Independence Daze: A History of July Fourth
Description
Ed Ayers, Peter Onuf, and Brian Balogh look at changing interpretations of the Declaration of Independence and the origins of Independence Day celebrations.
The Fighting Canadiens
bhiggs
Fri, 12/30/2011 - 17:48
field_image
Question
France supported the U.S. during the Revolutionary War. However, didn't they also back the Native Americans in Canada against the U.S.?
Answer
The Treaty of Paris, adopted at the end of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), transferred control of Canada from France to Britain. After the United States later declared independence from Britain, France began offering secret support to the Patriots in the forms of arms, ammunition, economic aid, and technical assistance. Although the French government did not support Native Americans against the United States, some of the French Canadians (Canadiens) who had remained in Canada after the British takeover fought alongside Native American allies against the Patriots.
After acquiring Canada, the British had treated the Canadiens mildly. They allowed the former French citizens to continue practicing their Roman Catholic religion, and although the British required all residents of Canada to use the common law for public and criminal issues, they retained French civil law for private legal matters.
Although some Canadiens fought with the British, others fought with the Patriots.
These measures helped the British to win the loyalty of many French Canadians. At the beginning of the Revolution, an American raid on Fort St. Jean, not far from Montreal, alarmed British officials and turned some Montreal residents against the Patriots. America’s wartime exclusion from the British fur trade benefited Montreal merchants, and despite lingering resentment over Britain’s possession of their colony, they decided that their own business interests lay with the preservation of British ties. Other French Canadians followed their religious and political leaders to the British side. Americans, after all, were the same people the Canadiens had just fought in the French and Indian War, when British New Englanders committed such atrocities as seizing farms, livestock, and produce, and stabling horses in their Catholic churches. Canadiens believed that they were better off with the British conquerors than with the American Revolutionaries.
In the territory bordering Canada and the new United States, the Six Nations of the Iroquois were also forced to make decisions with regard to alliances. Although many preferred to remain neutral, Tuscaroras and Oneidas generally chose to ally with the Americans. The rest of the Six Nations, led by the Mohawks, supported the British. Molly Brant, a respected Mohawk and mistress to British Indian Superintendent Sir William Johnson, and her brother Mohawk war chief Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), convinced the Mohawk to side with the British. In several battles, Iroquois warriors, British regulars, and Canadien militia fought together to retain control over territory far down into Ohio Country and into the area around present-day Detroit.
Although some Canadiens fought with the British, others fought with the Patriots. For example, the 1st Canadian Regiment included Canadiens sympathetic to the American cause. They saw action in the Battles of Quebec (1775), Trois-Rivieres (1776), and Saratoga (1777), among others.
For more information
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Taylor, Alan. The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland in the American Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.
Bibliography
Calloway, Colin G. The American Revolution in Indian Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Graymont, Barbara. The Iroquois in the American Revolution. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1972.
Lawson, Phillip. The Imperial Challenge: Quebec and Britain in the Age of the American Revolution. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1994.
Stanley, George. Canada Invaded, 1775-1776. Toronto: Hakkert Press, 1973.
20th-century Jewish Immigration
Question
How is Jewish immigration generalized by textbooks?
Textbook Excerpt
Some textbook narratives point out large, well-known anti-Semitic groups but fail to examine in detail acts of violence against religious and cultural minorities or the acts those groups took to combat the virulent, unapologetic anti-Semitism.
Source Excerpt
A shared wellspring of religious and cultural traditions helped keep even the most contentious elements of the American Jewish community intertwined in some ways. For example, the 1910 Protocol of Peace was negotiated and signed by Jewish communal leaders and lawyers who represented both Jewish garment manufacturers and factory owners, and Jewish workers and labor activists.
Historian Excerpt
American Jewish history provides a test case for the question of how different the experiences of the “old” and “new” immigrants actually were, with a growing number of historians convinced that the period between 1820 and 1924 should more properly be seen as a continuous century of American Jewish migration that saw more structural similarities than discontinuities.
Abstract
All textbooks cover the great wave of immigration that brought approximately 25 million people to America from 18801924. They provide a standard account of chain migration, ethnic urban neighborhoods, the Americanization movement, and the successful campaigns for restrictive immigration legislation. Eastern European Jews are often cited as examples of the new religious groups entering the U.S., as frequent participants in the labor activism that characterized industrial development, and as significant contributors to popular American culture, especially through music and movies. Several other significant elements of the Jewish immigrant experience receive little attention, but a closer look sheds light on the complicated turn-of-the-century immigration to America.
