here, because he ruled with an iron fist. But this film doesn’t just cover him – they also cover two other kings as well, both of whom were his descendants. One was Louis the Fifteenth, who is known by the nickname “Louis le Bien-Aimé” (“Louis the Beloved”). This nickname is somewhat ironic, because he became somewhat unpopular later on. And the other king was Louis the Sixteenth, who is best known for dying by the guillotine, when he was executed during the French Revolution. They were three kings in a row, with no other kings in between – either by the name “Louis,” or by any other name. Together, they reigned for a period of nearly a century and a half.

Execution of King Louis the Sixteenth by the guillotine, 1793

A review of “Lafayette: The Lost Hero” (PBS)

“If War should break out between France and Great Britain, during the continuance of the present War between the United States and England, his [French] Majesty and the said united States, shall make it a common cause, and aid each other mutually with their good Offices, their Counsels, and their forces, according to the exigence of Conjunctures as becomes good & faithful Allies.”

“In order to fix more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, the Contracting Parties declare, that in case of rupture between France and England, the reciprocal Guarantee declared in the said article shall have its full force and effect the moment such War shall break out … ”

– Articles 1 and 12 of the “Treaty of Alliance Between The United States and France” (6 February 1778)

Fellow Americans tend to remember the American Revolution as a time of heroes. The names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison are known widely in this country. And for many Americans, the Marquis de Lafayette is right up there in the pantheon with these Founding Fathers, even though he was obviously not an American himself. As you may know, he was born a Frenchman, and was a citizen of France throughout his life. He never sought to obtain American citizenship, and was highly patriotic to France. Why, then, is he remembered with such fondness by so many Americans today?

Marquis de Lafayette

A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

A review of “Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire” (PBS Empires)

Japan's initial contact with the West in 1543

In the year 1543, a Portuguese trading ship arrived in the Japanese island of Tanegashima. Its passengers were the first Europeans to set foot in Japan. From a European perspective, they “discovered” Japan; but from an Asian perspective, they were not the first people to “discover” these islands; since these islands had been inhabited for centuries by that time. An ancient civilization resided here, with its own language, culture, and religions. At least one of its major religions (namely, Buddhism) had been imported from outside, but its Shinto religion was native to Japan itself. To those who lived in Japan, their empire was no “secret.” But to the people back in Europe, this island was indeed a “secret empire.” The European empires were equally “secret” to the Japanese, of course; and to the Japanese, these Christian Europeans were something of a novelty; and so were the strange goods that they carried.

Japanese painting depicting a group of Portuguese foreigners

Early trade with Europeans, including in weapons

The Portuguese carried valuable cargo that they wanted to trade for the Japanese goods. Both sides were eager to engage in this trade, as it turns out, and so Japan's first contact with Europeans established a long relationship with the West. This relationship would not always be as friendly as it was here, but the strange European imports have long fascinated the Japanese. The most important of these imports at this time was the musket. The Japanese realized very early on that these European weapons were very powerful. The Europeans were willing to sell them these weapons for a price, and certain tribes in Japan took them up on this offer. The ones that “got in” on this trade the earliest were able to dominate the other tribes via these weapons, and so these weapons had a massive effect on Japanese internal politics. This documentary starts at the moment of initial contact in the sixteenth century, and continues on through the end of Japanese isolationism in the nineteenth century. Internal Japanese politics are also covered, of course, but there is also a strong emphasis on Japan's complicated relationship with the West.

Various antique Tanegashima muskets

Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (1754), first paragraph of “Second Part”

I first read this work in English translation …

In the spring of 2007, I voluntarily read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”) in English translation. This would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

But more than a decade later, I read it in the original French, too

But I had been laboring for some three years on another French work, which was “in line” ahead of it, so to speak. This other work was Montesquieu's “De l'esprit des lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”), which I describe here. In 2018, I finally finished this work by Montesquieu, and could thus finally start on Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.” This book is known by many titles in English, including “Discourse on Inequality” and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (both abbreviated versions of the full title). For simplicity's sake, I will use these abbreviated versions of this English title for the most part. I started this work in January 2018, and finished it some six months later in June 2018. Thus, I have read this entire work in its original French, including Rousseau's notes at the end. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

A review of PBS's “Catherine the Great”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to cover them tastefully, there's no way to take them out – they are too prominent in this story.

