The American Revolutionary War was fought on four different continents

Even many British histories of the war tend (understandably) to gloss over this subject

In the eighteenth century, the British Empire was the most powerful nation in the world. It had a powerful army and navy, and controlled massive amounts of territory. It greatly outnumbered the American rebels, and even had many American Loyalists on its side. Thus, one might have expected the British military to win the day in this struggle. Yet, at the end of this conflict, the British permanently lost their thirteen American colonies. Why is this? Many explanations have been proposed, such as the poor decision-making on the part of their military leaders – and I should acknowledge that this was indeed a factor. Other factors have also been cited, such as the British failure to win the hearts and minds of the American people. But, for many historians, one factor stands out above all of the rest. This was the series of alliances between the American rebels and certain of the major European powers. The most famous of these alliances is probably that which the Americans would form with the French. However, the Spanish and the Dutch would also eventually be joining the war on the American side. The British even had to face a few enemies in India, and fight a world war in many different places.

The Royal Navy relief at the Great Siege of Gibraltar – Europe, 1782

Thus, here’s the part of the American Revolution that your history classes never told you

The standard histories of the American Revolution usually avoid covering these things, or mention them only in passing. Even Richard Holmes’ “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America” focuses almost entirely on the North American campaigns. Thus, Mr. Holmes only covers the French participation … when it becomes relevant to these more prominent campaigns in North America. For example, Holmes covers the naval battle of the Chesapeake, which was off of the coast of Virginia. Mr. Holmes also covers the French participation in the final battle at Yorktown, which was on land. But campaigns elsewhere in the world are mentioned only in passing in his own history. Therefore, even many of the standard British histories have tended to pass over this turbulent international context. This is understandable, because the campaigns in North America have tended to be the most prominent – even for the British. But their wars elsewhere in the world saw some ferocious battles and campaigns for the British, and a clash of empires on a massive scale. Indeed, the war was actually fought on four different continents. Thus, I would like here to dive into the Revolution’s fascinating international context. In so doing, I will try to offer my own perspective … on why America was ever able to gain her independence, at this time or at any other. This will also help to explain why the mighty British Empire ultimately lost the American Revolution.

A British sortie in the Great Siege of Gibraltar – Europe, 1781

A review of Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

Long before I watched this film, I watched another PBS documentary about Benjamin Franklin. This earlier film was by Muffie Meyer, who has made a few documentaries for PBS. These included “Alexander Hamilton,” “Dolley Madison,” and “Liberty! The American Revolution.” The Muffie Meyer film is an excellent film in its own right, which is some three hours long. This Ken Burns film is even longer: some four hours long. But I had low expectations going into this Ken Burns film. That is, Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson” was practically a hatchet job on Mr. Jefferson. Specifically, among other things, it had great emphasis on the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s slaveholding. I actually agree with a number of their criticisms of Jefferson, but still found their take on him to be excessively negative. Thus, I was expecting to get the same kind of treatment in this later film about Benjamin Franklin. And, at first, it seemed like this film would be in the same vein as Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson.” But, surprisingly, I ended up liking “Benjamin Franklin” a lot. I may like Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” even better than Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin.”

A review of “The Story of Electricity” (audiobook)

We tend to associate the story of electricity with Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. Alternatively, we tend to associate it with Benjamin Franklin flying a kite in a lightning storm. But there’s more to the story of electricity than that. It goes back much further than most people realize. Even in antiquity, people recognized that there was static electricity, although it was not yet known by that name. Electricity was often confused with magnetism, which is another subject that is covered in this audiobook. For example, people knew about magnetic iron ore, now know as the “lodestone.” And they knew about how amber can attract small objects after being rubbed. In fact, the English word “electricity” comes from a Greek word for amber.

Reflections on the proper role of self-education

“Never let your schooling interfere with your education.”

– Possibly a paraphrase of author Grant Allen, although it is often misattributed to Mark Twain

Not all learning is done in a classroom …

One of the saddest things I’ve seen is when people have no curiosity. They may suppose that they’ve learned everything that they need to know, and that they don’t need to learn any more. I don’t think that everyone needs to keep reading textbooks (although I like to do this myself), but I think that people should continue to learn long after they leave school. Fortunately, not all learning is done in a classroom – many life experiences can be educational in some way. You can learn some things in the real world that you would never learn in a classroom. And you can keep reading and keep thinking, and be open to what life has to teach you.

Me when I graduated from Yavapai College, which is now my employer

Algernon Sidney influenced the U. S. Declaration of Independence

“This book contains all the malice, and revenge, and treason, that mankind can be guilty of: It fixes the sole power in the parliament and the people … The king, it says, is responsible to them, the king is but their trustee; that he had betrayed his trust, he had misgoverned, and now he is to give it up, that they may be all kings themselves. Gentlemen, I must tell you, I think I ought more than ordinarily to press this upon you, because I know, the misfortune of the late unhappy rebellion, and the bringing the late blessed king to the scaffold, was first begun by such kind of principles …”

– Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, in the trial of Algernon Sidney (1683) – explaining the reasons for his decision to have Sidney executed for high treason at that time

Algernon Sidney

Algernon Sidney was executed by the English government in 1683 for writing a book

Algernon Sidney was executed by the English government in 1683 for writing a book. Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys convicted him of high treason for writing these “Discourses Concerning Government.” (See the quotation at the beginning of this blog post, to hear Justice Jeffreys’ account of why he did so.) But others would later sing the praises of this book. One writer would call it “the textbook of the American Revolution.” Some referred to Algernon Sidney as “Sidney the Martyr,” because he paid for that book with his life. And, most prominently, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both fans of this book. Thomas Jefferson said that it was “probably the best elementary book of the principles of government, as founded in natural right, which has ever been published in any language.” (See the citation for this praise later on in this post.) I have not yet read this book, but I might like to do so at some point, after hearing the praise from these two men. In this post, I will examine Sidney’s influence upon John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I will also try to show Sidney’s influence upon the Declaration of Independence.

Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, who had Algernon Sidney executed for treason

A review of “The Constitutional Convention” (audiobook)

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation: but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.”

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.”

– Articles 7 and 8 of the “Virginia Plan” (1787), the first draft of the United States Constitution (written by James Madison)

I had already seen a fine docudrama about the Constitutional Convention, before I ever listened to this audiobook. This was “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation” (which I review here). Obviously, there are advantages to a docudrama over any audiobook, such as the entertainment value of the powerful visuals that it includes. The docudrama may also be better at covering the greatest issue of the Convention, which was the controversy over representation. But this audiobook is better at covering pretty much everything else about the Convention. It covers issues not touched upon in the docudrama, such as the debates over the executive and judicial branches. These debates were quite important for the final document.

A review of “The Declaration of Independence” (audiobook)

“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.”

– The Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

A new country was created on July 4th, 1776. This is the aspect of the day that people remember most, of course. But people seldom quote the part of the document that actually declares our independence. Rather, they are more likely to quote from the famous second paragraph. This paragraph reads in part: “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” (Source: Text of the document). I will not endeavor to quote the rest of these words in this post. But suffice it to say that they are filled with ideas and philosophy. People remember these ideas better than the legal phrases that separated us from the mother country. That’s how important these ideas are.

A review of PBS's “The Abolitionists”

"No person held to service or labour [a. k. a. "slavery"] in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the original Constitution  (a. k. a. the "Fugitive Slave Clause"), later superseded by the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865

The meaning of the word "abolitionist" was kept secret from slaves ...

The future abolitionist Frederick Douglass was a young slave boy when he first heard the word "abolitionist." He said it was some time before he found out what the word meant, even though "it was always used in such connections as to make it an interesting word to [him] ... If a slave ran away and succeeded in getting clear, or if a slave killed his master, set fire to a barn, or did any thing very wrong in the mind of a slaveholder, it was spoken of as the fruit of abolition." He did not dare to ask any one about its meaning, he said, because he was "satisfied that it was something that they wanted [him] to know very little about." The dictionary afforded him little or no help, because it said only that it was "the act of abolishing," without mentioning what it was that was to be "abolished." (He was entirely correct that his masters didn't want him to know about it, and would have punished him severely if he had made any inquiries to them about its meaning.)

Frederick Douglass

... because it referred to the abolition of slavery

Thus, it was not until later that he finally discovered the mysterious secret of the word's meaning: "I got one of our city papers," Douglass said later, "containing an account of the number of petitions from the north, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and of the slave trade between the States." (He was a literate man, it should be noted; in an age when slaves who knew how to read could be punished severely for the "offense" of literacy. He was thus one of a number of slaves who risked their lives just for the knowledge of learning how to read.) "From this time," he said, "I understood the words abolition and abolitionist, and always drew near when that word was spoken, expecting to hear something of importance to myself and [my] fellow-slaves." This early encounter with the abolitionist movement for Frederick Douglass, although brief, would have an enormous effect on his life; giving him the courage to escape from slavery once and for all, even after a first escape attempt had resulted in severe punishment. He also joined the abolitionist movement as one of its most distinguished supporters - contributing much to the cause of black freedom, before and after the Civil War.

A review of Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

"Neither of the two Parties [France or America] shall conclude either Truce or Peace with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first obtain'd; and they mutually engage not to lay down their arms, until the Independence of the united states shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the Treaty or Treaties that shall terminate the War."

- "Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France," Article 8 (6 February 1778)

He is one of the most respected Founding Fathers in America, but spent most of his life patriotic to Great Britain. He spent his later years warring against Great Britain, but had a son that was loyal to the Empire. He wrote an autobiography that is a classic of American literature, but did not discuss his Founding Father accomplishments in it at all.

The man is Benjamin Franklin, and he is still today one of the most respected men in our history. His autobiography was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature; yet he does not discuss in it his role in the Declaration of Independence, the treaty of alliance with France, the peace treaty with Britain, or the United States Constitution. Why is this? Quite simply, it's because these were in the later portion of his life; and his autobiography deals mainly with the early portion. He didn't finish his autobiography, because old age caught up with him before he could; but his later years are well-covered in his own diary, and allow modern storytellers to finish the biography for him. One of those modern storytellers is a team at PBS, which made a documentary about his life - the film that I will review now.

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

Benjamin Franklin: Renaissance Man

"I may as well confess it, since my denial of it will be believed by nobody ... perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own vanity. Indeed, I scarce ever heard or saw the introductory words, 'Without vanity I may say,' etc., but some vain thing immediately followed. Most people dislike vanity in others, whatever share they have of it themselves; but I give it fair quarter wherever I meet with it, being persuaded that it is often productive of good to the possessor, and to others that are within his sphere of action; and therefore, in many cases, it would not be altogether absurd if a man were to thank God for his vanity among the other comforts of life."

- "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin," section covering 1706-1757

Few men epitomize the concept of the "Renaissance Man" better than Benjamin Franklin. He achieved great success in many different fields; including the occupations of being a writer, journalist, postmaster, scientist, and inventor. He had a great wit, and had a persuasive ability that was part logical argument and part masterful diplomacy. And his achievements as a statesman are notable even by the lofty standards of America's Founding Fathers.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert about his life, but after watching a three-hour PBS documentary about him, I was inspired to read his famous autobiography. I have read it cover to cover, and "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" is now one of my favorite books. It was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature.