Thomas Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" Quote in Context

Over the past few weeks we have witness how the debate over healthcare has ignited the fires of political partisanship on both sides of the conservative/liberal spectrum. Whether taking the form of intense town hall meetings or fervent public protests -- in which some even chose to carry automatic weapons in public -- the debate over healthcare has caused scores of Americans to yet again invoke the founding principles of America to support their respective take on the issue.

In the wake of this public discourse one infamous and stirring quote has made its way onto the public stage: enter none other than Thomas Jefferson.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson -- who was then living in France -- wrote a letter to his friend William Smith. In the letter Jefferson wrote the following words, which have, from time-to-time, been quoted to affirm the right of the people to rebel against one's government:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Simple enough, right? Well, not quite. Though Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote has become a favorite of many who oppose the current direction being taken by the Obama Administration, the quote has an important and often forgotten context.

As mentioned before, Jefferson was still living and working in France in 1787. At the time, Jefferson was deeply concerned about some of the proposals for the new United States Constitution -- particularly the role of the executive branch, which he saw as being far too powerful. In addition, Jefferson believed that the recent rebellion in Massachusetts -- which became known as Shays' Rebellion -- had heightened the fears of the American elite, causing them to throw their weight behind a stronger executive government. Shays' Rebellion was essentially an armed rebellion against taxes being levied at Massachusetts farmers. It's leader, Daniel Shays -- who had served as a soldier during the American Revolution -- used the legacy of the American Revolution to garner support for his cause. As a result, scores of patriotic Massachusetts men, most of whom were farmers themselves, resurrected the legacy of the "liberty tree" to fight the perceived injustices of the newly created government. As a result, America's governing class -- and yes, it was a class -- believed that a strong centralized government was the only surefire way to ensure America's future security.

For Jefferson, this was a textbook example of how passions could cloud judgement, creating an atmosphere of panic and fear. As Jefferson states in his letter to William Smith:

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms

Simply put, Jefferson understood Shays' Rebellion to be a common and important component of republican government. Without it, the people could not be effectively represented and the communal "lethargy" would eventually destroy the nation. On the flip side, however, Jefferson also notes that the people are rarely if ever well informed on all issues. It is this communal ignorance -- Jefferson emphasises ignorance and not wickedness -- that Jefferson believes the government must endeavor to remedy. He continues:

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

The remedy is not suppression or rejection of public discontent, rather persuasion and public discourse.

So would Jefferson support the current public dialogue on healthcare? There's a good chance that he would. We can debate whether or not he would like the current rhetoric of the conservatives/liberals but I think it's hard to deny that Jefferson would be pleased to see the outpouring of public interest.

With that said, I doubt Jefferson would support actual blood being shed on the proverbial "Tree of Liberty." After all, enough blood has been lost thanks in part to this often misunderstood quote. It was Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, who was so very misguided by his poor understanding of Jefferson's words. On the day he chose to murder 168 of his fellow Americans, McVeigh was wearing a shirt that carried Jefferson's infamous words:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

May we ALWAYS remember to be cautious with the history we fail to understand!

Early American Flags

If you've watched any of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams, chances are you have noticed the assortment of flags during its opening credits. One of the neat things about the American Revolution is the fact that the colonists created and flew a number of unique banners, which are now used to commemorate specific events in this all-important era of American history. Unfortunately, the majority of these flags are unknown to the American public today. It's a shame because these flags provide interesting insight into the history of the American Revolution, which is why I think they are worthy of recognition. With this in mind, here are a handful of America's earliest flags:

The first flag, portrayed in the opening credits, is the "Join or Die" banner. This flag, which has its origins in the French and Indian War and not the American Revolution, was actually derived from none other than Benjamin Franklin. Franklin designed the flag to suggest that unity between the British colonies was essential in securing a British victory over the French. For obvious reasons, the banner was brought back during the American Revolution. Here is a link to a previous posting on Franklin's "Join or Die" slogan.

Another flag that has received a lot of attention is the "Appeal to Heaven" flag. This flag's origin is also before the American Revolution. Settlers in Massachusetts used the green tree as a symbol of peace roughly 100 years before the American Revolution. When war broke out, the flag was naturally adopted as a rallying banner for their cause. General George Washington even adopted the flag and used it as the official banner for his navy (a navy he funded himself). Here is a link to an older posting on this flag.

The British Ensign was the official banner of the British Navy, and was flown at every major seaport within the empire. Many historians speculate that this flag's design was the inspiration for the design of the current United States flag.

The "Sons of Liberty" flag as it was commonly called by the Americans was created in 1765 during the protests over the Stamp Act. The flag's nine stripes represent the nine colonies that stood in defiance to Great Britain. Interestingly enough, the flag became known in Great Britain as, "The Rebellious Stripes." Naturally, the flag had to be retired and replaced once the remaining four colonies joined in open rebellion to Britain. In the John Adams miniseries, this flag can be seen in various scenes that include Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty.

The yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag (officially known as the Gadsden Flag) is arguably the most famous and popular flag of the American Revolution. This flag was presented to the Continental Congress by South Carolinian Christopher Gadsden. The flag was used for a time by the Continental Navy, but was later replaced. The interesting thing about the Gadsden Flag is that it provides us with an insight into the popularity of the rattlesnake in colonial America. During this era, many Americans embraced the myth that a rattlesnake, if chopped into pieces, would come back to life if the snake were buried before sundown. This is why Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" snake was so popular. The idea of national unity when combined with snake folklore was a powerful symbol. In fact, the rattlesnake was so popular that it was seriously considered for the national emblem. Benjamin Franklin became its most ardent proponent, claiming that the rattlesnake would make the perfect symbol of the new American republic. Te reasons for embracing the rattlesnake as the national emblem were:

*The rattlesnake has no eyelids and is therefore eternally vigilant.
*Colonial Americans believed that the rattlesnake would never attack first, and that it never retreated from a fight.
*Colonial American society believed that a rattlesnake never slept, suggesting that the animal never tired.
*The rattlesnake is indigenous to North America

Benjamin Franklin was so passionate about making the rattlesnake the national emblem that he adorned his home with the Gadsden Flag. When the eagle was finally accepted as the new national emblem, Franklin protested by proclaiming the eagle, "a despicable vulture of the sky."

The "Grand Union Flag," which is often considered by historians to be the first "official" American flag, was used between 1775 and 1777. The flag was an adaptation of the British Naval flag, which was altered by the inclusion of the thirteen alternating red and white stripes (which represented the thirteen colonies). The flag kept the original red cross of St. George and white cross of St. Andrew, which represented American devotion to Great Britain. It is important to remember that in 1775 the majority of American colonists were still opposed to a complete break with Britain. This flag symbolizes their hope for reconciliation and loyalty to the motherland.

This was the personal flag of General George Washington during the American Revolution. As strange as it may sound today, generals carried flags into battle for identification. This allowed couriers and other staff to be able to locate the general on the battlefield. This flag always accompanied George Washington and his "life guard" (a select group of men that served as Washington's security detail). This flag can be seen in HBO's John Adams series when the General makes a stop at the home of Abigail Adams and during the siege of Boston from Dorchester Heights.

As the British commenced their attack up Breed's Hill on the morning of June 17, 1775, this flag could be seen flying from the top of nearby Bunker Hill. This flag would forever commemorate that encounter and give Bunker Hill the distinction over Breed's Hill (where the fighting actually took place).

This flag, which is known as the American Naval Jack, was flown on several American naval ships during the American Revolution. The current United States Navy is still using this flag. In fact, it is tradition that the ship with the longest total period of active service be given the distinction of flying this flag. Currently the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk carries this distinction. It is also worth noting that the Secretary of the Navy ordered all Navy vessels to fly this Navy Jack for the duration of the war on terrorism. Here is an interesting link for more information on the Navy Jack.

This flag, which is often referred to as the "Vermont Flag" or the "Green Mountain" flag was first flown by Ethan Allen during his raid of Fort Ticonderoga. The flag was later adopted as the official flag of the Republic of Vermont, since Vermont did not join the union until 1791.

Of course we cannot forget the legendary "Betsy Ross" flag. Though its origins are a source of intense historical debate (click here for more on the Betsy Ross flag), the banner has remained a traditional emblem of the American Revolution. The "Betsy Ross" flag was used by the army, while the flag to the right was the most widely accepted and distributed flag of the infant United States during the yearly years of the republic


Some other interesting flags of early American history:
The earliest known Viking flag, which depicts a raven. Ravens were important birds for the earliest seafaring voyages, since they naturally flew in the direction of land. It is thought that the Vikings under Leif Ericson could have flown this flag during their voyages around "Vinland."

This was the flag carried by Christopher Columbus to the "New World." The flag represents the rule of King Ferdinand and Isabel (in Spanish spelled Ysabel). Upon his arrival, Columbus is said to have posted this flag as an act of claiming the lands for the Spanish crown.

This flag represented England as far back as the Crusades. It also accompanied John Cabot during his exploration of the American coast, and was carried by the Puritans/Separatists on the Mayflower in 1620.

You could make the argument that this is the first flag of New York. Known as the Dutch East India Flag, this banner flew proudly over the Dutch fortresses of New Amsterdam (the "A" in the flag represents Amsterdam, the motherland's capital). It would take several years before the city of New Amsterdam would fall to the British and be renamed New York.

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume IV

Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat, 1940:



The racist stereotypes in this cartoon are staggering. In 1940, however, it was an extremely popular cartoon.

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume III

Popeye the Sailor Man, You're a Sap, Mr. Jap, 1942:

Benjamin Franklin: A Jesus-Centered Deist

In light of the recent discussion on the religious creed of Benjamin Franklin, and the recent book reviews by guest blogger Robert Cornwall (over at my other blog) I thought I would add my 10 cents to the discussion by creating this post. As my co-blogger Jon Rowe has already mentioned in his previous post, Franklin, for the most part, considered himself to be a "rational Christian." Yet, throughout the course of his life, Franklin was repeatedly labeled as a "heretic," "Deist," "agnostic," etc.

Certainly the impact of Enlightenment philosophy led Franklin down diverse paths in the development of his own personal religions creed. Yet the impact of Enlightenment philosophy only tells part of the story when it comes to Franklin’s religious beliefs. After all, Franklin was raised in a very religious family, where his father, Josiah, – upon immigrating to the British colonies in America – rose to the status of a “watchman” within the Puritan community of Boston, where he enforced the strict rules of morality and piety of the colony. Josiah even planned to have Benjamin enrolled in the Boston Latin School, where he hoped his son would begin his preparations for the Congregationalist ministry (Founding Faith, 53). Benjamin, however, had different plans. As Franklin biographer Walter Isaacson points out, “Franklin’s ‘skeptical, punkish and irreverent’ behavior made him a terrible fit for the clergy” (Benjamin Franklin, 19). Later during his teenage years – while pretending to be a widowed woman named Silence Dogood – Franklin would expound upon his “rebellious” sentiments towards religion. In Silence Dogood #9, Franklin states:

'Tis not inconsistent with Charity to distrust a Religious Man in Power, tho' he may be a good Man; he has many Temptations "to propagate publick Destruction for Personal Advantages and Security": And if his Natural Temper be covetous, and his Actions often contradict his pious Discourse, we may with great Reason conclude, that he has some other Design in his Religion besides barely getting to Heaven. But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who <>A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance. And it is a sad Observation, that when the People too late see their Error, yet the Clergy still persist in their Encomiums on the Hypocrite; and when he happens to die for the Good of his Country, without leaving behind him the Memory of one good Action, he shall be sure to have his Funeral Sermon stuff'd with Pious Expressions which he dropt at such a Time, and at such a Place, and on such an Occasion; than which nothing can be more prejudicial to the Interest of Religion, nor indeed to the Memory of the Person deceas'd. The Reason of this Blindness in the Clergy is, because they are honourably supported (as they ought to be) by their People, and see nor feel nothing of the Oppression which is obvious and burdensome to every one else.

Upon revealing the true identity of Silence Dogood, Franklin was quickly branded a dangerous and rebellious heretic. Those within Boston’s religious community – including Franklin’s friend, Cotton Mather – distanced themselves from the young man who dared to question the religious status quo. As Franklin put it, “My indiscreet Disputations about Religion began to make me pointed at with Horror by good People, as an Infidel or Atheist” (Franklin, Autobiography, 71).
After moving away from Boston and establishing himself as a successful printer in Philadelphia, Franklin continued his attack on pious religious leaders, who used their faith to control their flock. As Franklin states in one edition of his popular series, Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful…Nor is duty beneficial because it is commanded, but it is commanded because it is beneficial.” In another edition Franklin wrote, "Serving God is doing good to man, but praying is thought easier service and therefore is more generally chosen."

With such an early assortment of controversial statements on religion, it is understandable why some people have considered Franklin to be an agnostic or even possibly an atheist. Such a conclusion, however, obscures much of Franklin’s passionate belief in virtue and divinity. For example, though Franklin questioned the authority of the pious ministers of his day, he never doubted the importance of living a virtuous life. Instead of devoting himself to a particular brand of orthodoxy, Franklin chose to invoke the “laws of nature” – a typical Deist principle of his day – which became the backbone of his views on divinity. Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues are a perfect example of how Franklin merged Christian principles with his Deistic philosophy:

1. Temperance. Eat not to Dulness. Drink not to Elevation.
2. Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling Conversation.
3. Order. Let all your Things have their Places. Let each Part of your Business have its Time.
4. Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality. Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e. Waste nothing.
6. Industry. Lose no Time. Be always employ'd in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary Actions.
7. Sincerity. Use no hurtful Deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice. Wrong none, by doing Injuries or omitting the Benefits that are your Duty.
9. Moderation. Avoid Extreams. Forbear resenting Injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness. Tolerate no Uncleanness in Body, Cloaths or Habitation.
11. Tranquility. Be not disturbed at Trifles, or at Accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity. Rarely use Venery but for Health or Offspring; Never to Dulness, Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another's Peace or Reputation.
13. Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

In addition to this personal code of conduct, Franklin sought to “amend” a number of Christian creeds and beliefs. His version of the Lord’s Prayer is an excellent example of how Franklin stripped the miracles of Christianity from his personal liturgy.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of Franklin’s personal beliefs comes from his infamous letter to Ezra Stiles in 1790. In the letter, Franklin states:

You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble [my emphasis].

Franklin's Deistic leanings are augmented when we consider the fact that he not only questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ – as evidenced by the Ezra Stiles letter – but that he also questioned the infallibility of the Bible. The fact that he also rejected the ordinances of communion and confirmation, combined with his lack of regular church attendance serve as ample evidence that Franklin was far from an orthodox Christian. Franklin’s own admission that he was “a thorough Deist” virtually ends the dispute over his religious leanings (Franklin, Autobiography, 114).

Such an admission, however, does not suggest that Franklin was a pure Deist. After all, Franklin did believe that God regularly intervened in the affairs of mankind (Holmes, Founding Faith, 55). Franklin also maintained an appreciation for the teachings of Christianity, though he detested how it was being practiced:

I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen. I mean real good works; works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit; not holiday-keeping, sermon-reading or hearing; performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers...[Jesus] preferred the doers of the word, to the mere hearers...Serving God is doing good to man...Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means" (Quoted in Waldman, Founding Faith, 20-21).

So where should we classify Franklin? From the evidence noted, it is clear that he does not fall anywhere near orthodox Christianity, yet he also falls short of embracing pure Deism. Clearly Franklin is closer to Deism than he is Christianity, so it would be fair to categorize his religious beliefs as being those of a "liberal Deist," or as I choose to define him, a "Jesus-centered Deist."

Book Review: A Midwife's Tale

A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812. By Laurel Ulrich. (New York: Random House Inc., 1990. Pp. 352.)

Laurel Ulrich’s A Midwife’s Tale is essentially the personal history of a typical New England woman, living and adapting to the inevitable changes brought on by the creation of the American republic. And while this seemingly insignificant life story seems rather ordinary and irrelevant to the historical record, historian Laurel Ulrich effectively weaves in how the overall changes brought on by the American Revolution led to dramatic changes in the lives of the common person. In essence, Martha Ballard’s story becomes a case study of how ordinary Americans experienced and dealt with change. As a result, this in-depth look into the diary of Martha Ballard (along with several other supporting documents), lets us better understand the day-to-day responsibilities of women, mothers, daughters, midwife’s, families, and communities that all coexisted in the years immediately following America’s war for independence.

As a work of micro history, Martha Ballard’s diary cannot, by itself, disclose all of the social and cultural traditions her day. This diary can, however, serve to augment other sources of historical significance, allowing us to come to a better understanding of this unique historical era. Laurel Ulrich’s ability to weave the diary of Martha Ballard with other historical documents, gives the modern reader a better understanding of how and why Martha Ballard’s story is relevant and worth learning.

Laurel Ulrich’s application of the diary of Martha Ballard is used to address a wide variety of topics that were prevalent in the early American republic. First off, Ulrich recounts the role of a midwife in eighteenth century America by discussing the types of medicines used, the variety of ailments that were common, and the medical prowess of the practitioners. Above all, Ulrich makes it clear that to care for the health of others was the duty of all women during this time. “It would be a serious misunderstanding to see Martha Ballard as a singular character, an unusual woman who somehow transcended the domestic sphere to become an acknowledged specialist” (62). Instead, Ulrich insists that Martha Ballard was representative of the majority of women in the early American republic. Martha Ballard was a midwife, but also a wife and mother, which meant she had her “womanly” duties to attend to as well.

Ulrich also uses Martha Ballard’s diary to shed light on the economic practices of this period. Martha Ballard’s diary was not only an account of the daily events that took place, but was also a way to record debts owed and payments received (85). In addition, Martha Ballard’s entries help to demonstrate just how intricate the neighborhood trade economy was in eighteenth-century America. Ulrich mentions how Martha Ballard relied heavily on the labor of her children, neighbors, and hired hands. In fact, when the Ballard’s add improvements to their home, Ulrich explains that this was done because, “the house was every bit as much a workplace as the sawmill” (83).

One of the main issues addressed in A Midwife’s Tale deals with the sexual standards of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. As a midwife (and a mother), Martha Ballard regularly dealt with issues ranging from sexual promiscuity to rape. In fact, Ulrich devotes the majority of chapter three to the alleged rape of Rebecca Foster, and the convoluted court case that followed. Along with her involvement in “Mrs. Foster’s ravishment,” Martha Ballard was regularly involved in the births of children out of wedlock. Ulrich mentions that sexual activity outside of marriage not only carried a stiff social stigma, but also “accounted for more than a third of criminal actions” (148). Yet despite these social stigmas, Ulrich does not fail to illustrate just how "mainstream" sexual promiscuity was in eighteenth-century America. As a midwife, Martha Ballard encountered the fruits of this promiscuity first-hand, and was regularly used as a witness in court proceedings in her and other neighboring towns. Martha’s role in such cases was often to record the name of the father in her diary, essentially making it a legal record. Ulrich explains that it was common for midwife’s to ask for the name of the father during labor, believing that a woman would never lie “in the height of her travail” (149).

In terms of its historical value, Ulrich’s A Midwife’s Tale provides wonderful insight into what Martha Ballard might have called the mundane activities of everyday life. The combination of Martha Ballard’s diary with other historical sources can help us come to a better understanding of what life was like for a “common” wife, mother, and midwife. It also presents a personal description of the sexual practices, family relations, and economic issues that affected nearly every citizen during the early years of the American republic. As a work of micro history, Ulrich effectively demonstrates how seemingly irrelevant individual stories can and should be analyzed and compared with the larger, macro histories of a given era. With that said, it is still important for the reader to keep in mind that Martha Ballard's story, no matter how compelling and insightful, should not be accepted as a true representation of what all women thought and experienced during the late eighteenth century. After all, did Mrs. Ballard even care about or contemplate what it meant to be a woman in the eighteenth-century in the same way that author Laurel Ulrich does? Did Mrs. Ballard ponder the meaning of the revolution and its consequences as they related to her and her family? Maybe, maybe not. Either way the compelling factor of Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale is the fact that micro histories can and often do help shed light and perspective on a given historical topic. As a result, they are worth the time.

My overall grade of A Midwife's Tale: A-

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume II

An old Soviet Cartoon entitled, The Millionaire from 1963:



Very interesting to see how this particular cartoon attacked Jazz music. A little known fact about Soviet society is the fact that they esteemed Jazz music as "devil music."

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume I

Over the next few weeks, I have decided to present a number of cartoons from the 40s through the 60s that are full of both war propaganda and racist innuendos. I hope it will be interesting. To start things off, check out this Donald Duck video from 1943:


Donald Duck, "The Spirit of '43", 1943:

Native American Influence on the Constitution

Today is Constitution Day. On this date we commemorate the Constitutional Convention signing this new governing document and beginning the process of making it the law of the land.

Over at my other blog American Creation, we have long debated the influences that motivated the Founding Fathers to draft the American Constitution. Everyone from John Locke to Rousseau, Montesquieu to the Holy Bible have been discussed at some length. And while these influences were undoubtedly important, to the formation of the Constitution, there is at least the possibility of a more local influence at play.

Recent scholarship on the history of the American Constitution has uncovered some interesting insights into the role that various Native American tribes may have had on the formation of the Constitution. James Mann, one of the leading writers on this topic, has stated the following with regards to this provocative Constitution/Native American connection:

So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty.

And from the book, The Iroquois Constitution:

During the bi-centennial year of The Constitution of the United States, a number of books were written concerning the origin of that long-revered document. One of these, "The Genius of the People," alleged that after the many weeks of debate a committee led in part by South Carolina's John Rutledge, sat to discuss the wide range of disputations amongst the delegates...This Committee of Detail was having trouble deciding just how to formalize the many items of discussion into one document that would satisfy one and all. Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of which he had observed in Albany. While there were many desirable, as well as undesirable, models from ancient and modern histories in Europe and what we know now as the Middle East, only the Iroquois had a system that seemed to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates. The Genius of the People alleged that the Iroquois had a Constitution which began: "We the people, to form a union..."

Skeptics of course point out that the overwhelming majority of written material from the Founders present at the Constitutional Convention contains nothing of their debates regarding the Iroquois Indians. In addition, there are no records or written documents from the Iroquois Confederacy that could substantiate any claim as to their similarities with the government established in the Constitution. With that said, keep in mind two things: first the surviving written record of the Constitutional Convention is relatively small -- most of which is found in the writings of James Madison. The delegates agreed to keep it as such in order to protect the "legacies" of the various participants. Second, the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile. However, if oral history is taken into account, some scholars of the Iroquois argue that the confederation they established has a very close resemblance to the Constitution.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with this Native American/Constitution theory. While it is quite an interesting proposal I personally believe that the evidence to support it is circumstantial at best. However, circumstantial evidence and oral history should not simply be discarded entirely. Native American involvement with the affairs of British colonials was vast to say the least. As a result, the exchange of goods, supplies and KNOWLEDGE would have been a natural occurrence.

Either way, this makes for a nice diversion from the traditional Bible-thumping, Locke-quoting, Montesquieu-loving, Eurocentric history that is almost the exclusive sources of any discussion on the origins of the U.S. Constitution.

To Whom it May Concern:

I don't know who (if anyone) is still reading this blog but I have decided to "resurrect" it from the dead. More to come!