Catherine the Great

Before I watched this documentary, I had seen parts of the 1995 television movie “Catherine the Great,” starring Catherine Zeta-Jones in the title role. I fast-forwarded through certain bedroom scenes, but this film did have a good dose of politics and intrigue as well. Indeed, this aspect of the story was the part that I most wanted to learn about. This is part of why I wanted to see this other film in the first place, in fact. This PBS documentary (starting Emily Bruni) turned out to be as good as expected, but it also had many surprises for me.

How is Catherine's personal life connected with her political life?

Because of my prior experience with the Catherine Zeta-Jones movie, I was not too surprised to learn that Catherine was somewhat loose in her personal life. But the degree to which her life was a soap opera was something that I did not expect. Indeed, one cannot leave it out of the story, even if politics and intrigue are the primary focus. Her personal life is a part of the political story; and is almost inseparable from it. Thus, a few comments about Catherine's personal life may be warranted here, to help explain why it played such a prominent role in her life. This will also help to shed some light on what kind of film this is.

The future Catherine the Great, in an equestrian portrait

The document that changed everything in America …

When the Founding Fathers wrote the original Constitution in 1787, they were creating a document that would change everything in America, keeping a fragile union of thirteen states from descending into war debts, bankruptcy, and even armed rebellions. One uprising in particular came from a disgruntled Revolutionary War veteran named Daniel Shays, whose uprising against the government of Massachusetts had been an impetus for holding the Constitutional Convention in the first place. It did not start out as a popular document, and was opposed openly even by some of the men who had been present at the Convention. Thus, the particulars of this document were debated fiercely from one end of the thirteen former colonies to the other.

George Mason

Luther Martin

What were the particulars of this document, and why did they create such an uproar when they were first written? What relevance might its passages have today, when our world is so different from the one they inhabited 200 years ago? What was it about this document that caused it to be so successful, and which made the country that adopted it into the greatest superpower that the world has ever known? And why is this most essential ingredient to the country's remarkable success story such an obscure and forgotten secret?

In this series, I will try to answer these questions, as I talk about everything from the people that influenced the Constitution (such as John Locke, and Baron de Montesquieu) to the men that commented on it (such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Abraham Lincoln). I will try to be informative, but I will not shy away from inserting persuasive commentary at times as well. I will lay out the case for why the Constitution of the United States is the greatest success story that human politics has ever known.

How did the Virginia Declaration of Rights influence the Bill of Rights?

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety … That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”

– George Mason, in the “Virginia Declaration of Rights,” Sections I and II

George Mason actually refused to sign the Constitution of the United States …

George Mason was present at the Constitutional Convention, but he refused to sign the finished document. When the final draft was approved, he said that he “would sooner chop off [his] right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.” Why, you might be wondering? Because the original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights; and having authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights earlier on in his career, he knew the importance of a Bill of Rights in a country's constitution.

George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights

He wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in May 1776 (ratified June 1776)

Specifically, he had authored the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” in May 1776 – a document that was later approved in June 1776. It not only influenced the United States Declaration of Independence (passed in July 1776), but the United States Bill of Rights (which was passed in 1791). It drew upon influences from both American and British history, but it also made some original contributions of its own, as well as some improvements on previous ideas. It was also amended somewhat by Robert C. Nicholas and James Madison.

James Madison

It influenced our federal Bill of Rights in many ways, as I will show with some relevant quotes

The Virginia Declaration of Rights influenced 7 out of the 10 amendments in the United States Bill of Rights (which is 70% of them), and was thus a major influence on our Constitution. This post will show the most influential parts of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the parts of the United States Constitution that they influenced as well.

United States Bill of Rights

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

Actually, John Locke DID influence the U. S. Declaration of Independence

"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."

- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 (first paragraph)

Some have claimed that John Locke didn't have much influence on the Founding Fathers ...

John Locke once wrote an eloquent defense of private property, which liberals enchanted with socialist ideas have long resented. Perhaps because of this, there have been some who have claimed that he did not really have much influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States, who are still quite popular in my American homeland.

John Locke

... so it might be helpful to correct the record

Because of this, it seems like it would be worthwhile now to correct the record; and give the evidence that Mr. Locke - along with others, like Algernon Sidney - did indeed have an influence on the Founding Fathers. Most notably, Locke had a great influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence; and it can be shown that some of the language within it (not to mention the ideas) are a direct borrowing from John Locke.

Thomas Jefferson

Specifically, he influenced the Declaration of Independence, as these quotes will show ...

I will now present the quotes from the Declaration of Independence (which are well-known), followed by the quotes from John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" (which are lesser-known). These will help to show that not only are the ideas the same, but in some cases, the language is as well.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

How the Constitution was almost not ratified

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

- Article 7 of the United States Constitution

The Constitutional Convention

Our national debate over the Constitution is as old as the Constitution itself, with origins to be found in the events of the Constitutional Convention, where its particulars were first debated by the men present at the convention. The framers of the Constitution disagreed with each other vehemently on exactly what the document should say and do, and how it should say and do it. Moreover, a number of the men present at the convention refused to even sign the document after the debates at the convention. As many of them well knew, though, the national debate over what they had written was just beginning. With the strict secrecy of the convention's proceedings at the time that it was still going on, the nation didn't know what was in the document until after the finished product of the convention was presented to the nation. Many of them weren't all that happy over the things they found in it, to put it mildly.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

Why did so many people suspect the Constitution was "dangerous"?

Part of this may have been that they got all their surprises about the document at virtually the same time. They had not been witness to the deals and compromises that had taken place so gradually during the events of the convention. A gradual revelation of the document's contents thus was simply not possible after the nation's curiosity had been whetted by the "secrecy rule." (Which is not a criticism of the "secrecy rule," I should make clear; but it was only natural for the people to wonder about it. Many of them assumed that the convention had something to hide in this regard, after the secret proceedings had been continuing for some four months without news.) The supporters of the Constitution all knew that they faced an uphill battle when they presented the final document to the people. This uphill battle is today known as the debates over ratification (or the ratification debates) - arguably the most important debates in the nation's history, because of the sheer number of issues that it affected, then and now. If I might point this out, it affected the very same democratic process by which all future political issues would be debated in America - and by extension, in a number of other places as well.

Newspaper advertisement for the Federalist Papers, 1787 (a part of the ratification debates)

A review of PBS's “Marie Antoinette” movie

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." ("Let them eat cakes.")

- The infamous Marie Antoinette line that Marie Antoinette may never have actually said

Other media about Marie Antoinette

Ever since her execution during the French Revolution, Queen Marie Antoinette of France has excited the public imagination. There have been numerous movies about her - including a Hollywood movie from 2006 starring Kirsten Dunst, which I have not seen. These numerous movies may be a measure of how much interest she continues to excite. Generations since then have tried to understand her, and have found that she - like the French Revolution against her - is more complicated than she (at first) appears. It's hard to come up with a simple explanation for why she acted the way she did (and why the public reaction to her was so violent - even bloodthirsty), and I don't pretend to have all the answers here. The documentary that I'm about to review doesn't have all the answers, either; but it does provide a good starting point for understanding Marie Antoinette. It may also be able to provide some useful information about whether the PBS biography movie is a good film for you. It's not for everyone, I should make clear; but for those with an interest in history - and, perhaps, with a strong stomach to go with it - this is a tale that you can learn something from, which tells you a lot about the complicated history of this time.

