Advertisements
Home

The two men who helped create the world’s greatest library

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

I knew about Thomas Jefferson selling his book collection to replenish the Library Of Congress.

I never heard of Ainsworth Rand Spofford until now. 

The Library of Congress has survived an attack by the British and a lack of government funding to become the world’s biggest library, with the helping hands of two people in the 19th century.

Ainsworth_Rand_Spofford

Ainsworth Rand Spofford

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One person is familiar to most Americans: Thomas Jefferson. The other is a newspaper editor who came to Washington during the Civil War and created an institution on a grand scale.

Ainsworth Rand Spofford was a journalist who reported on the war and lobbied to become the head of the Library of Congress. His three decades as the Librarian of Congress put the institution on the path of becoming a world-class institution. Subsequent librarians expanded the scope and impact of the institution.

The Library of Congress was created by Congress (of course) on April 24, 1800, with the approval of President Thomas Jefferson. But it had a rocky start. The book collection was kept at the Capitol, and only Congress, the president and the vice president (at the time, Aaron Burr) were allowed to borrow books.

It was destroyed in 1814 when British troops attacked the building. Fortunately, former President Jefferson, the continent’s biggest book lover, agreed to sell his collection to the Library for the sum of $23,950 in 1815. Congress passed the bill to approve the purchase by a narrow margin along party lines.

The Jefferson purchase doubled the library’s size, to more than 6,000 books, and it planted Jefferson’s ideals about global learning as a philosophy that would set the stage for the institution’s growth after the Civil War.

Before Spofford took over as the Librarian of Congress, the institution served mostly as a resource for lawmakers. Much of the collection, which grew to 55,000 volumes, was destroyed in a Christmas Eve fire in 1851.

Spofford sought to make the Library of Congress the biggest library in the United States, which he was able to do within three years after his appointment by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

Spofford also played a key role in a move that would guarantee the Library’s vital role in national learning. In 1870, Congress appointed the Library of Congress, and its librarian, as the institution that coordinated all copyright functions in the United States. The law required that two copies of every book, pamphlet, map, print, photograph, and piece of music be deposited in the Library of Congress. In subsequent years, movies, audio recordings, and digital materials became part of the copyright registration process.

Spofford also championed a standalone building for the Library of Congress outside of the Capitol building to host the burgeoning collection. It took 26 years–the remainder of Spofford’s tenure as Librarian–to get the building approved and constructed.

The new Library (now known as the Jefferson Building) was based on the Paris Opera House and instantly became a national monument and source of pride.

Today, the Library of Congress continues its mission to “support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people.”

Its collection contains more than 155 million items, including more than 35 million catalogued books and other print materials in 460 languages; more than 68 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America; and the world’s largest collection of legal materials, films, maps, sheet music, and sound recordings.

Its current rival for the title of the world’s biggest library is the British Library in London. It also contains more than 150 million items, but it trails the Library of Congress when it comes to shelf space used.

One of the current exhibitions at the Library of Congress is a reconstruction of Jefferson’s original library.

The Library was able to assemble most of the books lost in the 1851 fire, and it acquired some rare volumes with the support of Jerry Jones, the current owner of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

 

Advertisements

The First-Ever Election Controversy

Leave a comment

This is from Mental Floss.

Bush/Gore in 2000 was not the first disputed election.

We’ve experienced some extremely close elections (and caucuses) in recent years, but controversy over candidates who are elected by the skin of their teeth is nothing new. In fact, it dates back to our founding fathers: In the election of 1800, we came this close to electing President Aaron Burr instead of President Thomas Jefferson.

The election took place just three years after George Washington’s final term, and there were four men running for president. Incumbent John Adams was trying again, along with his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson—but not on the same ticket. Adams chose Charles Pinckney as his running mate, while the Republicans designated Aaron Burr as their second choice.

The process for choosing a vice president was very different back then. Instead of automatically electing the chosen running mate as we do today, the custom was to award the man with the most electoral votes the presidency, and the man with the second-most votesthe vice presidency. Party lines and “official” running mates didn’t matter, which is how Federalist John Adams ended up with Democratic-Republican opponent Thomas Jefferson as his second-in-command after the 1796 election.

When the votes were cast on November 4, 1800, Jefferson and Burr were handed a decisive victory. While this would ordinarily be great news for Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party, there was a problem: Both he and Burr had received exactly 73 electoral votes.

On Wednesday, February 11, 1801, the House of Representatives met to break the tie. The first ballot was deadlocked—Jefferson needed a nine-state majority to win, but only received eight. Burr received six, and two states remained undecided. They reached deadlocked results on the second vote, and then a third. Several days later, more than 30 ballots had been cast with neither candidate achieving the majority. If no solution was reached by the end of Adams’s term on March 4, the U.S. would be down one commander-in-chief until Congress could get it figured out when they convened in December. As you might imagine, nine months is a long time for any country to go without a leader, let alone a country as new as the U.S. was at the time.

It wasn’t until February 17 that the House finally had a breakthrough when a group of Federalists decided that they needed to acquiesce in order to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. That’s the official story, anyway—there’s some speculation that Jefferson did some wheeling and dealing in order to secure the presidency. Whatever happened, the result ofballot #36 was 10 votes for Jefferson, four for Burr, and two undecided.

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated about two weeks later on March 4, becoming the third president of the United States, with Burr his second-in-command. During his tenure as Vice President, Aaron Burr fatally shot Alexander Hamilton during their infamous duel. He didn’t run for a second term, and was later charged with treason over a separate conspiracy.

No mention of the Burr-Hamilton duel is complete without a mention of this commercial, by the way, so I’ll leave you with this:

 

 

VA Senate Committee Says No to Anti-Gun Bills While Passing Pro-Gun Bills

3 Comments

This is from Constitution.com.