Jewish Immigration to the United States
Resources for Independence Day
Date Published
Article Body
On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress approved a resolution declaring colonial independence from Great Britain. Two days later, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, a document listing the colonies' reasons for declaring independence. More than 200 years later, the U.S. celebrates Independence Day on the fourth of July, not the second.
Why?
Explore the resources on Teachinghistory.org's Independence Day spotlight page for the answer to this question and others. You'll find website reviews, teaching strategies, lesson plans, quizzes, and more. Though Independence Day falls outside of the school year for many teachers and students, you can use these resources whenever you teach about the holiday or the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. (If you're looking for resources on other founding documents, try our spotlight page on Constitution Day.)
With the advent of digital archives, anyone with an Internet connection now has access to an embarrassment of historical riches, including hundreds of primary sources from the American Revolution. After browsing our spotlight page, explore some of these resources:
- A letter on July 3, 1776, to Abigail Adams, in which John Adams writes that he believes the second of July will become a national holiday (from the Massachusetts Historical Society).
- The original and engraved versions of the Declaration of Independence, accompanied by a transcript, explanatory articles, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights (from the National Archives and Records Administration).
- A second letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, written July 5, 1777, in which Adams describes a celebration on the first anniversary of independence (from the Library of Congress; check out other primary sources on later Independence Day celebrations, too).
- George Washington's general orders from July 9, 1776, describing the reading of the Declaration to troops (from the Library of Congress; click "Transcription" at the top of the page).
- Fragments from drafts of the Declaration, original printed copies, prints of both contemporary and later visions of the Continental Congress, and more (from the Library of Congress).
- Fragments of Thomas Jefferson's autobiography related to the Declaration of Independence (from the Library of Congress).
- An 1823 letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on memories of the drafting of the Declaration (from the Library of Congress; no transcript available).
- An interactive version of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration (from the Library of Congress; Silverlight required to view).
- The back of the original copy of the Declaration (from the National Archives and Records Administration).
John Adams Book
Description
Gwen Wright of PBS's History Detectives speaks to Dan Coquillette, Professor of History at Harvard, about an artifact, a book John Adams gave to his son. The book contains pamphlets spread following the Scottish Martyr Trials of 1792. Coquillette speculates that Adams may have given them to his son as a warning against carrying through with the Sedition Act.
Jefferson Pledge
Description
Jennings Wagoner, University of Virginia historian, tells Wes Cowan of PBS's History Detectives, about Thomas Jefferson's dedication to the idea of public education.
Fort Laurens [OH]
Description
Named in honor of Henry Laurens, then president of the Continental Congress, Fort Laurens was built in 1778 in an ill-fated campaign to attack the British at Detroit. Supplying this wilderness outpost was its downfall, as its starving garrison survived on boiled moccasins and withstood a month-long siege by British-led Indians. The fort was abandoned in 1779. Today, only the outline of the fort remains, but a small museum commemorates the frontier soldier, presents a video giving the fort's history, and displays archaeological artifacts from the fort's excavation. The large park surrounding the museum is the location for periodic military reenactments. The remains of the soldiers who died defending the fort are buried in a crypt in the museum wall and at the Tomb of the Unknown Patriot of the American Revolution.
A second website covering the site, the Friends of Fort Laurens website, can be found here.
The site offers a short film; exhibits; and occasional recreational and educational events, including living history events.
Fort Jefferson and Monument [OH]
Description
Fort Jefferson Park and Monument mark the site of an advance outpost of General Arthur St. Clair, built in October 1791. It was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State. One of a chain of defensive forts built to protect army supplies from Indians, it served as a supply base throughout the campaigns of General St. Clair and General Anthony Wayne. It was abandoned in 1796. The monument is made of faced granite field boulders, six feet square and 20 feet tall. No part of the fort remains.
The site is open to the public.
Felix Vallé House State Historic Site [MO]
Description
The Felix Vallé State Historic Site is designed to offer visitors a rare glimpse of Missouri's French colonial past. From the historic site's website, "The site features the Felix Vallé House built in 1818 as an American-Federal style residence and mercantile store. Restored and furnished to reflect the 1830s, the home today interprets the American influence on the French community following the Louisiana Purchase." In addition to the Felix Vallé House, the historic site also features the Benjamin Shaw house and the 1792 Bauvais-Amoureux House.
The State Historic Site offers guided tours and interpretive activities, and serves as the headquarters for the Historic Preservation Field School. The website offers visitor information as well as a brief history of the site.
John Adams: Great or Not?
field_image
Question
Was John Adams considered to have been a great president? How have historians assessed greatness in presidents?
Answer
A number of presidential historians have come to a consensus regarding the qualities that so-called great presidents have exhibited. For example, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. distinguishes great presidents as those who "possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America." Another historian, Robert Dallek, similarly states "every effective president had a vision or even a series of visions about where he wished to lead the country." In addition to possessing a vision for the nation, great presidents have succeeded in establishing what Schlesinger describes as "a deep psychic connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of people." They have achieved this bond using education and persuasion to convince Americans to consent to their own vision of the nation's future. Dallek correspondingly writes that effective presidents have needed to found their policies "on a shared national perception of what served the country's well-being." James MacGregor Burns likewise links leadership to the creation of a "collective purpose" measured "by the satisfaction of human needs and expectations."
In addition to vision, Schlesinger observes that while moments of crisis have presented presidents with "opportunities for bold and imaginative action," even without such crises, "forceful and persuasive presidents—Jefferson, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan—are able to impose their own priorities on the country." Dallek adds pragmatism and credibility as essential qualities of the most effective presidents.
The Traditional Assessment
Much of the lingering criticism of Adams can be traced to his re-election campaign of 1800. . .
Using the above mentioned criteria, John Adams has not traditionally been viewed as one of the great presidents of the United States. Much of the lingering criticism of Adams can be traced to his re-election campaign of 1800, which he lost to Thomas Jefferson, becoming the nation's first one-term president. During the campaign, he was criticized by both the Republicans, who supported Jefferson, and his own party, the Federalists. Popular historian David McCullough has described the campaign, which resulted in Thomas Jefferson's ascendancy to the presidency, as "a contest of personal vilification surpassing any presidential election in American history." During the 1800 campaign, Adams was called a monarchist, a warmonger, and an indecisive leader during wartime. He was tarred as a vain eccentric with an "ungovernable temper." He was attacked for his conservative outlook and for his tendency to act irresponsibly and capriciously without consulting his cabinet and advisors. His enemies spread rumors that he was insane, and like Jefferson, he was branded as a libertine.
Adams was also blamed both for actions he took during his term in office and for a supposed turn in political philosophy to favor aristocracy and monarchy over republicanism and democracy due to his opposition to the French Revolution. During the subsequent "quasi-war" with France, Adams's signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he did not initiate, became a liability that tarnished his reputation. His call for new taxes and the creation of a standing army alienated many at the time. With Jefferson's victory characterized as the "Revolution of 1800," Adams's association with the extinguished Federalist party has been proof for many that he was on the wrong side of history.
Recent Redemption
However, recent biographies have sought to reconsider Adams and his legacy. One biographer, John Patrick Diggins, believes that the assessment of Adams "as something of a loser" stems from a misunderstanding of the legacies of both Adams and Jefferson. Another, C. Bradley Thompson, contends that Adams was consistent in his political thought and did not adopt anti-republican views as his enemies had charged. In addition, John Ferling emphasizes Adams's decision to send a peace mission to France despite opposition within his administration and party—an action that many believe cost him the 1800 election—as not only "a courageous deed, an act of statesmanship that saved countless lives," but as an act that "spared the new nation unimaginable dangers—dangers to the survival of its republican experiment as well as to the very existence of the Union." These authors and others assert that Adams's success at preserving the nation's liberty despite his failings as a political leader point to his enduring legacy. However, some of the lingering criticism stems from Adams himself, writing, "I am not, never was, & never shall be a great man."
Bibliography
Burns, James MacGregor. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
Dallek, Robert. "Splendid Misery." Review of The American Presidency: An Intellectual History, by Forrest McDonald. Reviews in American History 22 (December 1994): 561-66.
Diggins, John Patrick. John Adams. New York: Times Books, 2003.
Ferling, John. John Adams: A Life. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992.
Knott, Stephen. "Review Essay: The Legacy of John Adams." Review of John Adams, by David McCullough, and John Adams and the Founding of the Republic, edited by Richard Alan Ryerson. Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (June 2002): 428-31.
McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. "Editor’s Note." In Diggins, John Patrick. John Adams. New York: Times Books, 2003, xvii-xx.
Thompson, C. Bradley. John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998.