(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best us colonial period history books

Washington's religious views are debated. Some Christians claim he was a devout Christian while others claim his ties to Chrisianity were more pro forma.

From Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America:

>He ascended to such a godly status himself that religious leaders have been jockeying to define him as one of theirs since the day he died. Washington, said convervative minister D. James Kennedy, had a "fervent evnagelical faith." Tim LaHaye declared in his book Faith of Our Founding Fathers that the first president was a "devout believer in Jesus Christ and had accepted Him as Lord and Savior." LaHaye predicted that "were George Washington living today, he would freely identify with the Bible-believing branch of evangelical Christianity that is having such a positive influence on our nation." Both cited many examples of Washington's piety, including the well-known, and oft-painted, story of the Pennsylvanian who came upon Washington on his knees praying at Valley Forge. Secularists, on the other hand, point to Washington's unwillingness to speak about Christianity and other Deistic tendencies he exhibited throughout his life. "Religion seems to have played a reamarkably small role in his own life," wrote Brooke Allen.

pages 56-57

The story about Isasc Potts coming upon Washington praying in the woods near his Valley Forge encampment was invented by Parson Weems who wrote a biography of Washington in which he placed a number of stories he created, such as the one of Washington chopping down a cherry tree as a boy, but admitting to it, because he couldn't tell a lie.

Washington made many references to God, but few to Jesus Christ.

>Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ or Christianity in his writings. He often spoke of God, Providence, the Great Architect, and other formulations for the deity, but to Christ in only a hanful of instances, which have been widely quoted. At one point, Washington said he hoped the Continental army would consist of people acting like "good Christian Soldiers"; on another occasion he told some Indian chiefs that they would do well to follow "the religion of Jesus Christ."

page 58

*Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers by Brooke Allen also makes the same point.

>...In those letters, Greely pointed out, "even those of consolation, there appears almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind." Greely found it especially striking that "in several thousand letters the name of Jesus Christ never appears, and it is notably absent from his last will."
>
>Greely was correct: the name of Jesus is conspicuous by its absence. Washington's letters to his wife were destroyed after his death, so we are denied any clues to his beliefs that might have been contained in them, but the rest of his very voluminous correspondence, both intimate and official, fails to mention a savior or redeemer...Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in Washington's correspondence.

page 35

The chapter on George Washingon in Founding Faith also states:

>James Madison's view was that Washington was spiritual but not interested in the theological particularities of the Christian faith. Compared with the other Founding Fathers, Washington spent little time on religious exploration or debate...
>
>That Washington was reluctant to speak about Jesus or even Christianity was not lost on others. The Reverend Samuel Miller of New York wondered how it could be that "a true Christian, in the full exercise of his mental faculties, [would] die without one expression of distinctive belief, or Christian hope."...
>
>...
>
>Was Washington a "good Christian"? By the definition of Christianity offered by contemporary liberal Christians, he would pass muster. He believed in God, attended church, endorsed the golden rule, and valued the behavioral benefits of religion. More conservative Christians, however, generally believe that being a good Christian means accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior and the Bible as God's revelation. By those standards - those of twenty-first-century conservative evangelical Christianity - Washington was not Christian.

You can also find interesting information on George Washington's religious beliefs in Prayer in America: A Spiritual History of Our Nation by James P. Moore, Jr. who writes:

>In trying to bolster the spiritual credentials of Washington, some of his biographers have helped to perpetuate myths that, over many generations, are now hard to shake off. Certain prayers and pious acts that have been attributed to the country's first president simply never took place. What he did reveal throughout his life, however, was his absolute devotion to God and an unwavering belief in the need for and efficacy of prayer.

page 73

Not the OP, but a popular book on the subject is McCullough's 1776. It's relatively short and covers the main ideas fairly well. I read a lot of history and personally I try to avoid the more popular authors but it is nevertheless a good start for most people. I also suggest the Oxford History of the United States series (esp. Wood's Empire of Liberty); the Seven Years' War by Anderson is also good. Between those three books you get a very good idea of America thought in the period as really seeing the "before" and "after" of the war helps you make better sense of it.

> can anyone ELI5 why americans are against an ID?

Concerns over Big Government “controlling” something sacred to (most) Americans: Their personal identity.

But where do these concerns come from?

Two points:

• America's frontier history.
  
  Many Americans, for better or worse, inherited a fierce and independent spirit from forefathers who survived by bloodily usurping native lands and then scratching away at them (or having their slaves scratch away at them) in the name of Manifest Destiny.
  
  These folk tended to regard all authority with great suspicion—even if said authorities were family and lived next door. We're talking about the Virginian Cavaliers and Appalachian Borderers, populations who valued personal liberty, independence, and pride above all else.
  
  
• America's Northeastern Puritan and Quaker origins.
  
  These folks weren't exactly fans of authority either, having fled from persecution themselves. They believed everyone was equal before God and no distinctions between lords or commoners should exist. They established tight-knit, well-ordered communities that rejected foreign kings and operated according to strict religious rules.
  
  In fact, many of our cherished ideals come from the Quakers' suspicion of earthly authority: separation of church and state, freedom of speech, trial by jury, and checks and balances.
  
  With growth, compromise was inevitable. After all, these lifestyles do a piss-poor job of scaling up. An overarching government is always necessary and the past 150 years have been a record of the begrudging dance between this newly-minted federal authority and the indomitable culture that both rejected and required it.
  
  ---
  
  If you're interested in learning more about these migrations and their impact on American culture I suggest reading Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer.

A few ideas.

“In a major act of historical reconstruction, Wulf draws upon sources... in order to recreate the daily experiences of women.... With its substantial population of unmarried women, eighteenth-century Philadelphia was much like other early modern cities, but it became a distinctive proving ground for cultural debate and social experimentation involving those women. Arguing that unmarried women shaped the city as much as it shaped them, Wulf examines popular literary representations of marriage, the economic hardships faced by women, and the decisive impact of a newly masculine public culture in the late colonial period.”


https://www.amazon.com/Not-All-Wives-Colonial-Philadelphia/dp/0812219171/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467301333&sr=1-1&keywords=Philadelphia+women



“This fully updated and beautifully redesigned handbook is the essential guide to the encyclopedic collections of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Divided into four sections—Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Contemporary—the handbook features more than 500 masterpieces from the museum’s world-renowned holdings, each handsomely illustrated in color and accompanied by a brief text written by the museum’s curators.”


https://www.amazon.com/Philadelphia-Museum-Art-Handbook-Collections/dp/0300207999/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467301426&sr=1-2&keywords=art+in+philadelphia

Here is a PARTIAL list of economics books I've read cover to cover, and why I appreciated Bitcoin earlier than most:
Adam Smith

• An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
  
• The Theory of Moral Sentiments
  
  Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
  
• The Theory of Money and Credit
  
• Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
  
• The Anti-capitalistic Mentality
  
• Planned Chaos
  
• Liberalism
  
• Bureaucracy
  
• Economic Freedom and Interventionism
  
• Liberty and Property
  
• Omnipotent Government; The Rise of the Total State and Total War
  
• Interventionism: An Economic Analysis
  
• Profit and Loss
  
• Nation, State, and Economy
  
• Planning for Freedom
  
  Murray N. Rothbard
  
  
• Man, Economy, and State
  
• History of Money and Banking in the United States
  
• The Anatomy of the State
  
• For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
  
• What Has Government Done to Our Money?
  
• Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature
  
• The Ethics of Liberty
  
• America's Great Depression
  
• Making Economic Sense
  
• Conceived in Liberty
  
• The Case Against the Fed
  
• Power and Market
  
• What Has Government Done to Our Money?
  
• The Irrepressible Rothbard : The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard
  
• Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure
  
• Education: Free and Compulsory
  
• Economic Controversies
  
  And many many more: https://forum.bitcoin.com/economics/blockstream-supporters-mock-those-who-study-economics-t49159.html

Good question, but, think that you need to define "days of slavery" more specifically. It can be a very wide range with some confusing if not baffling tidbits and trends.

For example, read "Myne Owne Ground" when you get a chance. It covers the span of 1640-1676 on Virginia's Eastern Shore and in it, a black man owns black slaves himself and has indentured white servants. Excerpt from Amazon nails it:

> During the earliest decades of Virginia history, some men and women who arrived in the New World as slaves achieved freedom and formed a stable community on the Eastern shore. Holding their own with white neighbors for much of the 17th century, these free blacks purchased freedom for family members, amassed property, established plantations, and acquired laborers. T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes reconstruct a community in which ownership of property was as significant as skin color in structuring social relations. Why this model of social interaction in race relations did not survive makes this a critical and urgent work of history.