The political battle over gun rights versus gun control is waging hot and heavy in the Virginia legislature. Democrats are pushing for more gun control laws and Republicans are pushing to preserve gun rights.

Virginia is the historical home to one of America’s most pro-gun rights presidents, Thomas Jefferson. When Thomas Jefferson penned the draft of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, he included the words:

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).” [Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353.]

In 1808, Jefferson wrote:

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.” [Thomas Jefferson Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 11:432.

In 1824, just two years before his death, Jefferson penned a letter to John Cartwright in which he wrote:

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” [Thomas Jefferson letter to John Cartwright, 1824. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.]

It’s ironic that so many historians refer to Jefferson as being a liberal politician and yet when it came to the Second Amendment rights to own and bear a firearm, Jefferson was ultra conservative and believed that everyone and every household needed to be armed to protect themselves, their families and their homes.

However, Virginia’s Democrats have forgotten or choose to ignore the views of their so-called historical liberal. Commonwealth Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D)recently announced that legal conceal carry permits from other states would no longer be recognized in Virginia.

Then as the legislature starts their 60-day session, several of the Democratic senators wasted no time introducing a number of gun control bills.

Senator George L. Barker (D-Fairfax) introduced a bill that would give authorities the right to confiscate guns from anyone that a Circuit Court judge deemed to be a ‘substantial risk’ to themselves or others. Such a designation would allow law enforcement to enter and search the person’s house based on the subjective opinion of a judge.

Sen. Richard H. Stuart (R-Stafford) argued that it wasn’t right to allow peoples’ home to be arbitrarily searched because someone questioned if they were mentally ok or not. He argued:

“Doesn’t it bother you that a person’s residence could be searched?”

 

“If we have the ability to get someone help that needs help, why do we need to search their home?”

Senator David W. Marsden (D-Fairfax) and another state senator introduced two bills that would place bans on allowing children as young as 4 years of age from using any form of firearm which included real guns, pneumatic guns and even BB guns.

One Virginia resident, Bill Heipp told the committee:

“None of my kids are afraid of guns. A lot of that is because they were introduced in a safe environment, at an early age, and given good coaching by a concerned parent. This bill would stuff all that.”

I would echo Heipp’s testimony. My dad started teaching me how to shoot a .22 caliber rifle when I was 4 years old and I’ve been shooting and hunting ever since. He would allow me to rest the front stock in his hand as I aimed and fired. He taught me to respect all guns and he made sure that my brothers and sister knew where every loaded gun was in the house. We knew not to play with or handle the guns without permission because that’s the way we were taught.

Personally, I strongly believe that the issue isn’t guns but one of parenting or the lack of it. If parents just took the time to teach their kids respect for guns, property and other people the way I was taught, there would be a lot less violence in America.

Senator L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) introduced a bill requiring background checks for everyone purchasing a firearm at a gun show.

Other gun control bills introduced by Democrats includes one to require conceal carry applicants to exhibit they are able to competently handle their handgun first. Another proposed bill would ban the current open carry of a loaded gun in allowable public locations.

These gun control bills along with a slew of others went to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee where they were quickly defeated by the Republican majority. Instead of approving the stack of gun control bills, the committee did approve a number of pro-gun rights bills.

Senator Richard H Black (R-Loudoun) got his bill to allow conceal carry of firearms without the need of a permit passed by the committee. Supporters of this bill refer to it as ‘constitutional carry’ instead of conceal carry. Black defended his bill, saying:

“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government. It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”

Sadly, Black’s comparison with free speech under the First Amendment may not be the example he meant it to be. We are seeing conservatives and Christians having their First Amendments rights of free speech revoked. Pro-lifers are banned from speaking against in public near abortion clinics. Christians were banned from sharing the Gospel on public property outside a Muslim festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Christian business owners are being sued and put out of business because they defend their faith to homosexuals. Students are being disciplined for quoting Scripture that condemns homosexuality or Islam while at the same time it’s extremely rare for a student to be disciplined for blaspheming God, Jesus and Holy Spirit.

Another bill to pass the committee would give judges the right to carry concealed weapons and another one that would give retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in airports and schools providing they complete annual training and qualification.

The battle to get the pro-gun legislation could be a tough fight. Currently, senate consists of 21 Republicans to 19 Democrats. All of the voting in the committee went along party lines except for 1 Democrat, Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath County) who voted several times in favor of the pro-gun rights bills. If the bills manage to pass the senate, officially known as the House of Burgesses, they will probably sail through the House of Delegates where Republicans hold a 66-34 lead over the Democrats.

However, it is likely that none of the pro-gun rights bills will ever become law as Virginia’s Governor Terry McAuliffe, is a staunch Democrat, once serving at the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, co-chairman of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign and chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. I seriously doubt if McAuliffe would be willing to sign any form of legislation that promotes the Second Amendment rights of Virginia’s citizens as it would be tantamount to treason to the Democratic Party.

Even though Republicans have enough votes in the House of Delegates to override a veto, there are not enough votes in the senate. Kind of reminds you of the way things are in Washington DC.

Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

3 Comments

This is from Freedom OutPost.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.

  1. Tax ammunition into oblivion and encourage the prosecution of gun manufacturers and bullet producers for shootings using their products. This is a given and will be rolled out very early in the form of an Executive Order.

  2. The Federal government will purchase as much ammunition as possible in order to create shortages, thus, driving up the price of ammunition.

  3. The prohibition of purchasing a gun in one state and transporting that same gun across state lines.

  4. New Federal regulations which will permit, without a warrant, any civil authority to enter a home of a registered gun owner to check for gun safety when it comes to the “proper” storage of guns. Said gun can be confiscated and the owner will be subject to arrest and fines if a gun does not meet governmental storage regulations. The new regulations will be devised to prevent one from using the gun in a moment’s notice.