Francis I - Holy Roman Emperor, King of Germany, and father of Marie Antoinette

A review of “The French Revolution” (History Channel)

"There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.[footnote] While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them - it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognising these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law."

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract" (1762), Book IV, Chapter VIII

It was begun with the best of intentions, but it ended with the worst of results ...

It is a revolution that is both celebrated and despised, sometimes even by the same people. It was begun with the best of intentions and the noblest of ideals, but it ended with the worst of results after thousands of deaths by mob violence and the guillotine. And it started out as a rebellion against one monarch, and replaced it with the de facto dictatorship of another - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon Bonaparte during this time

The History Channel gives it a fine treatment here ...

In the English-speaking world, the best documentary that I know of about this subject is the History Channel's presentation simply entitled "The French Revolution." It has the usual problem for a History Channel program - namely, a touch of sensationalism, and excessively dramatic music at times. (The attempt to add drama through intense music is often overdone, with one feeling like they could have actually achieved greater impact through understatement.) Nonetheless, this film is a fine treatment of the events in France. It belongs on the shelf of anyone interested in the French Revolution despite its weaknesses. Thus, I thought that I would offer a review of this film here.

Marquis de Lafayette

A review of “Liberty! The American Revolution” and “The Revolution”

"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."

"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."

- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

It was the most successful revolution in history (and the most underrated), but one in which the winning side lost almost every battle that it fought. It was a war with dramatic battles and military campaigns, but whose greatest revolution was in political thinking and good government. And it was a war with larger-than-life heroes who were immortalized in statues and monuments; but it was won by the tireless efforts of ordinary people, without whose efforts the war would surely have been lost.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The war was a desperate one, and the Americans came pretty close to losing it ...

The American Revolution it created became the most powerful nation in the world, but was one of the weakest nations for most of its early history. Indeed, it would never have won its independence at all without the help of foreign powers (especially France), and the war was a desperate one whose outcome was not the inevitable victory that it is often painted to be. The Americans could very well have lost that war, and the country as we know it would never have existed: the world would have been a very different place.

A review of “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation”

"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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

- Preamble to the United States Constitution, written in 1787

It created the oldest Constitution that is still being used today, but which was a radical departure from virtually everything that came before it. It created a new form of government, but it was only authorized to modify the one that already existed - not to replace it. And it has been celebrated as the best form of government ever devised by man, but was not seen as anything close to ideal by any of the men who were there.

The Constitutional Convention

Why a Constitutional Convention was necessary

The event was the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787 to improve upon the existing system of government. The government of that time was more like the United Nations than the modern United States. This was because all of the states remained sovereign, acting more like independent nations than portions of a whole. The federal government had no power to regulate trade, no executive branch to enforce laws, and no power to tax - with the latter flaw being the most crippling one. I'm not saying taxes can't be too high (or aren't too high now), but a government must have the power to tax to be able to perform its needful functions. Unfortunately, the government of that time simply was not able to do so. Thus, it was not able to pay the massive debts accumulated during the Revolution; and the massive war debts of the federal government were in risk of default. Thus, a stronger central government was required than the completely toothless one of that time. Thus, a Constitutional Convention was sorely needed.

Interior of Independence Hall

Why Adam Smith is still relevant today

" ... every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

- Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," Book IV, Chapter II

People still talk about Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" to this day

People still talk to this day about an economics book that was published in 1776. And though the year I'm talking about is rightfully associated with America, this book was actually published by someone in the mother country that we were then at war with. Adam Smith (the author of this book) was a Scotsman, which meant that he was also British.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

Historical note: Adam Smith sympathized with the American Revolution

But his views about the American Revolution were actually fairly sympathetic to the Patriot side. He favored giving the American colonies either representation in Parliament, or independence from the mother country. (For evidence of this, see this blog post.) Because I discussed this subject at length in my other blog post referenced above, I will not go into it further here. Instead, I will now launch into my discussion of his political and economic ideas, and how they apply to our world today.

Adam Smith