If you're interested in the general history of early America (through the Civil War), I'm a huge fan of Walter McDougall's work. Freedom Just Around the Corner documents the colonial era and the different cultural and historical trends that shaped the formation of the country. Throes of Democracy is the second volume, which describes the politics of the Civil War Era. They are my personal favorite books of American history.

He also has a book on America's foreign policy called Promised Land, Crusader State which explores some of the cultural and political forces that have driven American foreign policy for the last 200 years.

All three are fascinating depictions of American culture and politics.
At the moment, I'm in the middle of reading one of his earlier books, ...The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age for which he won the Pulitzer Prize in history.

That's a great perspective. It also should be pointed out that the Tea Party (ye olde one) was anything but "just" with the murdering of a number people who did not agree with their agenda. I wonder if all those Christians who identify themselves with the current "Tea Party" is aware of this.

However I think not having to sing "God Save the Queen" is good thing.

I wonder what his thoughts are on the number one issue affecting Christians today - cap and trade.

The closest phenomenon equivalent to evangelicalism in colonial North America was the first Great Awakening (first half of the eighteenth century). It contained all the factors of modern evangelicalism, in the sense that it placed a heavy emphasis upon personal repentance, personal faith, and a personal emotional conversion experience. Men like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards (just to name a few; there were many others) preached long, open-air sermons to groups of thousands that would gather to hear them. The "revival" swept through the colonies, creating a mass wave of religious hysteria and the splitting up of many established and mainline Protestant denominations. If you would like a good short narrative of what were some of the central figures and components of the Great Awakening, I suggest (for starters) you read the pertinent chapters in Richard Hodstadter's book America in 1750.

If possible, I'd love some addition to my giftcard funds. I'm currently trying to save enough money so I can purchase costumes that I can wear local 5K's and halfmarathons! My current list of costumes I'll be trying to buy over the next few years is on this wishlist. I'm a highschool cross-country and track runner, so I promise I won't bring dishonor by being slow!

If you want to gift me an actual item (I totally understand), then I'd like this ebook (near the bottom of this wishlist) please!!!

Beer me!

And again you are wrong. Separation of Church and State has no bearing on the historical importance of the evolution of western law, which has strong roots in Canon Law. To ban the bible strictly because of it's religious importance is a violation of the freedom of religion.

Why? Because if you look at the reasons to ban the book, they are based on its religious affiliation. If you look at the reasons to use it, it is based on the history of law and the enormous influence that the bible has had on western law. So if you "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof..." you would be unable to ban it only because it's religious influence. You aren't forcing anyone to submit to an ideology, you are respecting the history of law in a court of law. With your reasoning, we should remove the name "judges" because of its biblical significance and get rid of gavels because of their connection with Thor. Both acts would be pursuing a particular religious agenda.

If you really want to have an intellectual discussion on religious freedom in the USA a good place to start is Sacred Rights of Conscience. Or if you want to just listen to people who agree with you and have built their own unique mythos around their common belief, you are in the right reddit for that.

This looks interesting. From the PW review:

>Various American evangelicals have claimed the founding fathers as believing and practicing Protestants who intended America to be a Christian nation. Secularists, on the other hand, see in the same historical record evidence that the founders were often Deists at best. Both views are grossly oversimplified, argues Waldman, cofounder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com. In this engaging, well-researched study, Waldman focuses on the five founding fathers who had the most influence on religion's role in the state—Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Madison—and untangles their complex legacy. They were certainly diverse in religiosity, with Jefferson a self-diagnosed heretic, for instance, and Washington a churchgoing Anglican who was silent on points of doctrine and refrained from taking communion. All, however, were committed to the creation of religious freedom in the new nation. Waldman deserves kudos for systematically debunking popular myths: America was not primarily settled by people seeking religious freedom; the separation of church and state did not result from the activism of secularists, but, paradoxically, from the efforts of 18th-century evangelicals; and the American Revolution was as much a reaction against European theocracy as a struggle for economic or political freedom.