  5. There is discussion among DoJ officials about limiting how guns, in the aggregate, that can be stored in one geographic area. This will amount to gun rationing.

  6. Gun owners will eventually be required to attend and pass gun safety courses in the same manner as one renews their drivers license. This will, again, drive up the cost of owning a gun.

  7. At some point, no doubt following a false flag event, an Executive Order will be issued to overturn all conceal and carry laws currently in place in several states.

  8. With regard to Child Protective Services investigations, any gun-owning parent will receive an negative score when it comes to investigation of child abuse and welfare cases.

  9. No veteran will be allowed to own a gun for an unspecified period of time following their discharge from the service. As part of the VA reform there is serious discussion about mandating outplacement counseling for all veterans and gun prohibitions will be a part of this. I was told that this is, in part, why all the Federal attention is being placed on streamlining the VA process for veteran access.

  10. The scope of gun free zones will be expanded. The IRS will be given policing powers on new gun control regulations. Bank accounts and homes can be seized for failure to comply. Further, RICO statutes can be utilized among the non-compliant. It was stressed to me that examples will be made of protesters and non-compliant people.

  11. Obama will wait for the next false flag, but will announce a ban on all assault rifles.

    None of the above are in any particular order. These soon-to-be regulations appeared on a D0J White Paper that leaked to one of my sources.

    According to EO 13603, the President, or the head of any federal agency that he shall designate, can conscript “persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation,” in both “peacetime and times of national emergency.” I can hear the Obama supporters now as they will write to me and say, “Obama would never do that, you are drinking from the Kool-Aid”. Well, here it is, you can read it for yourself.

    Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

    This means that Obama, and his fellow communists, can seize any resource, property, or person at any time for any reason, including being able to force that person to perform assigned labor without being paid.

    There is only ONE word for forced, “uncompensated employment”. That would is slavery. Congratulations President Obama, you have effectively repealed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

    Section 601 of the act specifies, in part, how far the government can go in terms of making you their slave.

    Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination
    with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed
    appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
    (1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal
    of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
    (2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination
    with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service
    in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of
    persons for duty in the armed services;
    (3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this
    order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated
    actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of
    labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other
    matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations
    functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
    (4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this
    order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor
    requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and
    (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements
    and promote necessary and appropriate training programs

    If the above section was merely going to be a military draft, then the Secretary of Labor would not have to be involved. However, as you will note the “Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall: …assist in the development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;… formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs…”. Refer back to section 502 of sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c); these are the people that the Secretary of the Labor will conscript in order “to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations.”

    This, my fellow Americans, is a civilian conscription and this is why the Secretary of Labor is in charge instead of the head of the Selective Service! Under these provisions, the government believes that they can send you anywhere, to work on anything of their choosing.

    Of course, Executive Order 13603 will be enforced by Federal goons armed with guns. And like Mao, their will be enforced against people who have been disarmed.

    The Solution? Noncompliance With All Government Imposed Gun Control Regulations.
    Source
    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-imposed-after-the-holidays/#KwPQibp3IX4lhtvw.99

 

 

The Navy Just Announced The Name For Its New Ship, And NAACP Pres. Is Furious

1 Comment

This is from Western Journalism. 

I can not think of a better warrior to name a war ship after than Old Hickory Andy “By God” Jackson.

Screw the NAACP and this whining Cherokee that are suffering from a bad case of butt hurt.

 

The recent commissioning of the USS Jackson, a littoral combat ship, has stirred the ire of the NAACP and a leader for the Cherokee Nation.

The ship is named in honor of Mississippi’s capital of Jackson, which in turn was named for the nation’s 7th president, Andrew Jackson. Jackson, like several of the early American presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was a slave owner.

“This is totally appalling,” Connecticut NAACP President Scot X. Esdaile told CNN, who described Jackson as “a big-time slavemaster, pro slavery, the whole nine yards.”

Esdaile continued, “Amazing how we have an African-American president and the U.S. Navy slipped this thing through. I think it should be reconsidered.”

Chuck Hoskin Jr., secretary of state for the Cherokee Nation, found the name choice equally offensive.

“For our government to hold Andrew Jackson up to some reverence today, given our nation’s better appreciation of American history today than generations ago, is very troubling,” he said. “For the Cherokee people, Andrew Jackson represents the period of Indian removal,” a legacy of “trauma” and the “brutal act” of evicting people from their lands.

Jackson supported passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. His administration ordered the relocation of Cherokee Indians (along with other tribes) from their land in Georgia to Oklahoma. Thousands died during the journey due to exposure, disease and starvation on what became known as The Trail of Tears. Jackson was no longer in office, when the actual removal of the Cherokee took place, though he was when tens of thousands of other Native Americans were forced west of the Mississippi.

Hoskin said Saturday’s ship commissioning “feels like a step backward,” and wished the government had consulted with Cherokee Nation first, “I think we would have perhaps steered the government to name that ship differently.”

He said, “We’re going to look at this as an opportunity for the federal government to step up in the future.”

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who is a Mississippi native, has the responsibility for naming new ships that enter the fleet.

Andrew Jackson’s life spanned the founding of the United States to its emergence as one of the most powerful nations in the world, stretching from coast-to-coast. As a young teenager, he fought in the American Revolution, then became the hero of the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. He served two terms as president from 1829 to 1837.

The once popular Democrat president has fallen out of favor in recent years, along with Thomas Jefferson, because of their slave-holding history. In response to complaints from within the party, Democrats around the nation have begun renaming their annual Jefferson-Jackson dinners, which is the counterpart of the GOP’s annual Lincoln Day events.

10 Strange Tales From America’s Second War For Independence

1 Comment

This is from ListVerse. 

I have heard a little about Dolley Madison’s dress I also knew about Uncle Sam.

It wasn’t long after the Revolutionary War that the young United States found itself at war with Great Britain once again. Although the War of 1812 has sometimes been called the second war for independence, it’s been largely overlooked in favor of other conflicts, like the initial revolution and the Civil War. Washington, DC, was burned, and “The Star-Spangled Banner” was written during the War of 1812, but there are other stories that are too fascinating to be forgotten.

10 Kentuckians Accounted For 60 Percent of US Casualties

Kentucky
When the Kentucky Historical Society established a commission to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, they were paying tribute to a huge number of their own. Around 60 percent of US casualties during the war were from Kentucky, a statistic that sounds rather unlikely but is true. Kentucky suffered greater losses than any other state.

At the time, the new state’s total population was only about 400,000, not much compared to other states like Virginia, which was home to one million people. More than 25,000 men from Kentucky served in the military and were stationed all over the US, making records extraordinarily difficult to track down. Some served for the requested 30-day enlistment period, some served much longer than that, and many were incorrectly recorded in the military’s record-keeping system, which too often relied on phonetic spellings for the names of their members.

By the end of the war, the death toll was a number that seems surprisingly low—1,876 killed in battle (not counting the many more killed by disease), according to Kentucky’s official roster. Around 1,200 of those battle deaths were from Kentucky, serving as soldiers, sharpshooters, and spies in the fight to secure America’s freedom. Kentucky’s losses were so great that nine of its counties currently bear the names of men who fell in one of the most unlikely named battles of the war, the Battle of the River Raisin. While “Remember the Raisin” became one of the strangest battle cries ever, the names Simpson, Meade, McCracken, Hickman, Hart, Graves, Edmonson, Ballard, and Allan were given to state counties.

9 Laura Secord
Canada’s Paul Revere

While the midnight ride of Paul Revere has entered into US mythology as a highly exaggerated story, Canada has their own version.

Laura Ingersoll was born to a US family that had fought against the British only a short time before. Her heart had other ideas, though, and she eventually met and married British-allied James Secord. She ended up living with him in Queenston, Upper Canada. On June 21, 1813, a group of US soldiers showed up at their home and demanded food and lodging. While they were there, they discussed their plans, including where they were headed and exactly who their targets were. James, still recovering from wounds he’d sustained on the battlefield, was too weak to ride. Laura decided that she was going to warn the Americans’ target herself.

So she started walking.

It was 30 kilometers (20 mi) from her home to Beaver Dams. After hiking through swamps and bogs, she stumbled upon a group of Iroquois, who escorted her the rest of the way after she told them where she was going and who she had to warn of an impending attack.

Her story was almost forgotten, as there’s no immediate mention of her in any of the contemporary records of the time. It was only in a letter from 1827 that Lieutenant FitzGibbon, the soldiers’ target, mentioned Laura as being responsible for the warning. And it wasn’t until decades after that—when she was 85 years old—that she was recognized for her bravery on those hot June days.

8 Hiram Cronk
The Last Surviving Veteran

When it came to wartime heroics, Hiram Cronk missed the worst of the fighting. He enlisted in the military in 1814, during the heart of the war, and he was only 14 years old. As a part of the New York militia, he was stationed at Sackets Harbor. He arrived only after the worst of the fighting was over and spent 100 days in the military.

Afterward, he led a pretty normal life. He got married, spent most of his life in New York, fathered seven children, helped to dig the Erie Canal, and worked as a shoemaker. He also stayed in touch with his fellow veterans, and in 1905, he died as the last surviving soldier from the War of 1812.

Having reached the impressive age of 105, he was hailed as one of the final links between the post–Civil War US and a country that was still fighting to secure its freedom. Even though his service had been pretty uneventful, he was honored with an incredible military funeral and parade through New York City, which was recorded on video. Roughly 25,000 people showed up to pay their respects to the veteran as he was escorted to his final resting place in Cypress Hills Cemetery in Brooklyn. Among those who marched alongsidehim were members of the Washington Continental Guard, the New York City Mounted Police, and active members of the US Army.

7  Dolley Madison’s Red Dress

Dolley Madison

Photo via Wikimedia

According to one of the war’s most popular stories, First Lady Dolley Madison was instrumental in saving some of the White House’s most priceless treasures from advancing soldiers. And while she might not have saved all the things she’s given credit for, it’s still pretty likely that she was instrumental in overseeing the evacuation of the White House and the rescue of some important pieces. One of those pieces is a little odd—the red velvet drapes that once decorated the Oval Drawing Room.

In 1809, Congress approved a massive budget of $14,000 (that’s over $200,000 today) for redecorating the presidential residence. A minor crisis happened when, with silk in short supply, they had no choice but to go with heavy, red velvet curtains. The decorators were horrified, but Dolley Madison loved the look so much that the curtains were ultimately one of the things she saved from destruction by the British. She said as much in a letter that she wrote not long afterward, so we know she rescued them.

It wasn’t until much later that a widowed Madison was forced to auction off her remaining belongings, including an iconic red dress that seemed to be made of an unlikely material. Eventually, it found its way to the Dolley Madison Memorial Association, which joined up with the Daughters of the American Revolution to try to match cloth samples from the red dress with samples of the velvet curtains. While microscopic examination revealed that the DAR’s cloth wasn’t the type of curtain that they thought it was, Madison’s red dress was the same kind of velvet that would have been used to make the real curtains. Did she use the White House curtains to fashion a dress? Evidence indicates that it’s highly likely, but we’re unlikely to ever know for sure.

6Machias Seal Island

Machias Seal Island

Photo credit: Albnd

The US and Canada still have an unresolved border dispute, and it dates back to the War of 1812.

Machias Seal Island is less than 20 acres in area and sits about midway between Maine and New Brunswick. Technically, most border disputes were settled with the 1783 Treaty of Paris after the Revolutionary War, but by the time the War of 1812 came along, the British were occupying Maine. When the Treaty of Ghent was signed at the end of that war, it divided up most of the nearby islands and properties between the two nations. Not mentioned, however, was Machias Seal Island.

Since it wasn’t specified just which nation should get the island, the British decided to go with a policy of “finders, keepers.” By 1832, they had built a lighthouse there, and aside from a brief period during World War I, it’s been solely occupied by Canadian forces, protected by the Canadian Coast Guard, and manned by Canadian lighthouse keepers.

The island’s nationality sounds pretty straightforward, but in 2015, Canada and the US were still involved in what amounts to a sort of diplomatic shoving match over rights not only to the island, but to the well-stocked lobster fishing grounds around it. Disagreements over who has the right to fish the grounds have been going on for decades, with Canada pointing to a 1621 land grant to support their claim to the island and the US claiming that the 1783 treaty negates the first one. Weirdly, an opportunity arose to settle the argument in 1984, but it wasn’t taken. The issue was turned over to a court at The Hague that settled border disputes . . . but Machias Seal Island was left off the table, with neither country wanting to risk officially losing it.

5

Uncle Sam
“The Star-Spangled Banner” isn’t the only patriotic symbol that dates back to the War of 1812, even though it wasn’t until 1961 that Congress officially declared Sam Wilson of Troy, New York, as the man behind Uncle Sam.

Born in Massachusetts in 1766, Wilson and his brother eventually moved to Troy, New York, where they became successful in the bricklaying and meatpacking industry. During the war, their company contracted with the government to supply rations to the troops. The barrels in which the military’s beef was packed were stamped with “U.S.” to mark them as part of the government contract, but those who handled the barrels often said that it was a reference to Sam Wilson’s real-life nickname, Uncle Sam. Though no one knows for sure, Wilson is believed to be the inspiration for the patriotic symbol.

The earliest representations of Uncle Sam in connection with the United States date back to around 1813, and he took the place of another iconic representation of the country. Columbia (not Colombia), named for Christopher Columbus and taken from Latin words meaning “lands of Columbus,” was a female figure typically associated with the nation in its early days. She was eventually replaced by Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty.

The use of figures like Columbia and Uncle Sam to symbolize an ideal or a nation is surprisingly ancient, dating back to the Roman era and finding increasing popularity throughout Renaissance Europe. While most people are probably more familiar with the name “Uncle Sam” than they are with the name of his inspiration, “Sam Wilson” pops up in another prominent place—as the real name of Marvel’s Falcon and new Captain America. It could easily be a coincidence, but if so, it’s a fitting one.

4

New England
After the American Revolution, England moved on to more wars closer to home, and with them came the need for more and more sailors to man their ships. When they started impressing US sailors into service on British ships, Thomas Jefferson partially solved the problem with an embargo that forbade trading between US ships and foreign countries. While that certainly kept soldiers out of foreign hands, it also ruined the country’s economy, particularly impacting New England. Suddenly, it wasn’t England that was the biggest problem; it was Washington.

When Madison took over after Jefferson and declared war, he summoned New England militias to the South. Massachusetts said no, and in response, Madison sent no support to states that refused to support the war. New England was left to fend for itself and still bears the scars of British attack, as they burned ships, fired upon towns, and established an agreement with the Quakers that would leave them out of the conflict. The British continued to crack down on Northern trade, and New England politicians held their own meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss their options when it came toseceding from the United States.

The top-secret meeting, now called the Hartford Convention, started on December 15, 1814, and members had some serious grievances. Those in power were largely Southerners, who had gotten where they were because of legislation that allowed slaves to count toward their population when it came to holding seats in Congress. Most of the expansion at the time was to the south and southwest, and the New England states already felt not only isolated, but as though they were bearing the worst of the impact from the war.

They even got as far as drawing up a formal document that outlined the conditions that had to be met in order for them to remain a part of the country, and they were on their way to Washington, DC, to present those demands when the war ended. The end of the War of 1812 was seen as a big victory for the US, and the political mood changed in Madison’s favor. The New England politicians gave up and went home.

3 The Congreve Rockets

 

The Congreve rockets are the ones that inspired the line about “the rockets’ red glare” in “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and they were the brainchild of a British man named William Congreve. Until Congreve started working on them, rockets were used more as flares than weapons, but he saw huge possibilities in them, especially when it came to defending Britain against the then-imminent threat of a French invasion. Congreve’s tinkering increased the size and range of the rockets that were currently in use, but he couldn’t quite figure out how to aim them. By the time they were used at Fort McHenry, 10 years after their development began, they were still considered fairly experimental and were employed mostly against ships and forts. Aiming didn’t matter so much when you had a giant piece of wood as your target, and they would start fires wherever they landed.

The rockets were too big to carry, so the British outfitted ships with them. The first ship to feature Congreve rockets sailed against the French, and the second was the Erebus, which was dispatched at Fort Henry.

Even though they were used in huge numbers (between 600 and 700 were fired), the “red glare” was an exaggeration. The Erebus wasn’t even close enough to hit much, and at the end of the war, the death toll actually attributed to Congreve rockets was three.

The rockets did, however, hit and destroy the Maryland farmhouse of a man named Henry Waller on August 28, 1814. At the end of the war, Waller sued the government for damages to his property. He won, thanks largely to his lawyer, Francis Scott Key.

