A Quick & Condensed Version of American History for the Modern Patriot

 

13 QCAHMP John Locke and the Whigs

Who was John Locke? Which English Lord was Locke’s patron, and why did the events of his life impact the development of Locke’s theories? Which party in Parliament was led by Locke’s patron, and why was the name given to that party so derogatory? What are some of the ideas from Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government  that impacted the Founding Fathers and were echoed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence? We address those questions in this episode.

Let’s learn about John Locke’s life and the social context in which many of his ideas were developed.

John Locke, who was born in 1632 and died in 1704, is amongst the most well-known philosophers of the Enlightenment.  It is because of Locke that we think about concepts such as “natural law,” “the civil society,” and “consent of the governed.”

Locke’s father was a self-trained attorney and legal clerk for several Justices of the Peace near Somerset, England. Locke’s father also served on the Parliament’s side in the fight against King Charles I during the English Civil War. Undoubtedly these aspects of his childhood planed seeds inside of Locke that influenced his views of government.

During his undergraduate studies at Christ Church, Oxford, Locke had already familiarized himself in the writings of philosophers such as Descartes. Descartes was a rationalist and believed that deductive reasoning is a better path to the truth than any type of sensory or hands-on experience.  Locke ultimately rejected this line of thinking and believed in the importance of observation and experience. He was one of most prominent of the “British empiricists,” formulated the concept of the “Tabula Raza,” and his line of thinking led to the development of the scientific method.

After completing a Master’s degree in 1658. He went on to study medicine at Oxford. He was influenced by natural philosophers and formed ideas such as the law of nature which  could be found even in his earliest works.

In 1666, Locke met the man whose birth name was Anthony Ashley Cooper. It is he who most influenced Locke’s life and thoughts, and the context of Cooper’s life can be heard filtering through Locke’s ideas.

Cooper was a man who was led by his principles rather than just blindly following a person or a particular party affiliation. Both of his parents died before his eighth birthday. He inherited his father’s title of Baronet. He was raised by several different nobles who controlled the holdings he inherited from his father.

Cooper’s father-in-law, the keeper of the Great Seal of England, facilitated Cooper’s election to a short-lived seat in Parliament. Rivals feared he would be sympathetic to King Charles I, and  he did support of the king when the Civil War first began. However, in the first of several “side changes,” Cooper distanced himself from the king and joined the Parliamentarian cause over his concerns that the Catholics in Charles’ court had influenced the king to have little intent of preserving either the liberties of the English people or the Protestant religion that was practiced by most of his subjects.

Now on the side of the Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, Cooper returned to Parliament in 1653. He assumed a prominent position in the Council of State. However, within two years he had broken with Cromwell because of his fear that Cromwell’s lust for power might well cause him to rule with the power of the army rather than by the rule of law. Although he denied  increasing sympathy toward restoration of the crown, when the time came Cooper was one of only 12 members of Parliament who traveled to the Hauge to invite Charles II to assume the throne in England in 1661.

In thanks for his loyalty, the king named Cooper an English Lord and gave him the title of a...

12 QCAHMP Tyrannical Englishmen on Both Sides of the Pond

Which English monarchs demonstrated the usurpation of individual rights resulting from despotic leadership? Which royal governors gave the Founders an up-close view of the results of oppression upon a people from a leader who cared little for their individual rights?  We will answer those questions in this podcast.

Why were our Founders so wary of adding an executive into our governmental structure? I believe that you have to examine the context of a situation in order to understand why a particular event occurred. In this case, the Founders only needed only to examine the history of their mother country in order to see the effects of a tyrannical leader.

Let’s learn about some of the egregious behavior exhibited by several of the English monarchs. It will give you a glimpse into why the colonists were so wary of installing an executive or an executive branch. Of course, the colonists knew all too well about of the system of government that existed in Great Britain. That government had transformed over time from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. An absolute monarchy is similar to a dictatorship. Although King George III ruled the British Empire, he did so within a set of parameters outlined in a variety of documents,

The first of those documents was the Magna Carta.  Complete with 63 clauses, the Magna Carta was issued by King John in 1215. But the good king, who is often associated with the English folklore hero Robin Hood, did not issue those clauses willingly. He and his circle of advisors believed that his power was given to him by God and was known for his cruelty and bad temperament. Eventually, a group of barons forced him into agreeing to the terms of the Magna Carta. One term allowed for them to make war against him, if they believed he was not complying with the agreement. Is it any surprise that after only a few contentious years John and the barons took to their weapons? John died during the civil war that resulted from their disagreements.

Let’s move forward, to the 1600’s, when tyranny once again was in full force and effect during the rule of Charles I. He believed in the divine right of kings and thought he could use his “royal prerogative” to impose customs duties and forced loans on his subjects. He carried his “parliament be damned” attitude too far when he imprisoned people who refused to pay the imposed upon loans. Further, he began to espouse views that were a bit “too Catholic,” for his primarily Anglican subjects, after his marriage to Henrietta Maria of France. In 1628, the Parliament refused to grant any future taxes until Charles agreed to the Petition of Right. The Petition of Right was intended not only to restrict the ruler’s ability to impose taxes without the consent of Parliament, but to rule the quartering of soldiers, the imposition of martial law, and arbitrary imprisonment unlawful as well. True to his tyrannical rule, when the Parliament attempted to take action against the King’s behavior, he chose to dissolve it.

As a result of his absolutists actions, both the English and Scottish parliaments brought up armies to fight against him in the English Civil War.  Led by Oliver Cromwell’s “New Model Army,” the unrepentant Charles was captured, tried, and eventually executed in 1649. Although Charles had been undone by a revolt championed by Oliver Cromwell, Cromwell behaved much like a tyrant himself by sending forces to brutally massacre several towns in Ireland under the pretense of “the righteous judgment of God.” Eventually, he had himself declared “Lord Protector” in 1653. When he died of malaria in 1658, he was immensely popular and given a funeral fit for a king. However, within three years,

11 QCAHMP George Washington’s Brilliance Shines Through

Welcome to another quick and condensed version of American History for the Modern Patriot.

Are you looking for a basic primer that will help you teach  a child, a teen, or another adult about the Constitution? Consider downloading the Kindle edition of my book: Everyone’s Guide to the Constitution for only $3.76. It is available in paperback as well on Amazon

Why was George Washington appointed as commander of the colonial troops? What major impediment did Washington face within the first year of taking command?  When and why did those troops become known as the “Continental Army?” What was life like for a Continental solider? And what is a brilliant example of Washington’s ability to motivate those whom he led? We will learn the answer to these questions in this episode.

George Washington was truly a brilliant commander. Not only in the sense of his tactical decisions, but also in his understanding of how to maintain the morale of his troops. He was a motivational force who intuitively knew when and how to inspire those whom he led.

Let’s learn about Washington’s appointment as commander of the colonial troops by the Continental Congress, and the rough road he traveled in his quest to organize and discipline the men he inspired.

On June 16, 1775, the Continental Congress unanimously voted that George Washington would be appointed to head the colonial forces. He was chosen not only for his experience during the French-Indian War, but because he was from the southern Colony of Virginia. One of my favorite George Washington quotes was recorded in his acceptance of this appointment. He said, “I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.”

Washington’s Virginia roots played no small part in the decision to appoint him as commander of the colonial forces. Although Washington had substantial military experience, he did not have a history of commanding a large body of men. While Washington did not think himself equal to the Command he was honored with, it is doubtful that anyone in the chamber doubted his character. What he lacked in experience as a military commander, he made up with his experiences managing his plantation, known as Mount Vernon, and serving for fifteen years in the Virginia House of Burgesses with notables such as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Peyton Randolph.

But what was the nature of army that Washington had been appointed to command? What type of enemy met him squarely in the face, and what were his thoughts upon assuming his new role? In a letter written to John A. Washington on July 27, 1775, Washington commented:

“I found a mixed multitude of People here, under very little discipline, order, or Government. I found the enemy in possession of a place called Bunker’s Hill, on Charles Town Neck, strongly Intrenched, and Fortifying themselves;” He also found the 16,000 or so colonial troops to be scattered about the Boston area and began the process of strategically organizing them against the approximately 12,000 British soldiers in the area.

