Thanks NonValueAdded, and to GGG members, note that NVA is the new pingmeister for the RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington list previously handled so ably by afraidfortherepublic.
Posted on 05/25/2016 12:02:32 AM PDT by Hugh Kenrick
"The founding of the United States was among the most dramatic and glorious events in history. For the first time, a nation was founded on the principle of individual rights. Those interested in learning about America’s founding and its cause may turn to history texts. But history texts, even when their content is accurate, tend to be dry accounts of events. They lack the excitement of an adventure novel. Yet most novels set in the Revolutionary period are not good sources of information: Being works of fiction, they may take liberties with historical fact; and they often employ the American Revolution merely as their setting, not as their focus. What if one could find a work that combined the accuracy of a well-researched historical work with the dramatic presentation of a work of fiction? Fortunately, such a combination exists—the Sparrowhawk series of six novels by Edward Cline."
(Excerpt) Read more at theobjectivestandard.com ...
I just checked Audible.com, they have all the books there. I am on it...I have an account and get three books a month for $20.
I used to read ferociously, but my eyes cannot do it anymore. I read for five minutes, my eyes start watering and turn red. It sucks. I really, really, REALLY miss reading like I used to, but...what are you gonna do?
But now I do audiobooks, which is great, because I can listen to them on my commute, which saves my sanity!
I am going to download three of these tonight. Thank you again.
By the way, that is the Old North Bridge at Concord...:)
It just oozes history for me.
I added you to the list. I guess newbies don’t get to use the FR mail system right away, probably based on past history of people signing up to abuse it. Stick around and soon you will be in the thick of things. Welcome to FR.
The Bastard, The Rebels, The Seekers, The Furies, The Titans, The Warriors, The Lawless, The Americans
The first two cover the Revolution era, but the series covers up to around the 1870's if I remember.
Thanks NonValueAdded, and to GGG members, note that NVA is the new pingmeister for the RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington list previously handled so ably by afraidfortherepublic.
““For the first time, a nation was founded on the principle of individual rights.””
Sounds like more ‘Proposition Nation’ nonsense.
The ‘nation’ was already an organic culture 150 years old, it wasn’t some sort of philosophical enterprise.
The Founders were codifying their own government out of various means that they had already been using in the colonies.
Their important innovation was shedding monarchy and replacing it with a republic modeled on Rome, combined with the liberty that they grown used to out on the frontier.
You learned back then to cooperate with your neighbors and organize or our friends the Indians would kill you, King Philips War and all that. The Colonials knew how to govern themselves.
You are welcome. Enjoy!
“By the way, that is the Old North Bridge at Concord...:)”
So that must be Minuteman in the distance. A lovely photo. Thank you for sharing it.
Thank you for adding me to your list.
I’ll be around checking in whenever I can.
Thanks!
Thank you for this:
The Kent Chronicles by John Jakes, 8-Volumes:
The Bastard, The Rebels, The Seekers, The Furies, The Titans, The Warriors, The Lawless, The Americans
The first two cover the Revolution era, but the series covers up to around the 1870’s if I remember.
Just downloaded the first three books...:)
“For the first time, a nation was founded on the principle of individual rights.”
NO NO NO. Libertarian claptrap.
“Individual rights” were merely the consequence of divided powers and a federal government with exactly the powers it needs. Which is what was new in the Founder’s design.
The States could do whatever their voters wanted with ‘individual rights”.
It was genius.
” How can new societies form on the basis of constrained and limited governments? Why and how did this happen here? “
I don’t understand why it was never adopted by other countries. Especially after our great successes.
Our Founding inspired the overthrow of the nobility around the world but the feudal organization was retained- only adopting elected rulers. Then socialism was developed to intellectually justify these centralized feudal organizations. Despite it’s constant failure it is now the ideal.
People in the aggregate are stupid and frightened.
Maybe our success against Britain gave us a confidence and optimism that is rare and fragile.
I’ve read some interesting books that connect our success to Christianity and Protestantism in particular. They delved into why South America with its abundant resources didn’t become another United States. Catholicism was claimed to be a key factor. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, but they were persuasive theses.
I’d have to be convinced that “Common Law” wasn’t the difference. Besides US and Canada, most New World nations- all the former Spanish ones I believe- are cursed with the Napoleonic “Civil Law”.
It is the difference IMO.
Of course all Man’s justice systems are as flawed as he is, but the Common Law empowers people more.
Supposedly (so I have been led to believe from casual reading only, not rigorous study) Simon Bolivar and co. did not believe in the concept of land ownership for common people, and that land ownership should only be for aristocracy. Without land ownership, owning the land under one’s feet, one is always in effect indentured to someone else and cannot enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. Hence, people living in such systems do not work as hard as people who work for themselves.
The concept of land ownership only for nobility extended as far north as Mexico and land won from Mexico by the US in the Mexican-American war of 1848. Basically, it was a lot easier for immigrants and commoners to own land if they were aristocracy or intermarried with aristocracy. The government of Mexico was nominally in favor of land owned by common people on paper, but in practice, they were no different from the Spanish in that regard, and the Mexican people remained repressed by their government up through the current era.
Studying Simon Bolivar and Columbian history is potentially instructive because Bolivar came to power in Columbia the 1820s, after the USA was founded. In order to attain the success of the USA, all he had to do was to copy its government. Yet he did not do that, and his Columbia failed. So (according to one line of thought, at least) the question boils down to what are the differences between the political systems of the USA and Bolivar’s Columbia of the 1820s.
ironic. I was wondering about what was going on in the minds of the colonists that lead the few to be willing to sacrifice all for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. THANKS!
Yes. That is the single most relevant fact, in my opinion, for why the Founders got it right. In most of the world, political theory was snatched from the imagination. In America it was based upon actual experience; the building of a political society, step by step, from the ground up.
The answer to all of the Leftist ranting over the generations since, is absolutely found in understanding that experience.
Because it was written after the war using the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