2 Thomas Jefferson, The Library Of Congress, And Debt

Jefferson Statue
After the British burned the capital and destroyed the Library of Congress, the largest private collection of books belonged to Thomas Jefferson. In 1815, he sold that collection to kick-start the Library of Congress yet again, giving the government 6,487 books for $23,950 (over $300,000 today). While it might have seemed like the perfect way to reboot the library in a win-win situation (the government got their books, and Jefferson could pay off some of his debts), not everyone wanted the collection.

Some congressmen argued that the contents of the books might not be suitable for inclusion in a government collection. Some of the books were written in languages that other than English, leaving some bothered by the presence of books that not everyone could read. A bill needed to be passed to authorize the use of government funds to buy the library, and some Federalist congressmen argued that Jefferson was simply using the sale to get his supposed “infidel philosophy” into all corners of the government.

The bill passed by only the narrowest of margins, and much of the money from the sale went to pay Jefferson’s creditors. William Short ended up with $10,500 of it (around $134,000 today) to settle some real estate debts. The last of Jefferson’s books left Monticello on May 8, 1815. When they got to the library, we’re guessing that the librarians were in for a bit of a surprise. Unlike most people, who tend to organize books alphabetically, Jefferson officially organized his by subject and unofficially organized them by size.

1 Black Refugees

When it came to strategy, the British struck at one of the subjects that formed a clear divide between the states—slavery. They offered slaves living in the US a choice: They could remain slaves, or they could join the British military and be given the right to settle as free men and women in British colonies after the war.

Around 4,000 people took them up on the offer, and they ultimately became known as the Black Refugees. Most ended up settling in Trinidad, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the West Indies after the war, making the War of 1812 the largest emancipation event in the country until the Civil War. Slave owners sent formal delegations to the British to complain about the loss of their “property.” Even free men who’d chosen to serve with the British Navy tried to talk some of the recruits out of their defection.

Lack of manpower meant that there were a few options for black men to serve in the US Army, but the prospect of being captured by British troops and shipped off to Dartmoor Prison was less than favorable. While many distinguished themselves in combat on US ships and gained praise for their abilities in combat, the prospect of freedom was much, much sweeter.

When the war ended, part of America’s demands included the return of its property either in body in or monetary reparations. The British absolutely refused on the grounds that any slave who made it to British soil was free, and British ships were British soil. They stayed free, too. The descendants of the ex-slaves who settled in Trinidad still call themselves “Merikans.”

 

It was 239 years ago today: The name “United States of America” becomes official

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitutional Center.

On September 9, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted a new name for what had been called “the United Colonies.” The moniker United States of America has remained since then as a symbol of freedom and independence.

joinordie22-300x200

Benjamin Franklin popularized the concept of a political union in his famous “Join, Or Die” cartoon in 1754. A generation later, the concept of unity became a reality.

Thomas Jefferson is credited as being the first person to come up with the name, as he was drafting the Declaration of Independence. In June 1776, Jefferson’s draft version of the Declaration started with the following sentence:

“A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.”

The final version of the Declaration starts with the date July 4, 1776 and the following statement: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.”

Richard Henry Lee of Virginia had used the name “United Colonies” in a June resolution to Congress: “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved,” Lee wrote.

These thoughts are included in the Declaration’s final paragraph.

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States,” it reads.

On Monday, September 9, 1776, the Congress moved to approve some important resolutions, including payments for the army. The fifth resolution read as follows: “That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words ‘United Colonies’ have been used, the stile be altered for the future to the “United States.”

John C. Fitzpatrick from the Library of Congress, back in 1920, explained the origin of “United Colonies” and the abbreviation “U.S.A.” in an article for the Daughters of the American Revolution magazine.

Fitzpatrick said the words United Colonies were used by the Congress when it appointed George Washington as commander in chief in June 1775. The abbreviation U.S.A. had its origins as a way that government inspectors approved official gunpowder. Fitzpatrick said the army needed to have inspectors verify that gunpowder met certain standards, and it stamped “U.S.A.” on the casks as a mark, starting in August 1776,

Also, the words “United States of America” appeared in the first draft of the Articles of Confederation on July 8, 1776, as it was submitted to Congress. The Articles weren’t ratified by the states until March 1781.

When Did the Democratic Party Become Socialist?

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

The DemocRats have been successful in rewriting their racist history.

With that rewrite they are able to fool most blacks and keep them on the DemocRat Plantation with welfare payments.

What is the Democratic Party? Or should we ask what was the Democratic Party? Either way, it is not what it used to be, and many indications seem to show that this party is neither for the people nor for the United States as we know it. It all boils down to, when the Democratic Party was first formed, what it did for people and how it felt about our young nation.

“Democratic” and “Democracy” come from the Greek roots demos (the people) and kratein (to rule). But today, it means something much different.

The Democratic Party can trace it roots to Thomas Jefferson, as he founded what was originally the Republican Party; it was first known as the Democratic-Republican Party. The modern Democratic Party began during the War of 1812. The Democratic Party was anti-National Bank by the 1820’s. From mid-1830’s to the War Between the States, Democrats were America’s major party. The Democratic Party supported slavery and protested the Jim Crow laws; the Democratic Party was against any black obtaining freedom. Yes, kind of hard to believe, but totally true. The Democratic Party supported slavery and Jim Crow—make sure that sinks in.

But just when did the Democratic Party begin its slide down the road toward the Socialist/Communist ideology? It really began around 1944, when the six-time Socialist Party candidate for President stated:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened…. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

It was this very idea that gave rise to the Democratic Party making a slow and purposeful move toward supporting Socialism and the ideas that go along with it. The Socialists in the United States did not achieve their full move towards making the Democratic Party more of a Socialist Party until they got a very good foothold in the 1960’s.