For the Revolutionary Period, I would highly suggest Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, which is a part of the fantastic Oxford History of the United States book series. You cannot go wrong with any of those books. I also second Alan Taylor's American Colonies, which is also available in a "Very Short Introduction" version in case you're short on time or you'd like a book that lends itself to shorter excerpts.

Sarah Hand Meacham's Every Home a Distillery has a great overview of colonial alcohol and contains an appendix with recipes. It's a pretty straightforward read, I would highly recommend it.

Sorry piggie, but let me quote something for you.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES (emphasis added), papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". Amendment IV to the United States Constitution. Proposed 25 September 1789 Ratified 15 December 1791.

What does this mean for pigs (I say pigs because you have all lost my respect) everywhere? This means you can show up to my house based on an anonymous tip and ask to enter and search it. But unless you have a sworn statement or oath to take to a judge for a warrant, I can tell you to piss off. Hell, if you fail to leave my property I can have charges pressed for criminal trespass.

It doesn't matter if you think someone is in danger in my, or anyone's, residence. Unless you have a warrant you can piss up a tree. I would love to see someone like you pull a stunt like that in Indiana. Thanks to their new law any cop who unlawfully enters a home can be legally engaged with small arms fire.

So, move to Indiana, enter someones home without a warrant, and let me know how your sucking chest wound is doing. Cops like you are the reason no one helps cops when you are getting the shit kicked out of you

Do us, and everyone else a favor, go take a constitutional law class somewhere. Hell, even read up on the American Revolution, or the Federalist Papers or get a Constitution App. Somewhere someone has made a pop up book, which is very stimulating for a developing mind like yours, about our history, laws and the constraints put on people like you by our Constitution.

There's no definitive book on the history of land surveying that I know of. Measuring America by Andrew Linklater does a pretty good job and covers a lot of the early history of Land Surveying. I also enjoyed Chaining Oregon by Kay Atwood, it looks at the begining of the Federal Survey system in Washington and Oregon States. It does a good job of showing the day to day workings of a Land Surveyor of the time. Drawing the Line is a history of the Mason-Dixon line, which as you probably know is one of the most well known Survey projects.

According to Moldbug their core is ultra-Americanism. Progressivism has always been steeped in the halls of power - our universities and press. It is the dominant intellectual tradition of the United States. Harvard, Yale, the Ivy Leages? They were founded as Puritan seminaries. And it is this Puritanism which has been nurtured through the mainline Protestant sects. After 1950 this intellectual tradition entered a "post-Christian" phase which we can more readily identify with Progressives as we understand them now.

It starts in the Universities. They train the teachers. The teachers brainwash the kids. The kids become even more rabid than the teachers. They grow up to become Professors and teachers. The cycle continues, spinning out into a positive feedback loop of increasing liberalism.


http://www.amazon.com/Making-American-Thinking-Class-Intelligentsia/dp/0195149823

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postchristianity


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant

A follow-up. I've read American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence by Pauline Maier. It addresses some of the issues OP brings up. I found the book interesting, enlightening, and thought-provoking. But as a non-expert, I can't really say how good it is. What do more knowledgeable people think of this book?

The narrative it presents goes something like this. What we call the "American Revolution" was initially just local tax revolts. Even in late 1775 there was generally great reluctance to consider these as part of a larger conflict. However, this changed rapidly in the winter of 1775-76, in response to two events: (1) George III declaring the American colonies outside of his protection and sending a fleet to pacify them, and (2) the publication of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", which advocated the previously unthinkable idea that a king was unnecessary. As a result, in 1776 any number of towns had debates of the kind the OP asks about. And many of them wrote their own declarations of independence. The American move toward independence was thus much more of a grass-roots thing then it is usually presented as today. And the declaration by the Continental Congress in July 1776 was really a secondary event, expressing a change that had mostly already occurred.

Would the experts on here consider that to be an accurate and helpful way to look at these events?

Ok, well, I guess I know what kind of person I'm dealing with now. That'll make it easier I guess? I don't know if I should be in this conversation or not. You seem to want to argue your side and make up mine.

For instance:
"Those premises aren't invalid it is the relationship with the conclusion which you implied. "these people shouldn't vote if they don't understand the roles and responsibilities, [meaning] if they do understand they should vote and that's how you get good government""

Those are your words, yeah? (rhetorical, of course since I copied it from your post).

Here's where it seems to unravel. Let me substitute some words and MAYBE you'll see why your logic is so incredibly flawed?

"Those premises aren't invalid it is the relationship with the conclusion which you implied (word in bold for emphasis on where you started to go wrong). "these people shouldn't drive if they can't see, [meaning] if they can see they should drive and that's how you get safer roads""

You see how that seems crazy? Saying all people who can see should drive must be what someone believes if they believe people who can't see shouldn't drive is - well - stupid. Your argument here is stupid.

We both agree with your next line - "That absolutely does not follow." Yeah, I know. It absolutely does not. That's why I didn't say something that ignorant.

So, it gets a BIT worse here:

"Unless you were just saying "people who don't understand gov shouldn't vote and neither should anyone else" In that case we agree..."

See, what you're saying here is you agree with what I actually wrote. You just don't agree with the stuff you made up. That's funny, I don't agree with the stuff you made up either.

You copied and pasted because your brand of ignorant arrogance is blatantly obvious. If you post it once and no one calls you on it, it must make you look smart enough to pull it off again. Only, I can smell it, so it won't fly with me. I don't really let people say things for me I'm more than capable of saying myself. Quite legibly, I might add, which is why your responses to me continue to have me shaking my head.

If you have something to post concerning the words I actually drafted in my original post or reply to you, then have at it. I do love a spirited debate.

If you want to continue to argue against make believe items and try and paint them with your ironic "ignorant" label, I'm afraid I'll have to pass. You seem hellbent on arguing "implied conclusions" and even EXPOUND on these. Holy crap, you brought up my opinions on democracy. I never used the word democracy. If you'd like to have a discussion on democracy and it's flaws, PM me. Just don't try tell me what I think about it.

Oh, and magic voting. That one actually made me laugh. That's what made me really feel like I had to reply. My only issue is I can't find a way to type it in crayon. Let me try one final time. I'll type it slow, so maybe you won't have time to make up my argument for me.

people..........should..........not..........vote..........if..........they..........do..........not..........understand..........how..........government..........works
people..........should..........not..........vote..........if..........they..........do..........not..........know..........who..........is..........running

The other points follow in kind.

Do you see anything there about my thinking people who vote are the answer to anything? Do you see me saying voters have magic abilities at truth and justice and intellect?

No?

Could it be, I don't know, maybe I never said those things? Maybe, just maybe, I only provided my opinions on who I think shouldn't vote? And what thought processes and voter practices I find to be stupid?

Oh, and if we're part of a book club now, please try Original Meanings. You may find it difficult to make his arguments for him though, so be warned. You may need to enter in knowing the book contains his ideas and research. This doesn't mean, and you'll have to follow me here, the stuff NOT in his book are the opposite of his ideas and research.

He is absolutely right. I highly, highly recommend this book on the history of Dutch New Amsterdam and its many influences on American culture and politics.

https://www.amazon.com/Island-at-Center-World-ebook/dp/B000FCK2Z6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503297955&sr=8-1&keywords=island+at+the+center+of+the+world

You're very welcome!

Normally, I would list these books in addition to a small description and reasons why I found them particularly interesting or engaging. However, it’s getting a bit late, so I’m just going to give you a list of some books that I particularly recommend. I should have some time later this afternoon to talk about them more in depth, and to answer any questions that you might have.

• Automats, Taxi Dances, and Vaudeville: Excavating Manhattan’s Lost Places of Leisure by David Freeland
  
• The Measure of Manhattan: The Tumultuous Career and Surprising Legacy of John Randel, Jr., Cartographer, Surveyor, Inventor by Marguerite Holloway
  
• Conquering Gotham: Building Penn Station and Its Tunnels by Jill Jonnes
  
• City on a Grid: How New York Became New York by Gerard Koeppel
  
• New York Burning: Liberty, Slavery, and Conspiracy in Eighteenth-Century Manhattan by Jill Lepore
  
• The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge by David McCullough
  
• Taming Manhattan: Environmental Battles in the Antebellum City by Catherine McNeur
  
• Native New Yorkers: The Legacy of the Algonquin People of New York by Evan T. Pritchard
  
• Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and The Forgotten Colony that Shaped America by Russell Shorto
  
• Hell's Kitchen and the Battle for Urban Space: Class Struggle and Progressive Reform in New York City, 1894-1914 by Joseph Varga