After assuming command, Washington’s troops had victories in Canada, Virginia, and South Carolina.  However, as the new year approached, Washington faced  the end of the enlistment period of his soldiers. The oath that they had taken was only for one year of service, and many of them had not realized they would be taken far away from their families. What would happen to “the Cause?” Remember, this was before the Declaration of Independence had been written. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense would not be distributed to the public for several weeks. The colonial effort remained as opposition to British tyranny rather than a quest for independence. Washington, no doubt, had concerns. How many would re-enlist?

10 QCAHMP The Roaring Thunder of Rage: Local Reaction to the Boston Massacre & the Limited Coverage it Receives in Textbooks

How is the Boston Massacre often portrayed in textbooks? What was the reaction to the Boston Massacre by colonists who were already angered by increasingly tyrannical British rule? What transpired the days, and weeks that followed the Boston Massacre? How was the Massacre linked to an incident in St. George’s Field in England. We will explore these questions in this episode.

Who do you think made the following statement:

“How slightly soever historians may have passed over this event, the blood of the martyrs, right or wrong, proved to be the seeds of the congregation. Not the battle of Lexington or Bunker’s Hill: not the surrender of Burgoyne or Cornwallis, were more important events in American history, than the battle of King-street, on the fifth of March, 1770.” Although contemporary authors often minimize the importance of the Boston Massacre, who was in a better position to voice an opinion of the import of the event than the author of this quote. It was none other than John Adams…the man who represented the soldiers on trial for their actions in the events of March 5th.

In the comprehensive version of this podcast, I compared how the Massacre was covered in the 5th, 8th, and AP social science textbooks which have been used by my children. I would encourage you to listen to that discussion because it is startling what and how little they actually teach about an event that was of such great import to the people of Boston and in the Colonies as a whole. There were inconsistencies in the accounts of what transpired, how many were injured, and none of them mentioned the conflict that was discussed in the ninth episode of American History for the Modern Patriot. What all three focused on was that Crispus Attucks, a man of African descent, was included in those who were killed.

The article in the Boston Gazette which was detailed in the 9th edition of American History for the Modern Patriot  describes the aftermath of incident differently from how contemporary commontators might have you think: Instead it said:

“The People were immediately alarmed with the Report of this horrid Massacre, the Bells, were set a Ringing, and great Numbers soon assembled at the Place where this tragical Scene had been acted; their Feelings may be better conceived than expressed; and while some were taking Care of the Dead and Wounded, the Rest were in Consultation what to do in those dreadful Circumstances.”

The article went on to describe a meeting of the town the next day  which included “animated speeches” and a committee of men that were selected to call upon Governor Thomas Hutchinson and demand the immediate removal of the troops from the town. Although the good Lutenient Governor voiced his concern, he lamented that he had no power to overrule the orders to station the troops as issued by a British General.

The Gazette article noted that in another meeting “The foregoing Reply having been read, and fully considered — the Question was put, Whether the Report be satisfactory? Passed in the Negative (only 1 Dissentient) out of upwards of 4000 Voters.”

Let me stop for a moment to remind you that the town of Boston had approximately 15,000 inhabitants at the time, and 4,000 “voters” were counted at that meeting. However the term “voters” was defined, that is quite a percentage of the town.

Another committee which included John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and  Dr. Joseph Warren was created to inform Hutchinson of the town’s vote and their dissatisfaction with his reply. The committee later reported to the town that Hutchinson asked what should be done, and they unanimously replied remove the troops from Boston.

9 5MAHMP Two Sides to Every Massacre. British and Colonial Portrayals of the Boston Massacre, and Crucial Information not Often Taught in Schools.

What is a crucial piece of information about the Boston Massacre that you probably never learned about in school?  What happened during that incident on Kings Street?, and how was the incident described differently by a colonial newspaper and a British officer? We will explore all of these questions in this episode.

In my mind, this episode is illustrative of the lack of depth regarding the US Founding that is taught in the public school system.  If mentioned at all, the Boston Massacre is glossed over in a single paragraph in most text books. At best, it is depicted as a riot with dire consequences that occurred on March 5th, 1770. Yet, the primary sources we will learn from today all view it as a continuation of conflict that began on March 2nd.

As we learned in the last episode, there was an increasing amount of tension in Boston because the Quartering Act of 1765 allowed for troops to be housed on property owned by colonists. It should be noted that we are not talking about just a few troops in the city mind you. There were approximately 4000 troops in a town with only about 15,000 residents. A city filled with patriots such as Samuel Adams and James Otis, colonists who were angry that  soldiers often took away jobs by seeking part-time employment, as well as others who feared being forced to serve on British ships because of the “impress service” instilled by the Parliament was a town waiting to boil over.

Now, let’s learn about the information that I referenced above. You have probably never heard about it, but your entire perspective of the Boston Massacre may change when you understand that the crowd was not just standing around biding their time. The colonists on that street, and the British soldiers who engaged them, had been involved in street brawls several days. Listen to the deposition of Private Patrick Walker of the 29th Regiment about what happened to him on March 2, 1770.

In his deposition, Private Walker stated: “That about the latter end of February Last, Deponant having Occasion to go by the Ropewalkes in Boston, he was assaulted, knocked Down, trod under feet, Cut in several places, and Very much bruised, without any Provocation Given, by about twelve of the Inhabitants of Boston, (supposed Rope makers) and Left in Danger of his Life.” Puportedly, one of the rope makers, named William Green, asked Walker if he was looking for part-time work. When Walker answered in the affirmative, Green hurled vulgar insults at him which  escalated into a fight.

Nicholas Feriter, one of the rope makers, had a very different description of the same incident. As he recalled, “about half past 11 o’clock, A.M., a soldier of the 29th Regiment came to Mr. John Gray’s ropewalks, and looking into one of the windows, said, by God I’ll have satisfaction! with many other oaths; at the last he said he was not afraid of any one in the ropewalks. I stept out of the window and speedily knock’d up his heels. On falling, his coat flew open, and a naked sword appeared.”

Regardless of how it started, a fight between dozens of rope makers and soldiers quickly ensued. Testimony was even taken from a nine year old apprentice, named Peter Slater, who had taken part in the brawl! A Justice of the Peace, named John Hill, testified that he saw soldiers walking to and from the ropewalks from their barracks. At one point, he saw 30 to 40 soldiers return to the ropewalks with clubs and weapons. Although he tried to intervene, he saw them knock down a ropemaker and beat him with their clubs. One of the soldiers attempted to club him. Although he avoided the blow, he felt sure that it would have killed him if the soldier had been successful.

8 5MAHMP: Not in My House! The Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774

What was “the Quartering Act? What was the reaction to the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774? In particular how did Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Dickson react to the Quartering Act of 1765 and the subsequent suspension of the New York Assembly? Which Amendment in our Bill of Rights is a direct result of the coercive Quartering acts.

What turned the slow simmer within many colonist to a rage so fierce that it erupted and led to incidents such as the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party? It was the “Intolerable Acts”  which were four acts passed by the British Parliament following the Boston Tea Party. The British referred to them as the “Coercive Acts,” and they were intended to bring the Colonies back into line and compliant with British rule. Many colonists viewed these acts as a violation of their rights as British citizens

Let’s focus on one of the Intolerable Acts and the act which preceded it. It is known as the “Quartering Act.” Many view this act as the “least intolerable” of the Intolerable Acts, but in combination with an earlier act passed by the Parliament, it was absolutely intolerable to those colonists who had British troops thrust into their lives and onto their property.

“Quartering” is not a term that is commonly used today. You might think of a quarter coin, a quarter of a cup, or even a quarter horse. But the term , as it was  used in the acts, referred to living quarters. Specifically, quarters that were needed to house members of the British military. In 1763, before the passage of the first Quartering Act, the British debt has soared to almost 130 million pounds. Remember that is in the value of 1763 pounds. Although I am not guaranteeing the accuracy of this to the shilling, a historical currency converter that I used converted that amount into more than 3 billon of today’s British pounds. That is more than four billion in today’s dollars. Needless to say, the British had a substantial amount of debt.

The French and Indian War had concluded and the British had the problem of what to do with all of those soldiers stationed in the colonies. Although British officials spoke for decades about the need to have military personnel in the Colonies to defend them, it was actually less expensive to leave the on the North American Continent than it would be to bring them all home, and reintegrate them into British society (read that as find them all jobs).

When you think of the term “quartering” as something akin to “housing”…Talk about intolerable! Imagine being told people would soon be knocking on your door. You would be responsible for providing bedding, food, cooking supplies, and firewood.  All this would be done in the name of  “providing suitable Quarters for Officers and Soldiers in his Majesty’s Service in North America.””

And that was exactly the scenario that was thrust upon the Colonists in 1765 with the passage of the first Quartering Act.  Although many of the Colonial Assemblies had provided food and shelter during the war for the soldiers, they objected to the continuation of that practice during peacetime.

The Quartering Acts were written as addendum to two of the British Mutiny Acts which had been passed yearly by the British Parliament since 1689. The Mutiny Act of 1765 was far more intolerable than the Intolerable Act of 1774. The 1765 act was entitled: An act for punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters.

It required that places such as inns, livery stables, and the houses of sellers of wine, be made available to British Troops for as long as seven days if space in barracks were unavailable for them. Further, soldiers could also access “uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns or other buildings.

7 5MAHMP: The Colonists, the Sugar Act, and the Tax Collector

How did the implementation of various taxes and regulations impact the rising tide of anger in the American Colonies against Great Britain? How did the Parliament motivate tax collectors in the colonies to crack down on smuggling? Who was John Robinson, and how did colonists react when he attempted to impound a sloop known as the Polly? We’ll sent time in this edition answering these questions.

As the 1760’s progressed more and more people who lived in the colonies felt estranged from the motherland. There was a mounting number of people near heavily traveled ports, such as Newport, Rhode Island, who increasingly shared a point of view commonly found in Boston. It should be no surprise that the good people of Massachusetts and Rhode Island were amongst the first to rise up against acts that they viewed as oppressive.

The views held by Rhode Islanders had long been a bit different from those of other colonists. In 1635, Roger Williams sought refuge in the area we know as Rhode Island because he advocated religious tolerance and the separation of church and state

were clearly in opposition to those held by many other Puritans. Williams’ settlement quickly became known as a political and religious refuge for those unhappy with the intolerance found in much of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

In the 1760’s, The British Parliament viewed crops, natural resources and other products made on the American Continent as an untapped pocket which could be picked in order to offset the mounting British debt. One such encroachment into the pockets of American Colonists was an act which replaced the Sugar and Molasses Act of 1733. The original act had placed a six pence per gallon tax on all molasses imported from non-British colonies. It was primarily intended to curtail the amount of molasses imported from the French West Indies by means of regulation. The revenue raised by the act was secondary in importance. But colonists paid little attention to it and continued in their lucrative trade through smuggling.

Needless to say, the British were unhappy with the smuggling trade. In 1764, the Sugar Act was passed. As its official title stated, it was the American Revenue Act. It was actually the first act passed by Parliament which openly declared its purpose was to collect revenue from the colonies, albeit that it was purportedly necessary to raise funds to product the colonies.

Colonists initially attempted to politely communicate their disapproval regarding the act.

However, the British saw nothing alarming about the Sugar Act which included incentives for customs officials to curtail smuggling.

There is an interesting story I would like to tell you about which involved one such customs official. His name was John Robinson. When John Robinson arrived at his new post as a customs officer in Newport, Rhode Island, he was approached by a group of merchants. They offered him the customary “payment” of 70,000 pounds in local currency in exchange for his promise that he would not enforce the Sugar Act and turn a blind eye to smuggling at the port. How substantial was the bribe that was offered to Robinson? In 1759, a colonial teacher’s salary averaged 60 pounds a year. Consequently,70,000 pounds was a pretty pence or shilling to use the common currency of the day. Customs officials appointed prior to 1764 often relied upon bribes from local merchants to fund lavish lifestyles. The Sugar Act, however, included incentives for officials to crack down on smuggling. Included in those incentives were a share of the profits from all seized goods.

Not only did Robinson refuse to accept the bribe, but he openly criticized another common practice of the day. Routinely, judges in the local, or provincial,

6 5MAHMP Who was the Most Romantic Founding Father?

Who, might you ask, was the most romantic Founding Father? I believe that I have the answer. Of course, I should actually phrase the question: Which Founding Father wrote the most romantic love letters? After all, we cannot interview them or observe them with the objects of their affection. What we have to answer that question is the writings that remain available to us.

Although we live in an age where public figures are willing, if not exceedingly interested, in baring their souls for profit or greater notoriety, the same could not be said for those in the political realm of the late 1700’s. Martha Washington burned letters that she exchanged with her husband, George, after his death. Thomas Jefferson did the same after the death of his wife, Martha. Samuel Adams was well known for regularly burning his personal correspondence, and then flamboyantly throwing the ashes out the window, so as to assure the personal safety of his friends. Consequently, we have limited access to the personal writings of many of the Founders.

But don’t despair. There was one couple who not only wrote to each other frequently, and exchanged words of a highly romantic nature, but their writings have survived for us to review to this day. In fact, the letters exchanged between John Adams and his wife, Abigail, gives us a unique window into all aspects of their lives. John and Abigail spent many years living apart from one another. During their courtship John was often away while advocating for his clients across the route of court circuits. They were also separated for a six-week forced quarantine after John was inoculated against small pox.

After their marriage, John once again journeyed away from home to take part in the Continental Congress. He was separated from Abigail for lengthy periods of time between 1774 until 1777.  In 1778, John Adams was appointed by the Continental Congress, along with Arthur Lee and Benjamin Franklin, to negotiate an alliance with France. Adams later returned to Paris (without first discussing the matter with Abigail) to await the opportunity to negotiate the end of the American Revolution

For much of this time, Abigail not only raised their two children, but managed the family farm, the household staff, and tenants on the Adams’ property as well.

While you might assume that they would also have lived together during John’s time as Vice-President and President. However, Abigail spent portions of that time in the family home in Quincy, Massachusetts.

Needless to say all of the time that they spent apart encouraged John and Abigail to correspond with one another. They left behind more than 1000 letters that included their concerns about day-to-day matters, opinions, humorous stories about themselves and others, advice to each other on all matters, views about politics and other political figures, and, best of all, their feelings of love for one another.

Although John was well known for lashing out at political foes and colleagues alike, and repeatedly damaged his political career because of his inability to hold his tongue, he was particularly adept at penning romantic prose to his beloved Abigail. He often referred to her as “Diana” after the Roman goddess of the moon. In other letters he referred to her as “Dear Adorable” or “Miss Adorable.” He sometimes referred to himself as the Spartan hero “Lysander.”

The first written exchange we have between them, although undated, already notes John’s intention to marry the seventeen year old Abigail. The letter was as follows: “Dr. Miss Jemima…I have taken the best Advice, on the subject of your Billet, and I find you cannot compell me to pay unless I refuse Marriage; which I never did, and never will, but on the Contrary am ready to have you at any Time. Yours,

5 5MAHMP: March on with John Philip Sousa and The Stars and Stripes Forever

This is Dr. Susan Rempel. Welcome to another edition of 5 Minutes of American History for the Modern Patriot

What is a national symbol? How does it come to pass that something becomes a national symbol? What is our national march? How did the song receive it’s designation? What can we learn about the amazing life of its composer, John Philip Sousa?

A national symbol is somewhat different from a patriotic symbol because it has been officially designated as such after legislation has been passed by the Congress and signed by the President. The history behind the movement and passage of each of our national symbols is rich with interesting details and stories. The patriotic symbols that are frequently associated with our country, such as the Liberty Bell or the Statue of Liberty, have interesting stories associated with them as well.

After the President signs the legislation which designates something as a national symbol, that designation is incorporated into the US Code. What is the US Code?

It is an organization of the general and permanent laws of the United States into groups based upon subject matter. There are currently 54 chapter headings, or titles, and 5 appendices of the code.

Title 36 of the US Code is specifically devoted to “Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies and Organizations.” Specifically, Title 36, Subtitle 1, Part 1, Chapter 3 of the US Code includes the sections which designate our national anthem, motto, floral emblem, march, and tree. In this episode, we will focus on our national march. Section 304 of Title 36, Chapter 3, of the US Code states: “The composition by John Philip Sousa entitled The Stars and Stripes Forever is the national march.” Before we learn about the song itself, let’s focus on one of America’s most famous composers: John Philip Sousa.

John Philip Sousa was born on November 6th, 1854. He grew up in Washington, D.C. where his father played trombone for the U.S. Marine Band. Sousa dreamed of playing in a circus band. That idea did not go over well with his parents. His father enlisted him in the Marines, at the ripe old age of 13, and Sousa became an apprentice musician with the Marine Band. Sousa began writing his own music, and published his first composition, Moonlight on the Potomac Waltzes  when, he was only 18 years of age.

In 1875, he was discharged from the Marines. He began performing as a first violinist,  but quickly moved on to conducting. It was during rehearsals for an on Broadway production of the H.M.S. Pinafore  that he met his future wife Jan van Middlesworth Bellis. They eventually married on December 30, 1879 and had three children.

Sousa returned to the Marine Band in 1880 as its leader and remained in that role until 1892. He and his band entertained many Presidents and their families. He took great care to know the preferences of those for whom he performed. During that time, he composed many of his best known pieces, including Semper Fidelis.

the United States Marine Band, which Sousa led, has an interesting background in and of itself. It is also known as “The President’s Own” band. It was founded in 1789 by an Act of Congress and charged with the purpose of providing music for the President and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Sousa was the Band’s 17th Director, and he is credited with raising its performance level to that of a world class band. The Band currently performs an average of 200 times each year.

In 1892, Sousa was convinced by David Blakely to resign from the Marines, and form his own band. It was to be the first of two life changing inspirations that Blakely would provide for Sousa.

Sousa’s own band first performed on September 26, 1892 at the Stillman Music Hall in Plainfield,

4 5MAHMP: Protection against Judicial Tyranny and the Supreme Court of the Founding Period

By what authority do the federal courts operate? What guarantees against judicial tyranny were established for us by the Founders? Are there interesting facts or tales about the Supreme Court of the Founding period? Those are the questions we will focus on in this edition.

Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.

As we learned in the last edition, concerns were raised about potential abuses of power by the Judicial Branch during the Constitutional Convention. As you might expect, those concerns continued after the Constitution was signed. Patriots such as Thomas Jefferson wrote supporters of the Constitution, including James Madison, about his concern that the Constitution contained no bill of rights

Robert Yates, a noted Antifederalist, is thought to have penned a series of essays, under the pseudonyms of “Sydney” and “Brutus,”  He opposed the ratification of the Constitution out of concerns including the lack of guarantees of individual rights.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay collectively mounted quite a pro-ratification campaign. Publishing under the pseudonym of “Publis,” they each contributed to a body of 85 essays in an effort to educate the public why the proposed governmental structure was the best possible for the United States and details as to how the government would operate.

Federalist 78 is perhaps the most often cited of the Federalist Papers with respect to the establishment of a national Judiciary. In Federalist 78, Hamilton made numerous assurances including that “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”

Hamilton’s assurances did not dampen concerns raised by Yates and others, and promises were eventually made by supporters of the Constitution that a bill of rights would be the first order of business for the new Congress.

In keeping with those promises, on June 8th, James Madison proposed 39 guarantees of individual rights to be added to the Constitution. Eventually, they were whittled down to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments specifically relate to the rights that citizens have when they are involved in judicial proceedings.

In addition to promptly beginning to form the Bill of Rights, the newly established Congress also quickly created a system of Federal trial courts by passing the United States Judiciary Act.

It was, in fact, the first bill introduced in the Senate.  It faced little opposition, and was quickly passed by the Congress. George Washington also quickly appointed Justices to the Supreme Court, as well as Judges to the lower courts in the Federal System.

What was it like to be a member of the first Supreme Court? It was far different from that of today’s members. For the first 101 years of the Supreme Court’s existence – except for a brief period in the early 1800’s — the Justices were also required to travel throughout circuits on horseback, and hold circuit court twice a year in each judicial district.

The Court met for much of the first 50 years in a small room in the basement of the Capitol Building. The current building where the Supreme Court sits was not completed until 1935. Another dramatic difference between the Supreme Courts of today and yesteryear was the difficulty Presidents Washington and Adams had finding people willing to sit on the Court at all. There were only 6 Justices at that time, and often Justices held or campaigned for other jobs while sitting on the Court.