The 1960’s proved to be just what was ordered for the Socialists in the United States, and it was here that the New Left got its beginning. This new party idea did get as popular as they wanted until one certain radical seemed to alter their tactics so they would work well within a certain political party. This magical figure for the Socialists was Saul Alinsky, a very good friend of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. Saul Alinsky stated that to change a society, one had to first infiltrate the major institutions, the school, the media, the churches, the entertainment industries, the labor unions, and the three branches of government, and then it would have the power to implement policies.

It was in the 1972 elections that the Democratic Party, through the use of the old New Left, made the final move by effectively eliminating its opposition–the centrist liberals who had viciously opposed Communist totalitarianism. Once the Centrists in the Democratic Party were eliminated, the New Left took over the Democratic Party and incorporated the “liberalism” word it had destroyed through earlier elections. It was here that Socialism began its move into the depths of the Democratic Party, with Hillary Rodham Clinton actually writing letters to Saul Alinsky telling him how great his work was and that his ideas were working well.

It was during George W. Bush’s first term that the Democrats wanted Campaign Finance Reform—but the Democrats were not really interested in true reform, only in making sure they kept their biggest donors and keeping the Republican Party from doing the same. They did this by including a small provision called the 527 Organizations, which allowed ultra-radicals like themselves to give unlimited sums of money to only the Democrats. The 527 included one George Soros, who was one of the leaders of the “Shadow Party.” But it does not stop here; one of the groups inside the Shadow Party is none other than George Soros’s own, MoveOn.org. It was after John Kerry lost the 2004 election that these groups stated;

“Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it.”

The Democratic Party of today is very far-left and the top parts of the Democratic party are have been infiltrated by a vast number of Socialists/Communists, which is why the DNC could not differentiate between the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party.

(Source)

Today’s ruling Democratic Party faction, whose members include the so-called “Shadow Party” and its constituent elements, call themselves “progressive Democrats.” These Democrats themselves have a leftwing faction in the House of Representatives which is formally organized into the Progressive Caucus.

The word “progressive” has been replaced with “Liberal,” and Socialist Bernie Sanders was the founder of the Progressive Caucus. This should trouble people who love their freedom and liberties because the Socialists do not like either one and will lie and steal to remove both from the United States.

Additional Democratic factions orbit specific special interest groups, such as organized labor and the Congressional Black Caucus. These auxiliaries usually work in concert with the Progressive Caucus.

On December 8, 2009, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean said that “cooperation” between European socialists and the Democratic Party had “intensified significantly” over the preceding several years and involved “regular contact” at “Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels.” He added that “efforts have been remarkable from both sides.”

Howard Dean actually said that the Socialists are making significant gains in the Democratic Party, and that was in 2009, when the extreme Socialist Barack Obama was elected to office.

In April 2010, the official website of the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) revealed that organization’s ties to the Democratic Party. Describing itself as a “Party Within a Party,” SDUSA stated the following:

“The Social Democrats, USA kept the name Socialist Party for our political arm because we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Carl Sandburg, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and thousands of people who worked to build the civil rights and trade union movements in this country. Many good folks gave their lives in these movements.

“The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960’s, we began to work in the Democratic Party. This is where our allies in the civil rights and trade union movement worked and continue to work politically. We are proud of what we helped accomplish within the Democratic Party, particularly the civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs of the 1960’s. The struggle continues….

“Our movement has been involved in the left wing of the Democratic Party since 1947. Socialist Party members helped found Americans for Democratic Action. ADA is this country’s premiere “anti-Communist, liberal” organization. We are proud of our long relationships with Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, and others. We look forward to forging a good working relationship with our fellow pro-labor, anti-totalitarian, left Democrats.”

This stands out as a defining moment in the history of the United States, as can be readily seen above: the Socialists, who have been trying to take over the United States since 1956 or earlier, have finally gotten what they have wanted to obtain–one specific party to hang their sordid coats on and use to ride the United States into the depressed valley of Socialism.

Late in 2010, Communist Party USA member C.J. Atkins called for his comrades to drop their “communist” label, so that they could work more effectively inside the Democratic Party. Soon thereafter, Joe Sims, co-editor of the CPUSA publication Peoples World, acknowledged not only that collaboration with the Democrats “will be an area of engagement for those wanting to make a difference,” but also that communists might someday be able to “capture” the Democratic Party entirely. Sims warned, however, against dissolving the CPUSA entirely into the Democratic Party. Rather, he advised his organization to remain a separate entity, working both inside and outside the Democratic Party as circumstances required.

The Communist Party has taken the lead of the Socialist Party and redefined their objectives. We see here that two Anti-United States groups have now stolen the Democratic Party, and it now represents both the Socialist Party and the Communist Party.

In January 2011, Washington Examiner executive editor Mark Tapcsott enumerated the forces and special-interest groups that now dominate the Democratic Party:

“[B]ig Lawyers … and three other special interests — Big Labor union leaders, Big Green environmentalists, and Big Insiders with billions of dollars in personal wealth and foundation grants — together essentially dictate what Democrats can and cannot support on many key public policy issues…. These four groups provide most of the campaign funding and workers, political and policy expertise, legal and regulatory muscle, and strategic communications for the Democratic Party. Consequently, most Democrats are prisoners of a narrow agenda of constantly growing government budgets, regulation and taxing. have influenced the agenda of the Democratic Party and moved the party far to the left of mainstream America. These special interests have used the power of the purse to co-opt the agenda of the Democratic Party vis-a-vis campaign contributions and independent expenditures.”

Once again, other news reporters have seen this smoke screen, as illustrated above, but the Main Stream Media is aligned with both the Socialists and the Communists within the Democratic Party, and it refuses to allow this truth to be shown. The Democratic Party today is no better than the Democratic Party of the 1850’s that wished to keep slavery, and, later on, Jim Crow laws—both of which held not just blacks back, but all other poor people.

It may not surprise some to find out who organized the Shadow Party, but it will surely surprise many who think the names are wrong:

Here, the term “Shadow Party” is used specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives — to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left. (For a list of some of the Shadow Party’s major players, click here.)

And here are even more surprises:

The “Shadow Party” is a term originally devised by journalists to describe “527” political committees promoting Democratic Party agendas. It is here used more specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives — to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left. The Internet fund-raising operation MoveOn.org is a key component. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left. The individuals and organizations listed on this page are some of the major players, past and present, in the Shadow Party. For a comprehensive discussion of the Shadow Party, its constituent members, and its agendas and activities, click here.

We could go on and on showing all the connections between the Socialists, Communists, and all other “Shadow Party” members, but we will just end this here and hope you pass this on and let many others know that what Hillary Rodham Clinton really wants is not what the Constitution states. Above, you see that Hillary Rodham Clinton is directly involved with the “Shadow Party” and the other Socialists/Communists wishing to destroy our Constitution and way of life. People of the United States, it is time to take our nation back from these groups and let them know we don’t want our nation changed into their way at all!
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/when-did-the-democratic-party-become-socialist/#bj0uu3Zd0KDXbTrA.99

239 years since the Declaration of Independence was signed

Leave a comment

This is from War History OnLine.

Declaration_independence-640x423

[Via]

The US Declaration of Independence was the document that saw the United States break away from rule of the British Government and monarchy. This year it is 239 years since the declaration was signed and brought into govern the United States.

Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale_1800-537x640

Thomas Jefferson [Via]

President Thomas Jefferson, the US’s third national president, was the central author of the text. But many think that the declaration was signed on 4th July when Americans around the world celebrate Independence Day. In fact it had to be signed by numerous officials and was not complete until 2nd August in 1776. The delays were caused by various parliamentary restrictions from various delegates and Congress.

John_Hancock_painting-514x640

John Hancock [Via]

Further 4th July was never intended to be the day that the United States celebrated independence. It was 2nd July that Congress voted for independence, and this was thought to be the day that should be commemorated.

The original Declaration of Independence document is on display in Washington, D.C. at the National Archives, however at the time many copies were printed. This is so that the document could be distributed throughout the United States and could be shared and read to people across the country. It is believed that only around 26 of these copies survived. Two copies were found in recent years purely by circumstance: one was found in the back of a picture frame bought in a market by a man in Philadelphia. Another was found amongst papers in the National Archives in the UK.

When one of the copies was read aloud to the people of New York by George Washington the people became so enthusiastic about independence that they began to riot. The crowds went on to destroy a statue of King George III.

In a twist of fate both the United States’ second and third presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on Independence Day 1826, 50 years after they signed the Declaration of Independence.

The original document of the Declaration of Independence is not in very good condition, since after it was signed it traveled all over the country. Historians say that it was constantly opened and then rolled up again and again. It was kept in a bag made of hessian, exposed to all the elements and traveled on horse-back, wagon and even ship, the CNN Edition reports.

There is a mysterious hand mark on the bottom left corner of the document, but because it was not protected when first signed historians say it could be anyone’s. Of course, today the document is kept under strict protective conditions. It is sealed in a metal frame and with a controlled temperature and humidity to preserve it.

Connecticut Dems Dump Jefferson, Urge Rest Of US To Follow

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

I want to tell the Connecticut DemocRats to Go To Hell.

I will continue to honor Thomas Jefferson for the things he did first as one of Americas Founding Fathers and then as President.

I will honor Andy “By God” Jackson because he is an original American Bad Ass Hero and President.

I will see to it our daughters honor these men also.

Official_Presidential_portrait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale_1800-e1436386749254

Image Credit: Wikimedia

The Connecticut Democratic Party has officially dumped both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson’s names from its annual fundraising dinner due to their ties to slavery, giving into demands from the state’s chapter of the NAACP.

Each fall, the state party holds a Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner to raise money for the party. Similar Jefferson-Jackson dinners are held by Democrats around the country (the Bailey name is peculiar to Connecticut).

But now the first two names are gone, voted out unanimously by the party’s state board in just a few minutes with almost no discussion, according to the Hartford Courant.

“As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women,” the board’s resolution declared. “It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”

A replacement name will be chosen later.

Jefferson is well-known to most Americans for writing the Declaration of Independence, serving as America’s third president, championing religious freedom and being one of the nation’s leading intellectuals in its early years. He was also a key figure in the genesis of the Democratic-Republican party, which evolved into the modern Democratic Party, so throughout history Democrats have been happy to claim him as their own.

Now, though, Democrats are souring on Jefferson due to his position as a slaveholder, as well as the belief that he fathered children with slave Sally Hemmings.

Andrew Jackson is even more vilified today. While his presidency was a key point in the rise of the “common man” as a major force in American politics, Jackson was also a slaveholder, and his policies toward American Indians have been characterized by some as genocidal.
Calls to change the name grew after the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina last month.

Party chairman Nick Balletto said he hoped the rest of the country would join Connecticut in rejecting Jefferson’s legacy.

“I wasn’t looking to be a trailblazer or set off a trend that’s going to affect the rest of the country,” Balletto told the Connecticut Post. “Hopefully, they’ll follow suit when they see it’s the right thing to do.”

Balletto added that the name simply had to go, because some people were offended by it.

“When something offends someone, it’s beyond being politically correct,” Balletto said. “It just causes a need for change.”

“You can’t change history, but you don’t have to honor it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/23/connecticut-dems-dump-jefferson-urge-rest-of-us-to-follow/#ixzz3gsLOzVsQ

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: